Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
Casually killing creatures
Comments
-
-
I enjoy going out shooting pheasants within their season and a bird never goes to waste, same goes for deer, duck and other animals.
I also enjoy eating them because they taste way better than any meet you'll buy in the shop and the animals live better lives too.
The only ones that aren't eaten are foxes, grey crow and magpies, shooting these will protect birds whose numbers are quiet low and allow their numbers to grow
Even though I'm a self confessed tree hugging animal lover
who would have real trouble killing anything myself, as you say you eat what you kill mostly, I completely respect your view on this matter.
I don't know about pheasant but I had wild rabbit a while back and it tasted delicious. And yes absolutely animals in the wild who are killed by a hunter have a far higher quality of life than most factory farmed animals reared for their meat often in inhumane and cruel conditions-battery hens for example or pigs tethered in pens that are too small for them to exhibit any natural behaviour, never see the light of day and have a very low quality of life.
I actually hate the hypocrisy of those who rail against hunting yet have no problem with or ignore animal welfare issues with the rearing of these factory animals.
Magpies and grey crow numbers are not in any way threatened and they can be a pest to farmers and growers so I'd have little problem with them being killed.
Especially magpies, a bird who's nature I really dislike.
Foxes ok again if they're numbers aren't being threatened and they're causing real problems for local farmers or smallholders.
My ex had chickens and came out one morning to a blood bath when a fox had got into the hen house overnight. I think they're numbers should be controlled.
I'd have a problem with them being hunted on horseback by hounds as I think it's cruel, but a single shot that kills the animal instantly? no.0 -
-
-
Greentopia wrote: »I enjoy going out shooting pheasants within their season and a bird never goes to waste, same goes for deer, duck and other animals.
I also enjoy eating them because they taste way better than any meet you'll buy in the shop and the animals live better lives too.
The only ones that aren't eaten are foxes, grey crow and magpies, shooting these will protect birds whose numbers are quiet low and allow their numbers to grow
Even though I'm a self confessed tree hugging animal lover who would have real trouble killing anything myself, as you say you eat what you kill mostly, I completely respect your view on this matter.
I don't know about pheasant but I had wild rabbit a while back and it tasted delicious. And yes absolutely animals in the wild who are killed by a hunter have a far higher quality of life than most factory farmed animals reared for their meat often in inhumane and cruel conditions-battery hens for example or pigs tethered in pens that are too small for them to exhibit any natural behaviour, never see the light of day and have a very low quality of life.
I actually hate the hypocrisy of those who rail against hunting yet have no problem with or ignore animal welfare issues with the rearing of these factory animals.
Magpies and grey crow numbers are not in any way threatened and they can be a pest to farmers and growers so I'd have little problem with them being killed.
Especially magpies, a bird who's nature I really dislike.
Foxes ok again if they're numbers aren't being threatened and they're causing real problems for local farmers or smallholders.
My ex had chickens and came out one morning to a blood bath when a fox had got into the hen house overnight. I think they're numbers should be controlled.
I'd have a problem with them being hunted on horseback by hounds as I think it's cruel, but a single shot that kills the animal instantly? no.
Against hurting animals but sees the logic in "hunting" if there is a purpose ,this poster has just gained my up most respect in what he just said. Thank you for a well balanced reply and keeping the hope alive that people have some thinking abilities.0 -
-
kildare.17hmr wrote: »you actually have no clue what your talking about, lads have their ground they hunt and most of them spend more time there not hunting, they know the heard they hunt down to individuals and alot of the time know which animal they are going out to shoot. Im talking about goats and deer now
What was it I said you have issue with? the fact that goats who are within the boundaries of a national park are already actively managed and culled? this is a fact, can't see what you have to dispute there. Check it out if you don't believe me.
I don't know what "lads" you're talking about, where they hunt and what the viable population numbers are within the area you're talking about. Do they? is their knowledge backed up by good conservation practice and scientific evidence that killing x-numbers of those species will not endanger the long term viability of the herds? if they have that knowledge and work within those boundaries then I have far less issue with them hunting these animals than going out and killing goats or deer without taking into account that vital information.
edit-By the way I'm not being confrontational in this post, hope you don't think that. I know it's hard to judge tone in the written word
just debating in what I hope is a civilised manner. 0 -
-
-
Advertisement
-
Against hurting animals but sees the logic in "hunting" if there is a purpose ,this poster has just gained my up most respect in what he just said. Thank you for a well balanced reply and keeping the hope alive that people have some thinking abilities.
