Casually killing creatures

Galwayguy35

steddyeddy wrote: »

Well no its not. The ideal situation is not destroying a creatures natural habitat.

It's state forests, yes they are replanted but as I'm sure you well know it takes at least 40 years for the trees to mature.

Discodog

Einhard wrote: »

Is it not hypocritical for people who eat meat to condemn hunters who chose to kill animals for fun? Afterall, meat isn't a necessary part of most people's diet. Most of us eat meat for pleasure. Animals are killed for our pleasure. So how can we then condemn those who kill directly?

This is the standard argument rolled out by hunters. You will find Boards threads where the "are you a vegetarian" argument is used by them. There is a difference between agriculture & wildlife. Agricultural animals are domesticated & used to human contact. They are not part of the natural ecosystem. They can be farmed compassionately.

This is totally different to killing an animal purely for pleasure. If we chased cows around a field with a pack of dogs then everyone would condemn it as cruelty. I very much doubt if anyone involved in Agriculture or even the slaughter house, enjoys killing.

dodderangler

Discodog wrote: »

dodderangler wrote: »

Actually as a hunter and many other hunters will tell you a feral cat can be easily recognised to an ordinary house cat so before writing smart comments you should think before writing

Having helped out with TNR schemes I personally know that it is impossible to be sure that any cat is feral. This is why trapping was the only method deemed acceptable during the Tory Island Cat cull.

I have a manky looking Tom that visits my garden. Most would assume that he is a feral but he is owned by my neighbour. Away fro their home he acts in the nervous way that one associates with Ferals.

In any event there is a strong campaign to make all cats a protected species as part of the AWB.

Actually I can spot a feral from domestic and most people I hunt with can tell aswell
I also wouldn't bother trappin them as your takin one problem and moving it twine where to be someone else's problem
As for protecting them I won't be
any feral that comes within range I will take it out
And don't care what anyone else says
Feral cats do a lot of damage to local wildlife and I won't be lettin it happen
As for this campaign will be signed by no hunter I can guarantee that!
I know some farmers that'd rather foxes on their land than feral cats

Einhard

Discodog wrote: »

This is the standard argument rolled out by hunters. You will find Boards threads where the "are you a vegetarian" argument is used by them. There is a difference between agriculture & wildlife. Agricultural animals are domesticated & used to human contact. They are not part of the natural ecosystem. They can be farmed compassionately.

This is totally different to killing an animal purely for pleasure. If we chased cows around a field with a pack of dogs then everyone would condemn it as cruelty. I very much doubt if anyone involved in Agriculture or even the slaughter house, enjoys killing.

Ummm, cruelty is cruelty, whether the victim is an animal in a field or an animal running wild in a forest. The fact that farmers or slaughtermen don't enjoy killing is irrelevant to the fact that they do kill, and they kill for our pleasure. I don't hunt, and I never will, but I do take pleasure in eating meat, and I'm honest enough to acknowledge that an animal was killed for me to experience that pleasure. I can't, therefore, casually condemn all hunters. I think that would be hypocritical.

Just to note: all the posts from hunters on this thread have spoken about stalking an animal, and shooting from distance- not chasing an animal around a field.

blatantrereg

It is stupid not to kill insects that bite or spread disease. It is much more stupid to refuse to do so while having no problem eating meat. It's probably best to kill rats also if they are in your living space.

Discodog

dodderangler wrote: »

Actually I can spot a feral from domestic and most people I hunt with can tell aswell
I also wouldn't bother trappin them as your takin one problem and moving it twine where to be someone else's problem
As for protecting them I won't be
any feral that comes within range I will take it out
And don't care what anyone else says

So you would break the law, you don't care what anyone says & you own a gun :eek:

Scanlas The 2nd

Discodog wrote: »

Einhard wrote: »

Is it not hypocritical for people who eat meat to condemn hunters who chose to kill animals for fun? Afterall, meat isn't a necessary part of most people's diet. Most of us eat meat for pleasure. Animals are killed for our pleasure. So how can we then condemn those who kill directly?

This is the standard argument rolled out by hunters. You will find Boards threads where the "are you a vegetarian" argument is used by them. There is a difference between agriculture & wildlife. Agricultural animals are domesticated & used to human contact. They are not part of the natural ecosystem. They can be farmed compassionately.

