Casually killing creatures

TerrorFirmer

There's a shooting forum on boards. I don't look at it, usually, but one day I was aimlessly browsing, and ended up across a topic about removing a fox problem. It was literally a post regaling in scoring headshots on both a fox and her several cubs, complete with graphic pictures. Don't get me wrong, I understand that such animals pose a threat to a farmers livelihood, and are thus justified, but the pictures invoked such a horrible, emotional response in me....and I simply cannot fathom an individual who would view such a thing without a shred of emotion aside from those to whom it is a necessity with regards their livelihood. The worlds a dark and scary place when you stop to realize that some people are just genuinely remorseless, emotionless, and unrepentant when it comes to an entire spectrum of things personally considered unthinkable.

johngalway

TerrorFirmer wrote: »

There's a shooting forum on boards. I don't look at it, usually, but one day I was aimlessly browsing, and ended up across a topic about removing a fox problem. It was literally a post regaling in scoring headshots on both a fox and her several cubs, complete with graphic pictures. Don't get me wrong, I understand that such animals pose a threat to a farmers livelihood, and are thus justified, but the pictures invoked such a horrible, emotional response in me....and I simply cannot fathom an individual who would view such a thing without a shred of emotion aside from those to whom it is a necessity with regards their livelihood. The worlds a dark and scary place when you stop to realize that some people are just genuinely remorseless, emotionless, and unrepentant when it comes to an entire spectrum of things personally considered unthinkable.

The thing about the Hunting forum is you're going to get hunting photos, posts and threads. You'll get photos of dead animals and animals in the process of being butchered and cooked for food or in some cases having their skins/pelts tanned or given the entire taxidermist treatment. I haven't seen the thread, no need for me to look as I've seen this in front of me in the great outdoors.

There is interest in any group in the activities of others in that group. People want to know how a person "got on" out on a hunt, their experiences, the shots they made or didn't the animals they encountered etc. There will be stories posted which add detail that pulls the whole thread together bringing the reader along with the hunter during his/her time out.

If you want dark and scary, log onto the CNN International website and view the video of Syrian snipers deliberately targeting children.

That puts life in perspective.

Discodog

johngalway wrote: »

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 had a knock on the door last night. A local farmer needs to go away for a couple of days so he asked me to keep an eye on his cows & calves - he checks them twice a day & so will I. My friend in the UK checks all his sheep & he has thousands, at least twice a day. It comes with the job - it's called good husbandry. If you can't devote the time to stock then stick to arable farming.

johngalway wrote: »

I know many farmers who have had problems with crows and magpies,

Why do you think that graphic descriptions of, what you claim one animal does to another, increases the justification to shoot it ? You shoot & you enjoy shooting so we are hardly getting a balanced view because a lot of farmers don't see these "vermin" as a problem. There is a field opposite me that was full of lambs. The farmer told me that he has not had any problems & has never shot anything - save for rabbits for the pot when times were hard. In the twelve years that I have lived here I have never heard a shot. Not only don't they shoot but they won't allow other to shoot on their land.

Of course there are those who do but the fact that many don't see the need suggests that so called pest control is more about pleasure & misinformation rather than a need to control numbers.

johngalway wrote: »

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.

The old "we kill them to prevent them getting a disease" argument . So why not kill everything & save the suffering ? Why do men think that they can manage nature better than nature has been doing for millions of years ? Farmers introduced Mixomatosis ensuring that millions of rabbits suffer a painful slow death.

johngalway wrote: »

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.

The 1911 Cruelty to Animals Act makes it an offence to "cruelly treat, torture, infuriate & terrify any animal". Are you suggesting that a wild animal caught in a snare calmly waits to meet it's doom ? You know that it will do anything to get free - foxes will even chew through their own leg.

