Meet Swingers

Site Stats

Members:
1,389,798
Online Now:
2,246
Msgs Sent:
157,443,029
Photo Ads:
745,626
User Pics:
579,536
Video Chat:
154
Next »

 

31st Oct 2010 - 10:15pm
flower411's Avatarflower411Godlike
Joined:
18 Dec 2005
Posts:
6839
Location:
here and there
ProfilePM
GnV wrote:

flower411 wrote:

Dave__Notts wrote:

essex34m wrote:

Dave__Notts wrote:



To say hunting is cruel but poisoning/trapping/shooting is not is not a valid argument in my mind as in each case the animal suffers for many hours afterwards.

Dave_Notts


Depends how good your shot is.


Have you seen some of these farmers?

Imagine Mr McGoo with a twelve bore and that is your typical shooter.........not a marine sniper who can take out a running target at 1200 yards icon_lol.gif

If I was an animal and I knew these were hunting me with shotguns I would make sure I run up to the gun and hold it against my head.........then I bet some of the silly old codgers would miss

Dave_Notts


And there was me labouring under the misapprehension that you were the reasonable non prejudiced mod !!icon_rolleyes.gif


don't push me



Sorry Dave.. I'm sure you can answer for yourself but this just came to mind...



Not pushing anybody !

I merely made a comment that I felt was valid.

Previously dave had appeared relatively fair minded ...I was just surprised to see such clear and obvious prejudice.


I can do clear and obvious prejudice as well ....I just hadn`t seen it from dave before.

 

31st Oct 2010 - 11:52pm
Dave__Notts's AvatarDave__NottsSite Moderator
Joined:
4 Jun 2004
Posts:
5788
Location:
Nottingham
ProfilePM
flower411 wrote:

GnV wrote:

flower411 wrote:

Dave__Notts wrote:

essex34m wrote:

Dave__Notts wrote:



To say hunting is cruel but poisoning/trapping/shooting is not is not a valid argument in my mind as in each case the animal suffers for many hours afterwards.

Dave_Notts


Depends how good your shot is.


Have you seen some of these farmers?

Imagine Mr McGoo with a twelve bore and that is your typical shooter.........not a marine sniper who can take out a running target at 1200 yards icon_lol.gif

If I was an animal and I knew these were hunting me with shotguns I would make sure I run up to the gun and hold it against my head.........then I bet some of the silly old codgers would miss

Dave_Notts


And there was me labouring under the misapprehension that you were the reasonable non prejudiced mod !!icon_rolleyes.gif


don't push me



Sorry Dave.. I'm sure you can answer for yourself but this just came to mind...



Not pushing anybody !

I merely made a comment that I felt was valid.

Previously dave had appeared relatively fair minded ...I was just surprised to see such clear and obvious prejudice.


I can do clear and obvious prejudice as well ....I just hadn`t seen it from dave before.


Not prejudice at all Flower. I grew up in the country, have friends who are farmers and some of my work takes me to farms and rural establishments. Most farmers or farm employees are not snipers, and to use a scatter gun to take out an animal will usually wound it at anything over 50 meters. I have observed deer culling and the chaps that "stalk" (a bit tongue in cheek as it was in a landrover) were not scatter gun shooters but using rifles to take them down. Two totally differnet types but not your typical shooter of vermin. They leave that to the scatter gun brigade.

Shooting an animal properly will kill it faster than in a slaughter house in my opinion, but only if they use a rifle and squash head round and hit the skull area. Unfortunately most farmers are not like these chaps. They can use a weapon and hit the target but how many actually achieve a good kill rate. The dear culls, I observe, are 100% hit and dead. If they cannot achieve a definate hit then they do not take the shot, they will move on. This is a lot different to scatter gun shooting.

Dave_Notts

 

1st Nov 2010 - 11:47am
flower411's Avatarflower411Godlike
Joined:
18 Dec 2005
Posts:
6839
Location:
here and there
ProfilePM
Dave__Notts wrote:



Not prejudice at all Flower. I grew up in the country, have friends who are farmers and some of my work takes me to farms and rural establishments. Most farmers or farm employees are not snipers, and to use a scatter gun to take out an animal will usually wound it at anything over 50 meters. I have observed deer culling and the chaps that "stalk" (a bit tongue in cheek as it was in a landrover) were not scatter gun shooters but using rifles to take them down. Two totally differnet types but not your typical shooter of vermin. They leave that to the scatter gun brigade.