This is totally different to killing an animal purely for pleasure. If we chased cows around a field with a pack of dogs then everyone would condemn it as cruelty. I very much doubt if anyone involved in Agriculture or even the slaughter house, enjoys killing.

Maybe it's the standard argument because it's a good one. Would it be ok to kill humans if we bred them on a farm for our consumption, sure they wouldn't even exist without us.

Discodog

Einhard wrote: »

Ummm, cruelty is cruelty, whether the victim is an animal in a field or an animal running wild in a forest. The fact that farmers or slaughtermen don't enjoy killing is irrelevant to the fact that they do kill, and they kill for our pleasure.
Just to note: all the posts from hunters on this thread have spoken about stalking an animal, and shooting from distance- not chasing an animal around a field.

Killing an animal humanely is not cruelty. It is defined as causing unnecessary suffering. Are you unaware of Fox hunting, Stag hunting, Hare Coursing, etc which all involve animals suffering purely for pleasure & entertainment.

The hunters here will claim that every animal is killed instantly. If you talk to any wildlife rescue you will hear of countless animals that come in injured by being shot, trapped & snared. I have personally rescued shot badgers, foxes, otters, rabbits & even a seal ! Not every shot is perfect & not every shooter is a good shot.

dodderangler

Discodog wrote: »

dodderangler wrote: »

Actually I can spot a feral from domestic and most people I hunt with can tell aswell
I also wouldn't bother trappin them as your takin one problem and moving it twine where to be someone else's problem
As for protecting them I won't be
any feral that comes within range I will take it out
And don't care what anyone else says

So you would break the law, you don't care what anyone says & you own a gun :eek:

Yeah
I'm not gonna protect something that shouldn't be protected and everyone that hunts knows that

garv123

You say its cruelty when it happens hunting but its not cruel the way cattle are treated at the factory because they are not part of the ecosystem :pac::pac:

Yeah some times animals get injured from idiots shooting them with the wrong caliber rifle, or some idiot taking a pot shot at an animal without having the ability to take the shot or no idea about bullet drop...
The majority of hunters are against these kind of things and they spend the money on premium ammo and empty boxes of ammo shooting at paper to know where the bullet is going at all the ranges and they know their limits and the limit of the caliber.
Once again you're just singling out bad apples in the bunch and tarring everyone with the same brush.


This best resembles this thread at this stage now...


http://media.giantbomb.com/uploads/1/13307/1189507-playground_roundabout_large.jpg

dodderangler

Many hunters including myself won't take a shot at something if it's not a clean kill
Yes there are idiots there that'll shoot at anything just for sake of hitting it but don't slate us all over it

Discodog

dodderangler wrote: »

Many hunters including myself won't take a shot at something if it's not a clean kill
Yes there are idiots there that'll shoot at anything just for sake of hitting it but don't slate us all over it

Do you really think that the few shooters who are posting in this thread are typical of all those that hunt or kill wild animals ? This isn't a pro/anti shooting thread. You know that there are airgun owners, trappers, snarers, ferreters, those who hunt with hounds etc etc who also kill for pleasure.

The fact that you claim to always make a clean kill doesn't remove the point that you are the same as the others in that you enjoy killing. To me that is incomprehensible.

Discodog

garv123 wrote: »

You say its cruelty when it happens hunting but its not cruel the way cattle are treated at the factory because they are not part of the ecosystem :pac::pac:

Cattle are killed humanely & the process is well regulated. I accept that animals may suffer some distress immediately prior to slaughter but this can be minimised. It is totally different to chasing an animal to the point of exhaustion, leaving it fatally injured or killing the young by starvation because a parent is killed.

Our cat killer may be a good shot but, if he kills a female with kittens, they die a slow death from starvation.

dodderangler

Discodog wrote: »

dodderangler wrote: »

Many hunters including myself won't take a shot at something if it's not a clean kill
Yes there are idiots there that'll shoot at anything just for sake of hitting it but don't slate us all over it

Do you really think that the few shooters who are posting in this thread are typical of all those that hunt or kill wild animals ? This isn't a pro/anti shooting thread. You know that there are airgun owners, trappers, snarers, ferreters, those who hunt with hounds etc etc who also kill for pleasure.

The fact that you claim to always make a clean kill doesn't remove the point that you are the same as the others in that you enjoy killing. To me that is incomprehensible.