Thank you, I appreciate that.
I should clarify though-I'm female I can understand my username doesn't lend itself to knowing that though. Should've picked a different one I guess that more accurately reflects the fact given the majority male membership here. Ah well... 0 -
im not talking about national parks.Greentopia wrote: »
What was it I said you have issue with? the fact that goats who are within the boundaries of a national park are already actively managed and culled? this is a fact, can't see what you have to dispute there. Check it out if you don't believe me.
I don't know what "lads" you're talking about, where they hunt and what the viable population numbers are within the area you're talking about. Do they? is their knowledge backed up by good conservation practice and scientific evidence that killing x-numbers of those species will not endanger the long term viability of the herds? if they have that knowledge and work within those boundaries then I have far less issue with them hunting these animals than going out and killing goats or deer without taking into account that vital information.
edit-By the way I'm not being confrontational in this post, hope you don't think that. I know it's hard to judge tone in the written word just debating in what I hope is a civilised manner.
Im talking about hunting ground that lads work hard to get and keep. They will observe the animals on the land and come the season the sick, old and outcasted animals who are of no benifit to the herd or are a burdan on the herd will be culled. Dont get me wrong this is not everybody but would be the majority. This helps keep the heard healthy by not having to compete for food with as many others. This in turn keeps the hunters past time going because no one wants to kill everything.
I am on my hunting grounds nearly every day, have a gun maybe 3 days and sometimes wouldnt pull the trigger. Iv watched deer for hours, watched foxes hunting, buzzards hunting (cool thing to watch) i know areas alot of them will be at specific times ect and dont over shoot it. Its an area of maybe 300 acres or more.
Just noticed your edit at the end, didnt take you up wrong after your last post i know your a reasonable person and have no problem with a debate about it 0 -
kildare.17hmr wrote: »im not talking about national parks.
Ok.kildare.17hmr wrote: »Im talking about hunting ground that lads work hard to get and keep. They will observe the animals on the land and come the season the sick, old and outcasted animals who are of no benifit to the herd or are a burdan on the herd will be culled. Dont get me wrong this is not everybody but would be the majority. This helps keep the heard healthy by not having to compete for food with as many others. This in turn keeps the hunters past time going because no one wants to kill everything.
That's perfectly reasonable, in those case I would have no problem with hunting under those conditions as it's not affecting the long term health and viability of numbers. Those who kill willy-nilly with no thought to long term population numbers-those are the hunters I have a real problem with and they should not be given licence to hunt I strongly feel.kildare.17hmr wrote: »I am on my hunting grounds nearly every day, have a gun maybe 3 days and sometimes wouldnt pull the trigger. Iv watched deer for hours, watched foxes hunting, buzzards hunting (cool thing to watch) i know areas alot of them will be at specific times ect and dont over shoot it. Its an area of maybe 300 acres or more.
Sounds like a fantastic way to spend your time. I love nature and all the creatures we share out countryside with; watching foxes, deer and buzzards hunting would be a delight to me. I envy you sitting here in my apartment in the middle of a town!
That's good to know that hunting is controlled and regulated in your area. Very important I feel.kildare.17hmr wrote: »Just noticed your edit at the end, didnt take you up wrong after your last post i know your a reasonable person and have no problem with a debate about it
Thank you for that
0 -
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
dodderangler wrote: »Well ferrets are like gundogs you cn get good or bad I've always had good ones I actually have a 8 week old one on me lap now tryin t chew through my jeans he will one day be chasing or killing rabbits in few months
I usually hunt with the ferrets and the hawk great combination ferrets go in holes rabbits run out and hawk catches them
Wow, I'd love to see that. Not the killing I mean but the spectacle of the ferrets and the hawk chasing and hunting the rabbits. I never got a chance to see anything like that spending my whole life so far living in towns and cities.