Shooting an animal properly will kill it faster than in a slaughter house in my opinion, but only if they use a rifle and squash head round and hit the skull area. Unfortunately most farmers are not like these chaps. They can use a weapon and hit the target but how many actually achieve a good kill rate. The dear culls, I observe, are 100% hit and dead. If they cannot achieve a definate hit then they do not take the shot, they will move on. This is a lot different to scatter gun shooting.

Dave_Notts


Absolutely.

And now you`re back to commenting in the style that makes you sound reasonable rather than prejudiced thumbup.gif

I couldn`t agree more, I`m afraid it was the Mr Magoo reference that jerked my chain.

 

1st Nov 2010 - 11:53pm
Dave__Notts's AvatarDave__NottsSite Moderator
Joined:
4 Jun 2004
Posts:
5788
Location:
Nottingham
ProfilePM
flower411 wrote:

Dave__Notts wrote:



Not prejudice at all Flower. I grew up in the country, have friends who are farmers and some of my work takes me to farms and rural establishments. Most farmers or farm employees are not snipers, and to use a scatter gun to take out an animal will usually wound it at anything over 50 meters. I have observed deer culling and the chaps that "stalk" (a bit tongue in cheek as it was in a landrover) were not scatter gun shooters but using rifles to take them down. Two totally differnet types but not your typical shooter of vermin. They leave that to the scatter gun brigade.

Shooting an animal properly will kill it faster than in a slaughter house in my opinion, but only if they use a rifle and squash head round and hit the skull area. Unfortunately most farmers are not like these chaps. They can use a weapon and hit the target but how many actually achieve a good kill rate. The dear culls, I observe, are 100% hit and dead. If they cannot achieve a definate hit then they do not take the shot, they will move on. This is a lot different to scatter gun shooting.

Dave_Notts


Absolutely.

And now you`re back to commenting in the style that makes you sound reasonable rather than prejudiced thumbup.gif

I couldn`t agree more, I`m afraid it was the Mr Magoo reference that jerked my chain.


Sorry about that Flower, offence was not my intention.

In my experience those that use scatter guns use them because it is the easiest way to hit a target. They are hedging their bets i.e. laying down more bits of lead than a single shot. Within a certain distance you will kill the animal, but only a short distance more (add a bit of rain on to a pelt, feather, fur) can reduce the power of the lead penetrating enough to kill but rather maim.

I am not against the use of a shotgun, I have even been known to use one once or twice, but to claim they kill effectively can not be borne out in my experience. There is a good 20% wound rate, where the animal is in agony until the dog or other finds it. There will be a few that have to linger and die longer and the lucky few that do recover......but only a small number of them.

That is why I used shooting in the original context of my first post.

Dave_Notts

 

2nd Nov 2010 - 12:20am
Meeko's AvatarMeekoChatroom OP
Joined:
6 May 2009
Posts:
2461
Location:
Planet Motherfucker
ProfilePM
Dave__Notts wrote:



I am not against the use of a shotgun, I have even been known to use one once or twice, but to claim they kill effectively can not be borne out in my experience. There is a good 20% wound rate, where the animal is in agony until the dog or other finds it. There will be a few that have to linger and die longer and the lucky few that do recover......but only a small number of them.


Dave_Notts


As far as I am concerned no gun kills cleanly 100% of the time. It is down to the shooters experience and there skill. I have been shooting since I was 5 yrs old, started off on air rifles then went to a .410, 12 bore 22 rim fire ... Each gun has it's uses. I do a lot of rough shooting so I tend to use an old 32 inch barrel 12 bore and I like the same gun for pigeons. But depending on the shoot I am on I use a different gun.

Dave__Notts wrote:



Shooting an animal properly will kill it faster than in a slaughter house in my opinion, but only if they use a rifle and squash head round and hit the skull area. Unfortunately most farmers are not like these chaps. They can use a weapon and hit the target but how many actually achieve a good kill rate. The dear culls, I observe, are 100% hit and dead. If they cannot achieve a definate hit then they do not take the shot, they will move on. This is a lot different to scatter gun shooting.

Dave_Notts


Sure there are laws saying the minimum requrements for a rifle calibre, think it is a .220 but might be wrong. I dont agree with the head shots always being the best though as have always been led to beleive that most deer stalkers choose to go for the shoulder area as there is a higher chance of hitting the vital organs (heart and lungs) and also the front shoulder dropping the dear immediatley. All depends on the shot that is in the sights. if the shot isnt good it should be left.