I hunt with ferrets
You do realise that ferreting is the most humane way of hunting don't you and your ignorance in putting real hunters in the same category as people with air rifles proves how ignorant you really are
Your slating everyone that hunts and puttin us all in one group
I enjoy hunting all hunters do hence why we do it
I enjoy killin animals and il admit I've shot animals that took more than one shot when it shouldn't and was disgusted in myself but the end result was the animal was killed and that's what I set out to do
It may have suffered for a second but was killed therefore result

garv123

Discodog wrote: »

Cattle are killed humanely & the process is well regulated. I accept that animals may suffer some distress immediately prior to slaughter but this can be minimised. It is totally different to chasing an animal to the point of exhaustion, leaving it fatally injured or killing the young by starvation because a parent is killed.

Saying cattle been killed and fair because its humane and then saying shooting of deer is cruel and not humane is just hypocritical.. Deer have much distress and less suffering as cattle as its dead before it even realises what happens. It may run 20yards with adrenaline even if the shot is a perfect heart/lung shot but it certainly didn't suffer as it was pure adrenaline.

Cocolola

I always find it baffling how hunters will say that cats and foxes etc. need to be killed as they are damaging to the local wildlife I mean WTF. They ARE the local wildlife and a part of the ecosystem. What the hell gives you the right to declare that they should be killed?

How can you wail about how cats kill birds when you're perfectly happy to kill pheasants, crows or magpies? You don't get to decide which birds it's acceptable to kill.

garv123

Cocolola wrote: »

I always find it baffling how hunters will say that cats and foxes etc. need to be killed as they are damaging to the local wildlife I mean WTF. They ARE the local wildlife and a part of the ecosystem. What the hell gives you the right to declare that they should be killed?

How can you wail about how cats kill birds when you're perfectly happy to kill pheasants, crows or magpies?

they wreck nests and rob eggs and kill young birds..
Gun clubs release hundreds of pheasants in each area every year to boost the numbers. Normally clubs release more than what can be shot and have rules such as only shooting allowed on weekends and only 3 birds per outing.. This is done to stop over shooting and damaging numbers.
Also male pheasants can only be shot to help boost the numbers..

You don't get to decide which birds it's acceptable to kill.

We don't decide..The law decides what we can shoot.

dodderangler

Cocolola wrote: »

I always find it baffling how hunters will say that cats and foxes etc. need to be killed as they are damaging to the local wildlife I mean WTF. They ARE the local wildlife and a part of the ecosystem. What the hell gives you the right to declare that they should be killed?

How can you wail about how cats kill birds when you're perfectly happy to kill pheasants, crows or magpies? You don't get to decide which birds it's acceptable to kill.

http://www.foxolutions.co.uk/index.php?main_page=fox_problems
Have a read of this then!
You people that don't shoot do not know what damage they do
Therefore you have no opinion!

MrReynholm

Hunting is fine so long as it's not a species that is under threat, is not over hunted and the product of the hunt is used as food.

Hunting merely to kill and stuff things is more than a bit moronic though.

Cocolola

garv123 wrote: »

they wreck nests and rob eggs and kill young birds..
Gun clubs release hundreds of pheasants in each area every year to boost the numbers. Normally clubs release more than what can be shot and have rules such as only shooting allowed on weekends and only 3 birds per outing.. This is done to stop over shooting and damaging numbers.
Also male pheasants can only be shot to help boost the numbers..


We don't decide..The law decides what we can shoot.

They wouldn't have to be raised and released if they weren't shot in the first place.

Dodderangler has stated that if it becomes illegal to shoot feral cats he's going to ignore it and shoot them irrespectively, so forgive me if I don't hold much faith in your ability to follow the law.

dodderangler wrote: »

http://www.foxolutions.co.uk/index.php?main_page=fox_problems
Have a read of this then!
You people that don't shoot do not know what damage they do
Therefore you have no opinion!

Seriously? Could that website be any more biased?

steddyeddy

dodderangler wrote: »

Yeah
I'm not gonna protect something that shouldn't be protected and everyone that hunts knows that

You would shoot a protected animal? Ignore that I dont need to know anymore. Your post illustrates what seperates Irish hunting from american Hunting ect. No respect for wildlife whatsoever. Complete ignorance about what your shooting and a shoot everything that moves attitude.

Megglet

For someone who'd consider themself to be an animal lover, I really show no mercy when it comes to insects. Out with the Argos catalogue!

Witcher

There's some amount of shyte talking on this thread.