I guess how they (the ferrets) turn out is down to how you treat them and socialise them, like most domesticated animals really. The fact that you have one playing on your lap sounds like you see them as a little more than just working animals, even if you wouldn't go so far as to see them as pets.
Some day hopefully I'll be in a position to have some myself.
I recall seeing a programme on Channel 4 a while back about a woman in England who takes in ferrets who've been abused by their owners (some awful stories there like one of them having had their ears cut off
) and re-homes them then when they're fit and well again. It's the only charity dedicated to those animals in England I believe.
It was touching to seeing them slowly gaining trust in humans again after their mistreatment. They'd come in being quite aggressive-biting mainly, and end up after about 6 months of loving care and attention being completely different animals, -healthy and happy to be handled and petted.0 -
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
How does that even make sense? Seriously what has that got to do with this topicFoxhound38 wrote: »dodderangler wrote: »Why do I need a reason?
I hunt that's my reason it's my pastime
So if we where to throw you out into the wilderness and a bear ate you, that would simply be his "business" or "pastime" and nobody would have cause to try and stop him? :mad:
Think you should go back to huggin that tree of yours Mate! 0 -
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
What reduces the incidence of "attack" is proper stock management. Ill animals, injured animals & newborn lambs should be monitored. My neighbour has lambs every year & he sees no problem with Crows or Magpies. My friend in Wales rears thousands of Sheep every year & he has no inclination to kill them either. As you may recall I have met hundreds of Farmers in a previous occupation & the majority didn't shoot anything.
That part in bold will not be so obvious to an outside reader who may not know better, but you should. You know that animals BECOME sick, GET injured, ARE born, in the great outdoors. You also know that no farmer spends 100% of his/her day and night sat beside each animal to wipe it's nose. You know that these things HAPPEN and that they are not planned events. More nonsense.
I know many farmers who have had problems with crows and magpies, as I've outlined above, animals that come down with some illness and are discovered on rounds possibly the next day. We had a lamb which investigated a stone wall, pushed it's head through, the springy young horns on it's head acted like an anchor and held it there until one of us checked that field again on rounds, the greycrows had been and bored several holes into it's back while the lamb was still alive. I have a ewe last year that went on it's back between a stone and an anthill and could not right itself (note, sheep find it particularly hard to get back up on all fours in some circumstances), greycrows came almost pecked one of her eyes out, pecked the skin open inside of her tail, pulled at her anus, and bored a hole in her cheek. Proper stock management is not a magic pill that cures all ills.
The point that the majority of farmers don't shoot anything is misleading, it gives the impression that most farmers don't want or need pest control carried out. Anyone who wants to visit the Hunting forum on this site or any other site will be able to see for themselves how many hunters, shooters, and trappers there are. These people actively seek out permission from farmers to shoot, hunt, trap on the farmers lands. So, in many instances a lot of farmers don't have the need to do the pest control work themselves as it's been done for them by others.And you know that nature will control the numbers provided that we don't get rid of their natural predators. Given the breeding rate of rabbits you could shoot dozens a day & not impact on the population. As you reduce numbers you just provide more food for the remaining females & litter sizes rise. Rabbits naturally stabilise. Three years ago all the rabbits in my area disappeared & they are only just starting to come back.
Come off it, rabbits can do serious damage in short order. I know of another place in the hills that's alive with both foxes and rabbits. There are too many rabbits for the foxes to deal with. Myxomatosis (rabits) or Mange (foxes) will come along eventually I'm sure, to cause long term and painful suffering to both species. A properly set snare, a properly placed shot, a properly set trap, or a well trained dog will all be kinder, quicker and more humane.
Rabbits can be removed from an area if a properly integrated and implemented strategy using a number of different methods is employed. Foxes are different, they're a control issue, even in the days of leg hold traps, poisons, bounty, and money for the hide they weren't wiped out so it's certainly not going to happen now.Snaring any animal is a cruel & totally unacceptable way of killing it. Foxes are incredibly widespread & their territory sizes are reducing - urban Foxes pretty much no longer have territories. So kill one & another is ready to take it's place. But why is it that no one near me sees any need to kill foxes even though they keep hens, ducks, lambs etc ? I have met many farmers that have never killed a fox. One minute you complain of pests like Rabbits & then you kill an animal that feeds on them.