The only reason that it is legal is because, whenever we make animal welfare law, special interest groups seek exemptions. For example the greyhound industry wanted to be exempt from the puppy farm bill. You cannot argue that one animal feels pain & stress less than another. If a dog would be terrified by being snared then so would a fox.

johngalway wrote: »

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.

OK so you accept that shooting foxes doesn't control their numbers in that new foxes will move in. You also accept that farmers can greatly reduce any risk by proper husbandry. You are now saying that the only problem is for outdoor lambs in the month of May so we don't need to shoot many foxes.

In the rest of your post you are basically agreeing that shooting a fox will only solve a very short term problem, for example when lambs are present. I agree with you & there may be the odd case where shooting a fox solves that immediate problem. But it in no way justifies the continual mass shooting & hunting of foxes. Hunting & shooting seeks justification on the primitive idea that some animals are good & some are bad. So if one farmer has a problem with one species in one location it gives carte blanche to kill them all.

The fact that hunting/shooting is seen as a sport increases the problem. Most pest controllers that I have met do it as a job not a recreation. It is bound to increase the numbers being killed if thousands of people enjoy the pastime.

Are you really comparing the motives of a wild animal with that of a thief, murderer of rapist ?

Discodog

Birdnuts wrote: »

Thats a bit of a sweaping statement!! - I'm a hunter myself, most of the time through necessity(vermin control) and the fact that I like the taste of wild game(mallard, wood pigeon) etc.

But you can see the problem when vermin control is enjoyed as pastime & the proceeds are considered tasty. It might just influence what gets shot & why !

By the way I worked as a full time Ecologist for 8 years.

Discodog

johngalway wrote: »

One ecologist I know would merrily murder every mink she could lay her hands on if possible, episode of a bird colony on a little island being practically wiped out had something to do with it I think.

I support the culling of Mink but let's not forget where the problem came from - people keeping animals in appalling conditions to make money. I will pre empt your "but they were set free by animal rights nutters" argument by saying that the evidence shows that hundreds probably escaped due to poor caging & management.

Discodog

garv123 wrote: »

Well people who do it properly use proper snares and check them on a regular basis.

You know that there are plenty of people out there who don't use cameras or special types of snare etc. They are very unlikely to be prosecuted. If you have a practice like snaring, that at best still causes huge distress, it's better to ban it outright.

dodderangler

Knine wrote: »

dodderangler wrote: »

Why do I need a reason?
I hunt that's my reason it's my pastime

I would love to hunt too.... hunt people like you with a big shotgun.:mad:

What age are you? 12?
would you get a grip that has to be officially thee most childish comment I've ever read and I've read some bad ones

johngalway

Discodog wrote: »

I had a knock on the door last night. A local farmer needs to go away for a couple of days so he asked me to keep an eye on his cows & calves - he checks them twice a day & so will I. My friend in the UK checks all his sheep & he has thousands, at least twice a day. It comes with the job - it's called good husbandry. If you can't devote the time to stock then stick to arable farming.

You don't know much about the county you live in if you think there's arable farming in Connemara :pac:

You don't know much about farming in Connemara if you don't accept there are extensive, rather than intensive, fragmented, hill sheep farms in Connemara and other areas of the country.

It is not poor husbandry to check sheep once a day, neither is it poor husbandry to keep sheep outdoors where they are supposed to be. Different farming systems suit different geographical areas and types of farming.

You're trying to claim that checking stock twice a day magically eliminates all problems, it does not. Illnesses and accidents still occur.

Discodog wrote: »

Why do you think that graphic descriptions of, what you claim one animal does to another, increases the justification to shoot it ? You shoot & you enjoy shooting so we are hardly getting a balanced view because a lot of farmers don't see these "vermin" as a problem. There is a field opposite me that was full of lambs. The farmer told me that he has not had any problems & has never shot anything - save for rabbits for the pot when times were hard. In the twelve years that I have lived here I have never heard a shot. Not only don't they shoot but they won't allow other to shoot on their land.