We should just allow the fox population to run wild and kill ground nesting birds, but next thing there'll be a thread 'Save our ground nesting birds':pac: Shooters can't win.

'No respect for the animal' Nooooo none at all...there isn't constant debate over in the shooting forum over which calibre/bullet weight to give the cleanest kill:rolleyes:

steddyeddy

Blay wrote: »

There's some amount of shyte talking on this thread.

We should just allow the fox population to run wild and kill ground nesting birds, but next thing there'll be a thread 'Save our ground nesting birds':pac: Shooters can't win.

Actually the need to hunt animals is a lot rarer than is being portrayed. Even when culling is needed its done under controlled circumstances. Before humans existed do you think there was no birds because of predation by foxes?

Witcher

steddyeddy wrote: »

Actually the need to hunt animals is a lot rarer than is being portrayed. Even when culling is needed its done under controlled circumstances. Before humans existed do you think there was no birds because of predation by foxes?

So we should just let everything run as it did before we came along?
Foxes kill chickens, ground nesting birds, sheep and their lambs...that's fine in your opinion because that's how it was years ago?

---

Can people that are anti hunting here please state if they have seen the damage that a fox can do?

garv123

Cocolola wrote: »

They wouldn't have to be raised and released if they weren't shot in the first place.

Dodderangler has stated that if it becomes illegal to shoot feral cats he's going to ignore it and shoot them irrespectively, so forgive me if I don't hold much faith in your ability to follow the law.




Seriously? Could that website be any more biased?

they are shot for food? I have never seen a pheasant going to waste..they are a far tastier food than chicken..chickens are killed everyday for food so whats wrong with a pheasant..if foxes and pheasants were left alone you would see a decrease in their population as foxes kill the young and hens and other birds rob all the eggs.

And just because one person says he would do something does not give you the right to tar everyone with the same brush..
stupid point u made there.

steddyeddy wrote: »

You would shoot a protected animal? Ignore that I dont need to know anymore. Your post illustrates what seperates Irish hunting from american Hunting ect. No respect for wildlife whatsoever. Complete ignorance about what your shooting and a shoot everything that moves attitude.

While I do not agree with his opinion about shooting something protected how can one persons post illustrate the difference between american and Irish hunting. Ye love using one persons opinion as the general opinion of an entire countries hunting community. The vast amount of Irish hunters have a huge respect for wildlife.

dodderangler

steddyeddy wrote: »

dodderangler wrote: »

Yeah
I'm not gonna protect something that shouldn't be protected and everyone that hunts knows that

You would shoot a protected animal? Ignore that I dont need to know anymore. Your post illustrates what seperates Irish hunting from american Hunting ect. No respect for wildlife whatsoever. Complete ignorance about what your shooting and a shoot everything that moves attitude.

Your talkin ****e there
As I said I will shoot an animal that doesn't deserve to be protected and I know that
You don't know the damage as you don't hunt so you have no opinion Ive hunted since I could walk and I've noticed huge decline in species over the years and seen fox populations explode in numbers and feral cats and local animals taking the brunt of it
So why protect something that has no right what so ever to be protected except fact it's related to house cats is only reason why people like you will sign that petition
I for one will not and will continue to shoot them if it comes in range!

So say what you will but you've no opinion if you don't hunt!

steddyeddy

garv123 wrote: »

they are shot for food? I have never seen a pheasant going to waste..they are a far tastier food than chicken..chickens are killed everyday for food so whats wrong with a pheasant..if foxes and pheasants were left alone you would see a decrease in their population as foxes kill the young and hens and other birds rob all the eggs.

And just because one person says he would do something does not give you the right to tar everyone with the same brush..
stupid point u made there.



While I do not agree with his opinion about shooting something protected how can one persons post illustrate the difference between american and Irish hunting. Ye love using one persons opinion as the general opinion of an entire countries hunting community. The vast amount of Irish hunters have a huge respect for wildlife.

Im not but the hunting population are hardly combating the attitude held by hunters such as the ones below. I am an animal lover yet I go to great pains to seperate myself from peta as I believe they are nut cases. The irish hunting community should do the same with extremists in their ranks. How about dealing with the post above?

garv123

steddyeddy wrote: »

Im not but the hunting population are hardly combating the attitude held by hunters such as the ones below. I am an animal lover yet I go to great pains to seperate myself from peta as I believe they are nut cases. The irish hunting community should do the same with extremists in their ranks. How about dealing with the post above?