In edit just looked and legal calibre for deer is .240

 

2nd Nov 2010 - 12:27am
Dave__Notts's AvatarDave__NottsSite Moderator
Joined:
4 Jun 2004
Posts:
5788
Location:
Nottingham
ProfilePM
Meeko wrote:



Sure there are laws saying the minimum requrements for a rifle calibre, think it is a .220 but might be wrong. I dont agree with the head shots always being the best though as have always been led to beleive that most deer stalkers choose to go for the shoulder area as there is a higher chance of hitting the vital organs (heart and lungs) and also the front shoulder dropping the dear immediatley. All depends on the shot that is in the sights. if the shot isnt good it should be left.


This is where I forgot to say that the reason they head shoot is that when the squash head enters it shatters into small fragments. One reason is that it doesn't come out the other side of the animal and potentially wound anyone/thing the other side. The other reason, following on that it doesn't come out the other side, is that the meat is to be used in food. The head is not used and disposed of with the entrails and hooves. This leaves the meat free of potential lead/metal contamination.

Sorry, should have said and this is only going off the experence of this shoot and not all shoots as they are different

Dave_Notts

 

2nd Nov 2010 - 7:51pm
essex34m's Avataressex34mGodlike
Joined:
29 Sep 2005
Posts:
3277
Location:
West Suffolk
ProfilePM
Meeko wrote:

All depends on the shot that is in the sights. if the shot isnt good it should be left.


Lee Harvey Oswald would no doubt agree.

 

3rd Nov 2010 - 7:01pm
Bluefish2009's AvatarBluefish2009Godlike
Joined:
20 Jun 2009
Posts:
4359
Location:
Dorset
ProfilePM
Dave__Notts wrote:

Meeko wrote:



Sure there are laws saying the minimum requrements for a rifle calibre, think it is a .220 but might be wrong. I dont agree with the head shots always being the best though as have always been led to beleive that most deer stalkers choose to go for the shoulder area as there is a higher chance of hitting the vital organs (heart and lungs) and also the front shoulder dropping the dear immediatley. All depends on the shot that is in the sights. if the shot isnt good it should be left.


This is where I forgot to say that the reason they head shoot is that when the squash head enters it shatters into small fragments. One reason is that it doesn't come out the other side of the animal and potentially wound anyone/thing the other side. The other reason, following on that it doesn't come out the other side, is that the meat is to be used in food. The head is not used and disposed of with the entrails and hooves. This leaves the meat free of potential lead/metal contamination.

Sorry, should have said and this is only going off the experence of this shoot and not all shoots as they are different

Dave_Notts


This is an interesting and topical point, currently there are major discussions about the future of lead ammunition in this country. German stalkers are awaiting the publication of trials to decide the fate of lead ammunition their, prompted by the ricochet of non lead bullets which have caused several injures and one fatality.

 

3rd Nov 2010 - 7:11pm
foxylady2209's Avatarfoxylady2209Godlike
Joined:
6 Jan 2005
Posts:
4181
Location:
Derby
ProfilePM
Bring back long-bows and compulsory Saturday afternoon practice at the butts.





Much safer than guns. And a lot more fun.

Hunting Conviction

30th Nov 2010 - 7:20pm
Bluefish2009's AvatarBluefish2009Godlike
Joined:
20 Jun 2009
Posts:
4359
Location:
Dorset
ProfilePM

Re: Hunting Conviction

30th Nov 2010 - 8:12pm
flower411's Avatarflower411Godlike
Joined:
18 Dec 2005
Posts:
6839
Location:
here and there
ProfilePM
Bluefish2009 wrote:

Another conviction from a very poor piece of law. IMO

http://www.countryside-alliance.org.uk/hunting-campaigns/hunting-events/hunting-conviction/


It`s perfectly clear which set of people are guilty wishing to cause pain and distress to this animal and it wasn`t the people with the dogs.

Hunting bill in NI rejected

16th Dec 2010 - 8:52pm
Bluefish2009's AvatarBluefish2009Godlike
Joined:
20 Jun 2009
Posts:
4359
Location:
Dorset
ProfilePM
Some good Christmas cheer for Northern Ireland

“ Ulster Unionist South Down MLA John McCallister said: “I am concerned that this bill is the thin edge of the wedge for our rural way of life. First this bill then shooting, then fishing - you do not want to go down that road. Why would you tie up police resources when you have many other issues to deal with? It criminalises some of our most law-abiding citizens."

http://www.countryside-alliance.org.uk/hunting-campaigns/hunting-views/hunting-for-christmas-cheer/

New film on case for repeal

24th Dec 2010 - 5:51pm
Bluefish2009's AvatarBluefish2009Godlike
Joined:
20 Jun 2009
Posts:
4359
Location:
Dorset
ProfilePM
New film on case for repeal

http://www.countryside-alliance.org.uk/

If you wished to suport your local hunt this Christmas a list can be found here giggle.gif
http://www.mfha.org.uk/
Bluefish2009's AvatarBluefish2009Godlike
Joined:
20 Jun 2009
Posts:
4359
Location:
Dorset
ProfilePM
Looks like the tide of opinion may be on the change

New polling* published to coincide with the biggest day of the hunting year shows that six out of ten people think the Hunting Act has been a waste of police time and eight out of ten believe animal rights activists should not be allowed take the law into their own hands.

