At last ! A policy worth voting for !!

10 Sep 2010

Quote by Dave__Notts
No tell them to leave the jackets off.
That way they can shoot as many Frenchmen as they like.

For Sale

Never fired, dropped twice

:rotflmao::rotflmao::rotflmao::rotflmao::rotflmao:
Bit unfair Blue, they only dropped it once
Dave_Notts
After just getting back from France, I can now see where the sheets went........with the gun :lol:
Dave_Notts

10 Sep 2010

Quote by Dave__Notts
No tell them to leave the jackets off.
That way they can shoot as many Frenchmen as they like.

For Sale

Never fired, dropped twice

:rotflmao::rotflmao::rotflmao::rotflmao::rotflmao:
Bit unfair Blue, they only dropped it once
Dave_Notts
After just getting back from France, I can now see where the sheets went........with the gun :lol:
Dave_Notts
Are you relaxed and chilled from a holiday?
Or stressful business trip?

11 Sep 2010

Quote by Bluefish2009
Are you relaxed and chilled from a holiday?
Or stressful business trip?

Chilled from a holiday. Thought we would do the countryside of Normandy, some historical sites and some sunbathing. Two out of three ain't bad as it poured with rain all the time lol

One of the things that I did not like over there was the French obsession of putting graffiti on anything that does not move, and the authorities not cleaning it up. It looked disgusting for visitors. Their local council needs to get off their arses and do something about it.
Dave_Notts

13 Sep 2010

Quote by flower411

Are you relaxed and chilled from a holiday?
Or stressful business trip?

Chilled from a holiday. Thought we would do the countryside of Normandy, some historical sites and some sunbathing. Two out of three ain't bad as it poured with rain all the time lol

One of the things that I did not like over there was the French obsession of putting graffiti on anything that does not move, and the authorities not cleaning it up. It looked disgusting for visitors. Their local council needs to get off their arses and do something about it.
Dave_Notts
But it`s Art Dave !! Can`t have the bloody council going about destroying perfectly good art !!!
That did make me chuckle flower. :lol:
One mans graffiti is another mans art

13 Sep 2010

Quote by flower411

Are you relaxed and chilled from a holiday?
Or stressful business trip?

Chilled from a holiday. Thought we would do the countryside of Normandy, some historical sites and some sunbathing. Two out of three ain't bad as it poured with rain all the time lol

One of the things that I did not like over there was the French obsession of putting graffiti on anything that does not move, and the authorities not cleaning it up. It looked disgusting for visitors. Their local council needs to get off their arses and do something about it.
Dave_Notts
But it`s Art Dave !! Can`t have the bloody council going about destroying perfectly good art !!!
We have graffiti art here and this wasn't art. This was tagging their names all over the place.

13 Sep 2010

Quote by Dave__Notts

Are you relaxed and chilled from a holiday?
Or stressful business trip?

Chilled from a holiday. Thought we would do the countryside of Normandy, some historical sites and some sunbathing. Two out of three ain't bad as it poured with rain all the time lol

One of the things that I did not like over there was the French obsession of putting graffiti on anything that does not move, and the authorities not cleaning it up. It looked disgusting for visitors. Their local council needs to get off their arses and do something about it.
Dave_Notts
But it`s Art Dave !! Can`t have the bloody council going about destroying perfectly good art !!!
We have graffiti art here and this wasn't art. This was tagging their names all over the place.
Art is a strange thing though isn't it, who would have ever thought a piece of work entitled The Lights Going On and Off would have won the Turner. dunno

29 Sep 2010

The fight continues

29 Sep 2010

Quote by flower411
The fight continues

Seems to me that if they are selling land to fund their hate campaigns their fund raising in other areas must be failing.
Now there`s some good news :thumbup:
Agreed :thumbup:

18 Oct 2010

Training for the police! very wise move
NGO to help train police forces in rural areas

29 Oct 2010

Looks as though the league may have moved away from fox hunting to concentrate on shooting?

29 Oct 2010

As is usual with any 'discussion' about fox hunting, the subject of the 'sport' being aimed at the minority of the toffs is often mentioned.
So are the views different for people who go lamping?

29 Oct 2010

Quote by essex34m
As is usual with any 'discussion' about fox hunting, the subject of the 'sport' being aimed at the minority of the toffs is often mentioned.
So are the views different for people who go lamping?

The league against cruel sports is totally against lamping, not sure how the general public feel about it.
In fact the league are against almost every thing, in fact a few extremist would even like to ban pet ownership.
Many of our traditional country ways of life that have shaped our countryside into what it is today are under threat from many directions

29 Oct 2010

Quote by Bluefish2009
As is usual with any 'discussion' about fox hunting, the subject of the 'sport' being aimed at the minority of the toffs is often mentioned.
So are the views different for people who go lamping?

The league against cruel sports is totally against lamping, not sure how the general public feel about it.
In fact the league are against almost every thing, in fact a few extremist would even like to ban pet ownership.
Many of our traditional country ways of life that have shaped our countryside into what it is today are under threat from many directions
But is lamping largely ignored by the media, as it is not the easy target that fox hunting is, due to it's association with the toffs.
Lamping rarely gets mentioned.

29 Oct 2010

Quote by essex34m
As is usual with any 'discussion' about fox hunting, the subject of the 'sport' being aimed at the minority of the toffs is often mentioned.
So are the views different for people who go lamping?