How do you suggest they deal with it? Other people who hunt cannot stop someone shooting where they have permission..

He said he could shoot cats even if they were protected, they aren't protected so its all talk...

On the other hand if he was boasting about shooting birds out of season/ protected species/lamping deer you can be damn sure other people who hunt would report him to the NPWS and gardaí... The vast high majority of the hunting community are also animal lovers and would separate themselves from people who go shooting protected species.

steddyeddy

Blay wrote: »

So we should just let everything run as it did before we came along?
Foxes kill chickens, ground nesting birds, sheep and their lambs...that's fine in your opinion because that's how it was years ago?

---

Can people that are anti hunting here please state if they have seen the damage that a fox can do?

I said previously Im not against protecting livestock from predators. I know foxes can destroy livestock.

dodderangler

Go onto hunting forum start a thread on protection of feral cats and see how many posts you get supporting it!
Feral cats do not deserve to be protected that's why I said I'd shoot them cuz they don't deserve to be protected
I have never shot an animal out of season or a protected species
Secondly as I stated and again I'm sayin it them feral cats do not deserve to be protected so I will continue to shoot them

Einhard

Discodog wrote: »

Killing an animal humanely is not cruelty. It is defined as causing unnecessary suffering. Are you unaware of Fox hunting, Stag hunting, Hare Coursing, etc which all involve animals suffering purely for pleasure & entertainment.

The hunters here will claim that every animal is killed instantly. If you talk to any wildlife rescue you will hear of countless animals that come in injured by being shot, trapped & snared. I have personally rescued shot badgers, foxes, otters, rabbits & even a seal ! Not every shot is perfect & not every shooter is a good shot.

The goalposts are being shifted somewhat. First the killing of animals by hunters was condemned; now it's the fact that some hunters don;t get clean shots, and cause the animal unnecessary suffering.

Also: you think that leading herds of cattle into an abbatoir for slaughter is humane?

Discodog

dodderangler wrote: »

Your slating everyone that hunts and puttin us all in one group
I enjoy hunting all hunters do hence why we do it
I enjoy killin animals and il admit I've shot animals that took more than one shot when it shouldn't and was disgusted in myself but the end result was the animal was killed and that's what I set out to do
It may have suffered for a second but was killed therefore result

I put you all in one group because you all enjoy "killin".

garv123 wrote: »

Saying cattle been killed and fair because its humane and then saying shooting of deer is cruel and not humane is just hypocritical.. Deer have much distress and less suffering as cattle as its dead before it even realises what happens. It may run 20yards with adrenaline even if the shot is a perfect heart/lung shot but it certainly didn't suffer as it was pure adrenaline.

That depends on how they are killed & who is doing the killing. I have dealt with dozens of badly injured deer as a result of hunting. I have also attended Deer culls with a marksman who is ex special forces & who uses his stalking skills for filming not killing for pleasure. We only killed a predetermined number of animals that were male & of the right age.

garv123 wrote: »

We don't decide..The law decides what we can shoot.

It appears that some of you are happy to break the law. I didn't exactly see a rush to condemn dodders comments.

dodderangler wrote: »

You people that don't shoot do not know what damage they do
Therefore you have no opinion!

So anyone who doesn't shoot has no right or say regarding the wildlife of our Country - you owning a gun is getting more worrying by the minute

It is a common mantra to accuse those who oppose killing as "Antis" or City folk. There is this incredibly arrogant idea that only hunters & "country people" know about wildlife.

Blay wrote: »

We should just allow the fox population to run wild and kill ground nesting birds,

The birds have been managing fine for thousands of years. The fox population will be balanced by nature to the available food - that is until we interfere.

Blay wrote: »

'No respect for the animal' Nooooo none at all...there isn't constant debate over in the shooting forum over which calibre/bullet weight to give the cleanest kill

233,000 firearms were licensed here in 2008 & it is estimated that there may be up to 150,000 unlicensed weapons. How many of those gun owners post in the Boards shooting forum ? It can only be a tiny percentage. Some of those that do are clearly enthusiasts but it doesn't mean that the other 300,000 + are.

I have to prove that I can handle the potentially dangerous motor car before I am allowed to drive one yet I can get a gun without any proof that I know how to shoot.

Blay wrote: »

Can people that are anti hunting here please state if they have seen the damage that a fox can do?