Snaring is perfectly legal in many countries including this one. It maybe unacceptable to you but to many including myself it's a valuable tool. Increasingly snares are being redesigned and reclassified as "holding / restraining devices" including many features like deer stops which stop larger animals (like deer :rolleyes:) from becoming trapped in them.
Other advances include break away swivels, meaning that the loop of the snare - the part that holds the animal - will open and no longer be a loop in the even there is an accidental catch of a non target larger animal. Swivels are incorporated to stop the animal twisting the wire and possibly becoming entangled. Snares set on fence lines can be anchored to a type of "zip line" which is set perpendicular to the fence with a non return stop on it, this means that once the target animal is restrained in the snare it's only option of movement is farther into the field, always moving away from the fence to prevent it becoming entangled in the mesh or wires. All of these advances developed to humanely catch and hold a target animal until the snare is checked by the hunter who can humanely dispatch the animal.
You're back to this thing again of new foxes moving into territory once an existing fox is removed. No one is disputing this, it happens. If you're a sheep farmer who lambs in December indoors while the foxes have their young in March, you won't have so much trouble. If you're a farmer who lambs outdoors, God forbid, in May, while the foxes young are out of the vixen and growing well, you'll have problems. But, again, you already know all this.
I've already given the example of how a rabbit population isn't kept in check by foxes. Foxes do not live exclusively on rabbits. They eat a wide variety of foods from shell fish to fruit, carrion to live animals, worms to frogs and a hell of a lot more besides.
I know of many farmers who love to see foxes, they're mostly in tillageExactly the "pests" are so abundant that shooting a few is only going to make you feel better - it won't solve the problem. Many farmers prefer to work with nature rather than killing it. The recent case in the UK is a classic example where Pheasant farmers wanted to "cull" Buzzards - the public outcry stopped their plans.
I've no interest in or issue with buzzards.
Yes, it will.
Postman came to my door one day, a Wednesday I think, a farmer a few miles away had lost 16-18 lambs that week to foxes. I was dying of a chest infection and managed to get over to survey the scene on the Friday afternoon with a view to going shooting on the Saturday night. There were lambs legs, skins, tails all over the shop. This is a farmer who can mind her sheep well, can manage her grass well and has good stock.
On the Saturday night I shot one vixen who wasn't rearing young and wasn't pregnant. In the next week she lost one more lamb, so I went back the next Saturday night and shot one more vixen of the same description. After those two foxes were removed in the space of that week she didn't suffer any more losses.
Years ago I put 32 in lamb ewes in a field of ours (Dad was having a hip replacement so I was looking after both farms), expecting 40 lambs to come out. During lambing I was seeing new lambs but my lamb count wasn't rising. This is before I had a gun, I met a local man who had a name for shooting and asked for his help. We went to another field which overlooked the lambing field, he done one sweep of the field with the lamp and we counted five or six pairs of fox eyes in that one 20 acre field at the same time, the field our ewes were lambing in. In the next seven nights, in an area of around 200 acres at the far end of an island joined by bridge to the mainland he shot 13 foxes with a side by side shotgun, lamp and no caller. After that I had no problems. We have a very fragmented farm and I wasn't losing lambs on my own farm or on the other parts of Dads farm.
Another man rang me, he had lost four lambs in three nights I think. We went that night, it was extremely stormy and we sheltered in a little dug out quarry while watching the lambing field the losses had been in. We saw a fox come over the hill to the left - from the area which is alive with rabbits in the hills - and run across the bog towards the lambing field, shot him just as he got to the fence, no more losses from that field.
Your theory that shooting/trapping/snaring a problem animal, or shooting/trapping/snaring problem species being unjustifiable, or ineffective as it just "makes me feel better" is just plain wrong.
It's like saying sure don't bother that thief, murderer, or rapist, sure they'll die of old age or cancer or get run over by a bus, just stay in you house, boarded up forever where you'll be safe.0 -
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
Advertisement