The league against cruel sports is totally against lamping, not sure how the general public feel about it.
In fact the league are against almost every thing, in fact a few extremist would even like to ban pet ownership.
Many of our traditional country ways of life that have shaped our countryside into what it is today are under threat from many directions
But is lamping largely ignored by the media, as it is not the easy target that fox hunting is, due to it's association with the toffs.
Lamping rarely gets mentioned.
You are quite correct and I would say you may have a valid point, after all, there are many more foxes shot by lamping than are by hunting. Also it is a sport that is not so widely advertised, neither does it have followers.
Yes there are many toff haters in this world, I have noticed this a lot here where we are supposed be be a tolerant bunch.
On the hunting front this may interest some;

29 Oct 2010

I'm sorry if this presses the wrong buttons.
Just over a century ago (& for many centuries before that), it was not uncommon for politicians & upper class men to have regular sex with under-age girls (many were slaves too). That was part of the 'culture' then but when sense & humanity prevailed this cultural practice was made illegal. Cameron clearly is being selective when he mentions culture to secure votes.
Hunting should be for either population control or for food consumption. If these fox hunters are willing to eat the fox after the hunt, then personally I do not see an issue. Imagine the Prince Charles eating the fox his hounds had just hunted - that would be classic to watch!
As for house cats hunting other mammals, if a pet dog killed a rat, no-one is going to cry murder. We keep pets who were not designed to be kept as pets in the first place and their natural killers/hunter instincts will lead them to hunt sooner or later. This can't be compared to breeding hundreds of hounds just to hunt a fox or few for a game!

30 Oct 2010

Quote by 3verve
I'm sorry if this presses the wrong buttons.
Just over a century ago (& for many centuries before that), it was not uncommon for politicians & upper class men to have regular sex with under-age girls (many were slaves too). That was part of the 'culture' then but when sense & humanity prevailed this cultural practice was made illegal. Cameron clearly is being selective when he mentions culture to secure votes.
Hunting should be for either population control or for food consumption. If these fox hunters are willing to eat the fox after the hunt, then personally I do not see an issue. Imagine the Prince Charles eating the fox his hounds had just hunted - that would be classic to watch!
As for house cats hunting other mammals, if a pet dog killed a rat, no-one is going to cry murder. We keep pets who were not designed to be kept as pets in the first place and their natural killers/hunter instincts will lead them to hunt sooner or later. This can't be compared to breeding hundreds of hounds just to hunt a fox or few for a game!

Prince Charles is claiming population control, so from one of your two arguments he is ok to do it then?
My own opinion of this, is that I don't really care. Pest control has to be done, so what if someone enjoys it? Just because they turn it into a fun day does not make the act wrong. Either pest control is a neccessity or it isn't. This is the main point.
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

30 Oct 2010

Quote by 3verve
I'm sorry if this presses the wrong buttons.
Just over a century ago (& for many centuries before that), it was not uncommon for politicians & upper class men to have regular sex with under-age girls (many were slaves too). That was part of the 'culture' then but when sense & humanity prevailed this cultural practice was made illegal. Cameron clearly is being selective when he mentions culture to secure votes.
Hunting should be for either population control or for food consumption. If these fox hunters are willing to eat the fox after the hunt, then personally I do not see an issue. Imagine the Prince Charles eating the fox his hounds had just hunted - that would be classic to watch!
As for house cats hunting other mammals, if a pet dog killed a rat, no-one is going to cry murder. We keep pets who were not designed to be kept as pets in the first place and their natural killers/hunter instincts will lead them to hunt sooner or later. This can't be compared to breeding hundreds of hounds just to hunt a fox or few for a game!

No need to be sorry, This is an open forum for all to comment with there personal views.
Regarding your last paragraph, is this not very similar? People are keeping fox hounds who's instinct is also to hunt, and most times the hounds do eat what they have hunted :thumbup:

30 Oct 2010

Quote by Dave__Notts
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.

30 Oct 2010

Quote by essex34m

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.
Very true, and the weapon used
Dave makes a valid point though as all to often it is not the practiced shot but an upset keeper/farmer who only has a shotgun with him and is out of range for a clean shot, but takes it anyhow, on the premise that they are susceptible to lead poisoning and gangrene

30 Oct 2010

Quote by essex34m

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 lol

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

31 Oct 2010

Quote by flower411

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 lol

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 !! rolleyes

don't push me

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

31 Oct 2010

Quote by Dave__Notts
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
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

I hope you meant Royal Marine, because if you meant U.S. Marine, the only time to be worried about the accuracy of their shot is if you are wearing the uniform of the Allies.

31 Oct 2010

Quote by flower411

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 lol

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 !! rolleyes

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

1 Nov 2010

Quote by flower411

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:
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

2 Nov 2010

Quote by Dave__Notts
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.

Quote by Dave__Notts
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

2 Nov 2010

Quote by Meeko
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

2 Nov 2010

Quote by Meeko
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.

3 Nov 2010

Quote by 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.

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.

3 Nov 2010

Bring back long-bows and compulsory Saturday afternoon practice at the butts.

Much safer than guns. And a lot more fun.

30 Nov 2010

Another conviction from a very poor piece of law. IMO