Yes I have & on many occasions. I also know sheep farmers who will not shoot a fox. I have kept Poultry in the countryside for years & never lost one to a fox - because I keep them secure. I have also heard all the myths & misinformation regarding how & why foxes kill.

You don't rescue as many foxes as I have without learning a bit.

dodderangler wrote: »

Go onto hunting forum start a thread on protection of feral cats and see how many posts you get supporting it!

We live in a democracy. Walk around the streets with a placard stating that you shoot cats

Einhard wrote: »

The goalposts are being shifted somewhat. First the killing of animals by hunters was condemned; now it's the fact that some hunters don;t get clean shots, and cause the animal unnecessary suffering.

Also: you think that leading herds of cattle into an abbatoir for slaughter is humane?

Well both can apply. The unnecessary killing is wrong. If you are going to kill a wild animal then you have a justifiable reason & not just that it's your hobby.

I think that there are more humane ways of doing it. Cattle used to be slaughtered locally which was a more humane option. But it is on a different level to an animal being chased for miles or taking hours to die.
The farmer is slaughtering his animals to feed his family & pay the bills unlike the hunter who is doing it for fun.

garv123

Discodog wrote: »

I put you all in one group because you all enjoy "killin".



That depends on how they are killed & who is doing the killing. I have dealt with dozens of badly injured deer as a result of hunting. I have also attended Deer culls with a marksman who is ex special forces & who uses his stalking skills for filming not killing for pleasure. We only killed a predetermined number of animals that were male & of the right age.

So you are against shooting of animals but you went on a cull?
Im sure if he didn't enjoy shooting deer they could have found plenty of people to do it. did he cry after every shot?:rolleyes:

Discodog wrote: »

It appears that some of you are happy to break the law. I didn't exactly see a rush to condemn dodders comments.

Cats are not protected and he didnt break any laws and if you read the other posts I said hunters would be the first to condemn someone for breaking laws and would report them to the npws and gardai



.

Discodog wrote: »

The birds have been managing fine for thousands of years. The fox population will be balanced by nature to the available food - that is until we interfere.

Infrastructure has already interfered with their habitats

Discodog wrote: »

233,000 firearms were licensed here in 2008 & it is estimated that there may be up to 150,000 unlicensed weapons. How many of those gun owners post in the Boards shooting forum ? It can only be a tiny percentage. Some of those that do are clearly enthusiasts but it doesn't mean that the other 300,000 + are.

You assume everyone who has a firearm uses it for hunting? There is a huge number of pistol and rifle target shooters and clay shooters.
You assume every person has one gun each.. most people have 2,3,4,5 guns for different purposes.
How many of the un-licensed firearms claimed to be here are used in drug related gangs, etc.. How many of them are belong to farmers that have them left abandoned since the new laws came in when they had to pay for them. the most common gun was the single barreled shotgun which every farmer had.

where did the pull that figure out of? someone didnt conduct a survey asking people if they had unlicensed firearms in their possession.

Discodog wrote: »

I have to prove that I can handle the potentially dangerous motor car before I am allowed to drive one yet I can get a gun without any proof that I know how to shoot.

Actually wrong. With a while now first time firearms owners have to complete a safety & competency course to ensure they can safely handle and use a gun. The vast majorities of supers wont even look at the application if this cert isn't included.

Discodog wrote: »

I think that there are more humane ways of doing it. Cattle used to be slaughtered locally which was a more humane option. But it is on a different level to an animal being chased for miles or taking hours to die.
The farmer is slaughtering his animals to feed his family & pay the bills unlike the hunter who is doing it for fun.

why is an animal been chased your only thing you can say about this? Animals who are shot arent chased taking hours to die.
The farmer could also chose another job to feed his family if you want to look at it that way..just like I can buy meet in the super market if i want.

Witcher

Discodog wrote: »

233,000 firearms were licensed here in 2008 & it is estimated that there may be up to 150,000 unlicensed weapons. How many of those gun owners post in the Boards shooting forum ? It can only be a tiny percentage. Some of those that do are clearly enthusiasts but it doesn't mean that the other 300,000 + are.

I very much doubt those 150,000 unlicenced firearms you claim are out there are used for any form of hunting or fieldsport.

I have to prove that I can handle the potentially dangerous motor car before I am allowed to drive one yet I can get a gun without any proof that I know how to shoot.