The police have dealt with thousands of allegations since the Hunting Act came into force, but there have been just twelve attempts to prosecute hunts of which eight have failed. The latest case involved three members of the Sinnington Hunt in Yorkshire who were cleared of all charges after a three day trial earlier this month.
The poll, carried out by ORB for the Countryside Alliance, asked 2 questions:
Do you think that banning hunting and the subsequent requirement to police the ban is a good use of police resources?

•No 62%
•Yes 33%
•Don't know 4%

Do you think that animal rights activists should be allowed to take the law into their own hands for the purpose of protecting wild animals?

•No 85%
•Yes 13%
•Don't know 2%

Countryside Alliance Chief Executive Alice Barnard said: "The Hunting Act has wasted thousands of hours of police time and millions of pounds of taxpayers money. Police officers have spent endless time investigating allegations made by animal rights activists when they could have been tackling real crime like burglary, knife crime and drug dealing.
"No wonder Tony Blair has now admitted that the Act is one of his greatest regrets, and the new government has called it an unnecessary drain on police resources.
"The coalition government is committed to a vote on the Hunting Act. When the law is debated and its failure and waste exposed, we are confident that the country and parliament will support the arguments for getting rid of it."


From here;
http://www.countryside-alliance.org.uk/hunting-campaigns/hunting-views/hunting-act-%E2%80%9Ca-waste-of-police-time%E2%80%9D/

 

19th Jun 2011 - 9:12pm
Bluefish2009's AvatarBluefish2009Godlike
Joined:
20 Jun 2009
Posts:
4359
Location:
Dorset
ProfilePM
Those with an interest in the matters of the countryside may find the blogs of James Barrington very interesting. As the former Executive Director of the League Against Cruel Sports, he has now seen the light and talks far more sense. icon_wink.gif

James (Jim) Barrington is a former Executive Director of the League Against Cruel Sports. He has been involved in various animal welfare campaigns for almost 40 years. Currently, he is a welfare consultant to the Countryside Alliance, Council of Hunting Associations and the All Party Parliamentary Middle Way Group.

From here
http://jamesbarrington.wordpress.com/author/jamesbarrington/

Hunting, Shooting and Spinning - The flawed Hunting Act

http://jamesbarrington.wordpress.com/2011/06/15/hunting-shooting-and-spinning/

http://www.countryside-alliance.org.uk/ca/campaigns-hunting/james-barringtons-animal-welfare-blog

Ssssssh, dont tell any one

21st Oct 2011 - 3:59pm
Bluefish2009's AvatarBluefish2009Godlike
Joined:
20 Jun 2009
Posts:
4359
Location:
Dorset
ProfilePM
Nothing seems to make people more heated then discussing the pros and cons of hunting. Fox hunting is alive and kicking around Hay On Wye - at least four hunts span the immediate area - and in fact fox hunting is happening all over the countryside. Most city people I talk to think it is cruel and want it banned. Most country people think the opposite.......

My pony pricked up his ears and started to look about excitedly, and as I began to trot home I came across about 15 hounds, a jumble of vehicles and some men wearing Barbour-type jackets with flat caps and sticks. Very Down to Earth Powell and Pressberger.

The hounds were impressively polite and allowed my pony to walk down the lane unaccosted and I stopped to ask one gentleman what they were doing. "Cubbing", they answered.

Everyone round here knows what that is - rooting out the young foxes and preparing the hounds for the proper hunt. As I had just been in an outdoor riding menage littered with the droppings of over thirty foxes (each with big plumstones in them - they had obviously gorged themselves on Charlotte's plums the day before), I knew as well as the hunters that the area was teeming with foxes.

Nobody says much though. It's an official secret throughout the land - away from Westminster and all the townies - that fox hunting is going strong.



http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/kate-holmes/fox-hunting-the-countrysides-best-kept-secret_b_1016400.html
Next »