I never claimed that. But you're putting forward a Farthing Wood Friends view of nature which is untrue. A lot of wild animals kill other animals to survive, that's what they do, doesn't matter to them whether that other animal is farmed or wild, it's food, they kill it given the opportunity. To say otherwise is disingenuous.

I shoot because I farm, not for any other reason. Protection of livestock from predation and dogs are two of the reasons I have been granted my firearms certs by the Gardai. Shooting, trapping and snaring problematic wild animals has greatly reduced the incidences of predation on stock, simple as that.

Discodog wrote: »

Of course there are those who do but the fact that many don't see the need suggests that so called pest control is more about pleasure & misinformation rather than a need to control numbers.

No, that's just your opinion on it, which is as biased as you claim mine to be even though I have no problem saying not all foxes kill lambs, but that all foxes have the capability to do so.

Discodog wrote: »

The old "we kill them to prevent them getting a disease" argument . So why not kill everything & save the suffering ? Why do men think that they can manage nature better than nature has been doing for millions of years ? Farmers introduced Mixomatosis ensuring that millions of rabbits suffer a painful slow death.

When I first started shooting here there were many thin, weak, mangey foxes. Now most foxes are bigger, in better condition and I can't remember when I last saw mange on one of them.

No one is looking to kill everything, you're the one making those type of silly claims. The word is "control". Reducing the numbers of anything which causes a problem reduces the incidences of problems, it's not rocket science.

Discodog wrote: »

The 1911 Cruelty to Animals Act makes it an offence to "cruelly treat, torture, infuriate & terrify any animal". Are you suggesting that a wild animal caught in a snare calmly waits to meet it's doom ? You know that it will do anything to get free - foxes will even chew through their own leg.

The only reason that it is legal is because, whenever we make animal welfare law, special interest groups seek exemptions. For example the greyhound industry wanted to be exempt from the puppy farm bill. You cannot argue that one animal feels pain & stress less than another. If a dog would be terrified by being snared then so would a fox.

I set snares properly. I've never caught a fox by the foot. My foxes are waiting for me in the morning for quick dispatch by shotgun or rifle, often they are sleeping.

If you think you can prosecute me for setting snares under the bunkum you're quoting, feel free. I have openly admitted on a public forum that I set snares and catch foxes with them.

Discodog wrote: »

OK so you accept that shooting foxes doesn't control their numbers in that new foxes will move in. You also accept that farmers can greatly reduce any risk by proper husbandry. You are now saying that the only problem is for outdoor lambs in the month of May so we don't need to shoot many foxes.

No, I don't accept that at all. It takes time for foxes to repopulate an area, it does not occur overnight. Temporarily clearing an area of foxes reduces the incidences of predation, if they're not there they can't kill livestock. The population recovers each year, I know this from the amount I shoot each year which stays roughly between 45 and 55 foxes annually.

I also don't accept that farmers who have had lamb predation by foxes or other predatory species have bad husbandry.

People complain about the conditions of indoor "factory farming" then want sheep locked up as well, make up your mind, do you want them in or out. Mine are staying outdoors and I will continue to control the fox and vermin population locally.

I also do not accept your calendar pest control.

Discodog wrote: »

In the rest of your post you are basically agreeing that shooting a fox will only solve a very short term problem, for example when lambs are present. I agree with you & there may be the odd case where shooting a fox solves that immediate problem. But it in no way justifies the continual mass shooting & hunting of foxes. Hunting & shooting seeks justification on the primitive idea that some animals are good & some are bad. So if one farmer has a problem with one species in one location it gives carte blanche to kill them all.

That's your justification of hunting, own your own words.

I've given and proven the need for the control of foxes, greycrows, and magpies. That you find it goes against your beliefs doesn't make it wrong.

I've always said control the population numbers of those species, I haven't said kill them all, again, they're your words.

Discodog wrote: »

The fact that hunting/shooting is seen as a sport increases the problem. Most pest controllers that I have met do it as a job not a recreation. It is bound to increase the numbers being killed if thousands of people enjoy the pastime.

My shooting, trapping and snaring isn't sport, it's pest control as part of my business.

Discodog wrote: »

Are you really comparing the motives of a wild animal with that of a thief, murderer of rapist ?

No I was comparing your ridiculous "solutions" to doing nothing about those types of criminals in our society as a method to control them.

Tut, tut, naughty murderer, now don't do it again, there's a good boy.

johngalway

Discodog wrote: »

I support the culling of Mink but let's not forget where the problem came from - people keeping animals in appalling conditions to make money. I will pre empt your "but they were set free by animal rights nutters" argument by saying that the evidence shows that hundreds probably escaped due to poor caging & management.

And thousands were released by animal rights nutters, oh and, there's no "probably" about my claim.

http://www.birdwatchireland.ie/News/IrresponsibleminkreleaseinDonegal/tabid/1102/Default.aspx

3ndahalfof6

dodderangler wrote: »

This should be fun
Il tell the rest of the lads on the hunting section to come over
Il start it off il kill anything that's in range and in season and foxes question is what would I not kill
Answer - dog

fox=dog:eek:

Yamanoto

The Bumble-Bee, Butterfly, Ladybird & certain species of Spider are shown great mercy. God's speed my noble friends.

The Wasp, Bluebottle, Housefly, Daddy long-legs and common or garden aphids get what they deserve - unless they land on the Farrow & Ball paintwork, in which case careful trapping precedes inevitable death.

Discodog

johngalway wrote: »

You don't know much about the county you live in if you think there's arable farming in Connemara :pac:

It is not poor husbandry to check sheep once a day, neither is it poor husbandry to keep sheep outdoors where they are supposed to be. Different farming systems suit different geographical areas and types of farming..

I didn't say that there was. Irrespective of where your stock are located you have a duty to care for them. When they are in lamb & according to you, likely to be attacked, they need to be monitored more closely. My friend farms hundreds of acres of Welsh hillside & he doesn't have any problem.

johngalway wrote: »

A lot of wild animals kill other animals to survive,

I shoot because I farm, not for any other reason.

Yes but humans kill for fun.

You also shoot because you enjoy it. You shoot on other peoples land as a pastime. You will argue that you are providing a service but you are happy to do it.

johngalway wrote: »

When I first started shooting here there were many thin, weak, mangey foxes. Now most foxes are bigger, in better condition and I can't remember when I last saw mange on one of them.

No one is looking to kill everything, you're the one making those type of silly claims. The word is "control". Reducing the numbers of anything which causes a problem reduces the incidences of problems, it's not rocket science.

It depends on the cause of the problem - I don't see native wildlife as a cause of problems, I see them as a wonderful asset. I am sure that the shooters posting here are all ethical in the way they shoot (if that's not an oxymoron) but I have rescued & seen treated thousands of wild animals that didn't meet such ethical hunters.

I find the idea of a fox being asleep after being snared as ludicrous. If they are not moving they are usually totally exhausted. In probably 60% of the cases that I was called out to the Fox was so badly injured that it needed immediate euthanasia.

Many people can drive safely on a motorway at 90 mph if the conditions are clear etc but we decide that there needs to be a limit. Some people may set snares better than others but my experience makes me want to see them banned.

johngalway wrote: »

I also do not accept your calendar pest control.

You were the one who said that Foxes only pose a problem to Lambs in May.

johngalway wrote: »

My shooting, trapping and snaring isn't sport, it's pest control as part of my business.

So you wouldn't support sport shooting ? You only support shooting that removes a specific pest & a specific time ? This suggests that you would consider the casual killing of animals to be wrong.

johngalway wrote: »

No I was comparing your ridiculous "solutions" to doing nothing about those types of criminals in our society as a method to control them.

Tut, tut, naughty murderer, now don't do it again, there's a good boy.

Do you see Foxes etc as criminals ? I wonder how many innocent men would be shot - history suggests a lot !

Discodog

Yamanoto wrote: »

The Bumble-Bee, Butterfly, Ladybird & certain species of Spider are shown great mercy. God's speed my noble friends.

The Wasp, Bluebottle, Housefly, Daddy long-legs and common or garden aphids get what they deserve - unless they land on the Farrow & Ball paintwork, in which case careful trapping precedes inevitable death.

It is bizarre how we decide which creatures are nice & which are nasty. Even the ladybird is capable of biting & it can be surprisingly painful.

johngalway

Discodog wrote: »

I didn't say that there was. Irrespective of where your stock are located you have a duty to care for them. When they are in lamb & according to you, likely to be attacked, they need to be monitored more closely. My friend farms hundreds of acres of Welsh hillside & he doesn't have any problem.

A hill or upland in Ireland is often considerably different from a hill or upland in Ireland. I have seen the ground referred to by British farmers as hill and upland, it can be easily driven upon. Not so in this part of the world, for the most part.

You can spend twenty three hours a day "monitoring" animals, the hour you take off things can still happen. You live in an idealistic bubble, reality is quite different.

As for my duty of care, I do not remember when I last lost a ewe. If that care isn't good enough for you then you are beyond satisfying. My old biddies get sent to the mart to go to greener pastures on better land in other parts of the country. For many years I didn't loose a single lamb, that was down to the, as you call it, unjustifiable hunting/shooting/trapping of predator species to control their numbers.

Discodog wrote: »

Yes but humans kill for fun.

And dolphins rape other dolphins, what's your point?

Discodog wrote: »

You also shoot because you enjoy it. You shoot on other peoples land as a pastime. You will argue that you are providing a service but you are happy to do it.

There are plenty of times I would rather be tucked up in my warm bed that standing on a hillside int he cold, wet, night waiting for a fox that's been killing my lambs. I spent six hours one night this Spring on a rock waiting for a fox, never moved farther than 5 paces in any direction.

I shoot on other peoples land as the farms in my area are fragmented. Our land is in parcels six miles in one direction, three miles in another direction and two and a half miles in a different direction again, and that doesn't include small fields or commonages.

I enjoy the satisfaction of removing a fox knowing I can rest easy that one or more of my lambs won't be bitten and killed that night, that I won't have to watch that ewe run around the field for a couple of days bleating for a dead lamb, that my years work involved with those animals hasn't been wasted.

I certainly will shoot for other people, providing they're a good sort and that I have the time so that it doesn't interfere with my own work. I've been there with heavy lamb losses due to fox predation. I've nursed lambs that have been mutilated by greycrows and foxes, and ewes that have been mutilated by greycrows or mauled by dogs, I wouldn't wish it on anyone.

Discodog wrote: »

It depends on the cause of the problem - I don't see native wildlife as a cause of problems, I see them as a wonderful asset. I am sure that the shooters posting here are all ethical in the way they shoot (if that's not an oxymoron) but I have rescued & seen treated thousands of wild animals that didn't meet such ethical hunters.

The cause of the problem is predation on young stock by foxes, greycrows, magpies and others.

Discodog wrote: »

I find the idea of a fox being asleep after being snared as ludicrous. If they are not moving they are usually totally exhausted. In probably 60% of the cases that I was called out to the Fox was so badly injured that it needed immediate euthanasia.

You can find what you like, that is my experience of snaring foxes, twist it all you want. A properly snared animal is restrained, nothing more, and can be released unharmed.

Discodog wrote: »

Many people can drive safely on a motorway at 90 mph if the conditions are clear etc but we decide that there needs to be a limit. Some people may set snares better than others but my experience makes me want to see them banned.

Ban cars and society will be free of car related deaths :rolleyes: I don't believe in punishing the majority because I dislike improper practices.

Discodog wrote: »

You were the one who said that Foxes only pose a problem to Lambs in May.

You need to revisit what I said.

Discodog wrote: »

So you wouldn't support sport shooting ? You only support shooting that removes a specific pest & a specific time ? This suggests that you would consider the casual killing of animals to be wrong.

I haven't a problem in the world with sporting shooting. I don't shoot for sport. Try to understand the difference.

Discodog wrote: »

Do you see Foxes etc as criminals ? I wonder how many innocent men would be shot - history suggests a lot !

You're back attempting to twist my words. Re-read what I wrote, it is simple to understand. I do not tag animals with human terms. I have already said wild animals kill other animals to survive. Your argument is weak when you need to revisit this stuff.

Ambient Occlusion

I'm going to start this by saying I don't particularly like crows; they're noisy and plain annoying. A few days ago there was a dead on on my driveway with a branch still in it's talons. It had obviously fallen from a tree when the branch it was perched on snapped. I felt little sadness for it, I see that kinda thing now and then so it doesn't really bother me.
Today though, there was a gunshot quite close to my house so I went out to investigate. In a field across the road a man and a boy aged probably between 14 and 15 were walking around. The man had a shotgun which told me what he was up to and next to him the boy was looking at a dead crow on the ground which was clearly a fresh kill. The idea of hunting for no other purpose other than recreation is one I don't agree with but living in the country you just have to swallow opinions like that. While not particularly happy with the crow being killed I was shocked by what I saw next. The child simply kicking the dead bird along the grounds as he went. This I was completely disgusted by and I was even more so as the boy gave a good hearty swing and kicked the corpse ferociously (Seeming almost to enjoy this). Why was this necessary? The bird was dead, yes; it wasn't going to care if it's body was being subjected to such disrespect. I feel differently, frankly it was disgraceful.

Vizzy

Ambient Occlusion, you are right of course.

I assume you have now placed it in suitable casket and will give it a Christian burial ?
Pm me and I will send flowers.

girlonfire

I prefer to release creatures back into the great outdoors.
I have been known to kill a fly or two mind you.

Greentopia

Good thread. I've learned a few interesting things here and given me a more nuanced and informed view on killing and hunting of animals.

I'm against killing animals for 'sport'-I don't understand that way of thinking and find it unethical, as I've mentioned. I can understand in some cases farmers taking matters into their own hands and shooting predators that are killing their livestock or destroying their crops as a last resort if other methods have failed and they've employed good husbandry on their farms and smallholdings to begin with.

I'm also very much against snares or traps being set for animals, I think it's cruel. It's one thing to kill a creature outright with a bullet but quite a different thing to think of an animal lying for hours immobilised and terrified. Even if it's caught in a humane trap and is not injured in the process it must be traumatic for any wild animal.

Any hunters that says they're not cruel- I wonder how they'd feel if their own animals were caught in one, say their own gun or sheep dog. Would they still think even humane traps are ok? I doubt it. If it's seen as wrong to do it to a pet it can't be justified to do it to any animal. Wild animals feel fear and pain just as much as Rover and Shep.

kildare.17hmr

Greentopia, i think when it comes to trapping you need to look at it differently. Legitimate hunters will be the first to critisize people using incorrect traps causing suffering to animals. The examples givin by discodog are not representitive of the humning comunity in the same way people who break the speed limit or mess all the time in their car are not representitive of the driving comunity. Johngalway made some very good points and has explained that snaring and trapping when done right cause no suffering to an anmal. If you look on youtube you will see plenty of videos of foxes in traps who are asleep when the trapper returns, likewise with snares

dodderangler

Went ferreting on Friday and got 4 rabbits 3 of them bein big old buck rabbits
Went there as a farmer had asked me to get rabbits as he's growing crops and they destroy them

dodderangler

Went out with me uncle and the rifle onto farmers land that need rabbits gone
We Got 13 and 1 pigeon which he was delighted with as pigeons are worse for eating crops than rabbit

Gordon Gecko

Was in Pablo Picante today, a bee was buzzing around. Luckily there was a free magazine on hand with which to dispatch the vile creature to oblivion. With two fell strokes I extinguished ever flicker of life from its body. The other patrons shocked silence was deafening............

michaelmouse

Im a bit disturbed by the lack of compassion for animals or birds. Some "hunters" claiming they are doing it for sport or justifying it because they eat what they kill. Bull****. Its is unnecessary slaughter. It is not for survival. I eat plenty of meat and chicken but it is killed due to demand. These gun nuts have issues. Its different yet nonetheless distressing for the farmers who can argue that pests must be controlled.

kildare.17hmr

All meat is killed to eat, they way it gets there varies. Anyone who eats meat then gives out about a bird or rabbit being hunted and eaten is a feckin hypocrite and needs to get a grip. Saying people who hunt "have issues" just proves your ignorance

paddy147

I only catch and release.

dodderangler

kildare.17hmr wrote: »

All meat is killed to eat, they way it gets there varies. Anyone who eats meat then gives out about a bird or rabbit being hunted and eaten is a feckin hypocrite and needs to get a grip. Saying people who hunt "have issues" just proves your ignorance

I totally agree with you
People eat meat yet they give out bout is shooting animals for meat pure hypocrites
I don't let any animal go to waste I shoot crows magpies and pigeon and sometimes eat the pigeon if there's a few of them and give the other birds to my hawk and ferrets as for rabbits I eat them aswell or give them to the hawk and ferrets aswell
As for foxes they need to be controlled as the damage they do can be outstanding for farmers and other animals including people's pets
So no animal I shoot goes to waste

kildare.17hmr

paddy147 wrote: »

I only catch and release.

Ya never eat any fish paddy?

paddy147

kildare.17hmr wrote: »

Ya never eat any fish paddy?

I do enjoy a bit of fish allright......just ot the type that I catch from the sea.

I fish for the sport of it.

Snowie

i kill blue bottles

steddyeddy

Well I suppose ultimatly it comes down to different personality types. As I said im against trophy hunting particularly when it comes to endangered species. Im against hunting creatures similar to humans in intelligence. I find the story below from the Ukraine particularly sickening.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2166472/Euro-2012-Shame-hosts-Ukraine-video-shows-baby-bear-tortured-entertain-tourists.html

paddy147

Snowie wrote: »

i kill blue bottles

Just dont kill bumble bees or honey bees,as they are so important for the eco system and for pollination.:)

Snowie

paddy147 wrote: »

Just dont kill bumble bees or honey bees,as they are so important for the eco system and for pollination.:)

well that goes with out saying how ever blue bottles fvcking annoy me

steddyeddy

Irelands ag sector is fecked if the bumble bee declines much more unfortunatly

blindside88

michaelmouse wrote: »

Im a bit disturbed by the lack of compassion for animals or birds. Some "hunters" claiming they are doing it for sport or justifying it because they eat what they kill. Bull****. Its is unnecessary slaughter. It is not for survival. I eat plenty of meat and chicken but it is killed due to demand. These gun nuts have issues. Its different yet nonetheless distressing for the farmers who can argue that pests must be controlled.

Right so a chicken is killed because you want to eat it ( you claim it's killed because of demand, it wouldn't be killed if people like you didn't want to eat it) and that's fine. But a pheasant/rabbit Is killed because I want to eat it and all of a sudden it's unnecessary slaughter? Your right that's not demand. Well done, before you typed anything some people may have taught you were dumb, now that you have decided to type it has been confirmed

steddyeddy

blindside88 wrote: »

Right so a chicken is killed because you want to eat it ( you claim it's killed because of demand, it wouldn't be killed if people like you didn't want to eat it) and that's fine. But a pheasant/rabbit Is killed because I want to eat it and all of a sudden it's unnecessary slaughter? Your right that's not demand. Well done, before you typed anything some people may have taught you were dumb, now that you have decided to type it has been confirmed

I think people see the worst elements of hunting like poaching or killing endangered or higher order animals. Hunters arent dumb as our ancestors hunted for food. I do think people who hunt tigers or elephants or any endangered species are either dumb or ignorant though.

Longfellow

I ruthlessly hunt or get people to hunt any non-native animal that crosses my path (all legally) on my land. Sika/hybrid, wild goat, pheasants, grey squirrel, rabbits, rats and mink. They all have to die.

christmas2012

if youre 'casual' about killing a living thing then you got a problem..

steddyeddy

Longfellow wrote: »

I ruthlessly hunt or get people to hunt any non-native animal that crosses my path (all legally) on my land. Sika/hybrid, wild goat, pheasants, grey squirrel, rabbits, rats and mink. They all have to die.

Well thats a terrible attitude to be honest.

Longfellow

steddyeddy wrote: »

Well thats a terrible attitude to be honest.

why

BUBBLE WRAP

The King of Moo wrote: »

I try not to kill anything, but can't help but feel more squeamish about killing a larger animal (rodent or bigger, basically) whose pain and death is more clear.

It's an irrational, emotional reaction, but I can't really help that.

I'd still try to avoid killing insects and spiders mind you, but I wouldn't lose any sleep about it.

Once I read them words, I imagined you screaming like this. lol

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0_RGh89k3tA

kildare.17hmr

christmas2012 wrote: »

if youre 'casual' about killing a living thing then you got a problem..

What problem might that be?

The King of Moo

BUBBLE WRAP wrote: »

Once I read them words, I imagined you screaming like this. lol

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0_RGh89k3tA

I only scream like that ^^^^ when I try to intimidate a male rival.

Otherwise my scream is much more high pitched.

steddyeddy

Longfellow wrote: »

why

Because indiscriminatly your land isnt an ecosystem. Killing things because their on your land doesnt show any foresight.

kildare.17hmr

I wouldnt say i was casual doung this, my heart was pounding! Its the most foxes iv seen together at once. I was delighted with my shootin and that they were all clean but not as happy as the farmer who owns the 150 lambs in the field and the big chicken coop in the next field

kildare.17hmr

steddyeddy wrote: »

Longfellow wrote: »

why

Because indiscriminatly your land isnt an ecosystem. Killing things because their on your land doesnt show any foresight.

Killing things that damage land is a must for farmers. Everything mentioned are vernin bar deer and phesent both of which have a season and would rarley go to waist. Id have more people to take birds or rabbits off me than i could shoot!

fasttalkerchat

Anything smaller than a cat is fair game.

Podge2k7

Im all for being humane and shit, but any little cunt that comes near me is going to die.

BUBBLE WRAP

The King of Moo wrote: »

I only scream like that ^^^^ when I try to intimidate a male rival.

Otherwise my scream is much more high pitched.

:pac:

steddyeddy

kildare.17hmr wrote: »

Killing things that damage land is a must for farmers. Everything mentioned are vernin bar deer and phesent both of which have a season and would rarley go to waist. Id have more people to take birds or rabbits off me than i could shoot!

Thats the thing thought I of course agree with preventing animals harming livestock but theres a big difference between that and a kill anything that moves arguement.

Spread

As a carnivore but animal lover, I'm amazed at the amount of wanton destruction aimed at wild animals here. Deer, Moose, Bear, Coyotes, Turkeys and Geese have seasons but all else is fair game whenever (pun intended). Squirrels, Chipmunks, Possum, Raccoon, Porcupine and all little critters run the gauntlet. Only an Eagle is safe all year. I have a young fellow helping with odd jobs at the moment and his ambition is to own a "special" gun next year. Cost? Over $2k. And this fellow is only 14!