Incorrect, perhaps you should do some research?:)

I also know sheep farmers who will not shoot a fox.

The average farmer isn't going to have the correct calibre rifle to shoot a fox

Honestly at this stage you're clutching at straws to make shooters look like idiots.

Discodog

Blay wrote: »

Honestly at this stage you're clutching at straws to make shooters look like idiots.

garv123 wrote: »

So you are against shooting of animals but you went on a cull?
Im sure if he didn't enjoy shooting deer they could have found plenty of people to do it. did he cry after every shot?:rolleyes:

We chose him & he does it because he is the best & therefore it minimises the risk of the animal suffering. I am not against the necessary culling of certain species provided it is done by a supervised, licensed professional. The key word is necessary.

The issue regarding cats was that a poster stated that he would be willing to break the law.

I said we interfere. You say infrastructure interferes. Same thing

The gun figures came from here:

http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/cp/ireland

The point that I was making is that you cannot assume that the tiny proportion of gun owners that post on Boards represent the majority.

I am actually right in that no superintendent will ask for proof that you are a good shot !

Plenty of shot animals do take hours to die. I have treated many animals & birds that have been shot & not killed. Most people can see a difference between slaughtering animals as part of farming & killing for entertainment.

Witcher

Discodog wrote: »

I am actually right in that no superintendent will ask for proof that you are a good shot !

No...you're really not...there is actually a space on the FCA1 form that you have to fill in and show that you can actually use the firearm safely. You're talking to people that actually own firearms here. Consider that:)

.

garv123

Discodog wrote: »

We chose him & he does it because he is the best & therefore it minimises the risk of the animal suffering. I am not against the necessary culling of certain species provided it is done by a supervised, licensed professional. The key word is necessary.

The issue regarding cats was that a poster stated that he would be willing to break the law.

I said we interfere. You say infrastructure interferes. Same thing

The gun figures came from here:

http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/cp/ireland

The point that I was making is that you cannot assume that the tiny proportion of gun owners that post on Boards represent the majority.

I am actually right in that no superintendent will ask for proof that you are a good shot !

Plenty of shot animals do take hours to die. I have treated many animals & birds that have been shot & not killed. Most people can see a difference between slaughtering animals as part of farming & killing for entertainment.

Everyone has to be licensed to hunt deer? what makes his licence more special. Have a look at the shooting groups people on here can do. yeah he did long range shooting where wind/temp/drop and all had to be compensated but its called deer stalking not deer sniping. If you cant get within 200 yards of a deer for a safe shot you should forget the gun and practice your stalking.

who says its for just entertainment? I want to shoot a deer or pheasant because i want to eat it, cows are farmed because because they want to eat it, whats the difference? would it be better if i did it anyway and not enjoy it?


you said know how to shoot it, not be a good shot.

Einhard

Discodog wrote: »

Well both can apply. The unnecessary killing is wrong. If you are going to kill a wild animal then you have a justifiable reason & not just that it's your hobby.

So I take it your a vegetarian? Because eating meat is unneccessary.

But it is on a different level to an animal being chased for miles or taking hours to die.

I don't think anyone, except you, is talking about chasing animals for hours.

The farmer is slaughtering his animals to feed his family & pay the bills unlike the hunter who is doing it for fun.

And the farmer is eating meat for fun. As do I. And you in all probability. Yet you don't censure recrational meat eaters.

Discodog

garv123 wrote: »

Everyone has to be licensed to hunt deer? what makes his licence more special.

who says its for just entertainment?

In the UK you have to be licensed to be employed by the National Trust for Deer Culling - or you used to.

Do you eat foxes, crows, etc ? Not all shooting is purely for entertainment but a lot is & this thread is not just about shooting. Most of the people who follow the hunt do so as a recreation.

Discodog

Einhard wrote: »

So I take it your a vegetarian? Because eating meat is unneccessary.
I don't think anyone, except you, is talking about chasing animals for hours.
And the farmer is eating meat for fun. As do I. And you in all probability. Yet you don't censure recrational meat eaters.

Some may regard it as unnecessary & others would disagree. The thread is about the casual killing of animals. Just because it features lots of posts from shooters doesn't mean that other forms of hunting don't constitute the unnecessary killing of wild animals.

I am not a vegetarian & I don't equate the humane killing of livestock with the recreational killing of wildlife. By casual killing the OP wasn't referring to agriculture.

garv123

Discodog wrote: »

In the UK you have to be licensed to be employed by the National Trust for Deer Culling - or you used to.

Do you eat foxes, crows, etc ? Not all shooting is purely for entertainment but a lot is & this thread is not just about shooting. Most of the people who follow the hunt do so as a recreation.

Nope, dont eat foxes, grey crows or magpies but eat everything else.

you have seen so much you have obviously seen magpies hunting together either side of a ditch robbing smaller birds eggs.
Also shoot crows when around silage time if they are at bales or pits. drawing on bales doesn't work...neither do scarecrows.

shoot foxes and any mink that appears around the sheep farm and chicken houses my two biggest permissions are on.

Are you against the shooting of mink and the grey squirrel?

Discodog

garv123 wrote: »

you have seen so much you have obviously seen magpies hunting together either side of a ditch robbing smaller birds eggs.
Also shoot crows when around silage time if they are at bales or pits. drawing on bales doesn't work...neither do scarecrows.

shoot foxes and any mink that appears around the sheep farm and chicken houses my two biggest permissions are on.

Are you against the shooting of mink and the grey squirrel?

Magpies are doing what nature intended - you make them sound like murderers ! If silage bales are stored correctly they won't get damaged - mine never did.

Mink should be shot but only by people that are competent. Shooting Greys won't make a scrap of difference to their numbers. Like the Mink they were introduced by man. In any event we are now finding ways of protecting the Red Squirrels without harming the Greys.

dodderangler

I shoot grey crows magpies and any other corvid
And you assume that they are just left there cuz you believe every hunter shoots for fun and leaves their kill
But I don't leave them there I use them to feed my animals

garv123

Discodog wrote: »

Magpies are doing what nature intended - you make them sound like murderers ! If silage bales are stored correctly they won't get damaged - mine never did.

Mink should be shot but only by people that are competent. Shooting Greys won't make a scrap of difference to their numbers. Like the Mink they were introduced by man. In any event we are now finding ways of protecting the Red Squirrels without harming the Greys.

you make people who hunt sound like murderers:rolleyes:

How do you correctly store silage pits and bails to prevent crows from picking at them?

Its great that you love in a perfect world where everything you have and do turn out perfect and you've never seen anything harmed by an animal but unfortunately for other people they dont live in your perfect world..
yeah it was the tree huggers who set all the mink free who caused the problem. how ironic :rolleyes:

johngalway

I had lasagne for dinner today, I had myself a little happy dance before hand in the anticipation of the fun I was about to have.

Mooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo !

Some serious perfect bubble dwellers in this thread.

Longfellow

Huntin is in da blood of nearly all people. If ya ain't never hunted then ya can't know the thrill and excitement of the hunt/kill. It's the most natural thing in the world. Goat huntin with dogs is my thing. Ya can't beat it.
Here's abit of goat hntin in the video. I use around 5 dogs. I won't go after a billy though. Too dangerous for the dogs. Watch and enjoy:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ndTe0iULddw

Cocolola

Longfellow wrote: »

Huntin is in da blood of nearly all people. If ya ain't never hunted then ya can't know the thrill and excitement of the hunt/kill. It's the most natural thing in the world. Goat huntin with dogs is my thing. Ya can't beat it.
Here's abit of goat hntin in the video. I use around 5 dogs. I won't go after a billy though. Too dangerous for the dogs. Watch and enjoy:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ndTe0iULddw

I'm sorry but that's sick :mad: If that's the kind of end a goat meets at your hands then you should be ashamed of yourself. The way that goat was screaming when the dog was swinging at his leg? Where's the supposed "quick clean kill" we hear so much about? Interesting that the video cuts out after that, I wonder how long the mauling went on for. I hope your hunts are not the same.

Witcher

Cocolola wrote: »

Where's the supposed "quick clean kill" we hear so much about?

That only applies when the animal is shot. Hunting with dogs is a different story.

sunflower27

Cocolola wrote: »

I'm sorry but that's sick :mad: If that's the kind of end a goat meets at your hands then you should be ashamed of yourself. The way that goat was screaming when the dog was swinging at his leg? Where's the supposed "quick clean kill" we hear so much about? Interesting that the video cuts out after that, I wonder how long the mauling went on for. I hope your hunts are not the same.

I agree.

Getting enjoyment out of the suffering of others is a really bizarre concept to me. Can't help but feel these people should go and find themselves an actual life.:rolleyes: