Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by CharlieT

  1. At those prices thank the lord mine comes out of a spring.
  2. Ye Gods, you really are scraping the barrel in your quest to find and conjure up reasons to decry hunting. I've never read so much hearsay drivel in all my life. When the dreaded time comes, I chose to have our hunt staff come out to me and put down my horses and dogs with a simple shot to the brain. I am convinced this is the most compassionate way end their life, at home without stress, in surrounding they know and feel at ease in. As I just said, I can't think of a kinder or more compassionate way to do it. There's far too many people in this world basing their views on hearsay, unfounded assumptions or something they've read on the internet. Don't fall into that trap.
  3. Just a little side note on the text I've highlighted. I've regularly ridden to hounds for over 60 years (with a variety of packs I may add) and never once and I mean never, witnessed of even heard whispers of such treatment. On the contrary, hunting is all about hound work and as such, the hounds welfare is paramount. I would dearly love to know what sort of inappropriate treatment you speak of being meted out by and I quote you "many" packs. Your above statement beggars belief.
  4. I rather think this forum needs a change of name...................how about "Anti Field Sports Watch", where all and sundry can post disgraceful, unsubstantiated claptrap with the sole purpose of bringing about the end of country sports in general.
  5. I would imagine you, a keen shooting man with regrettably no knowledge whatsoever of other field sports, except for hear say gobbledygook, decrying the perfectly legal and humane actions of another.
  6. Take from the ITV news channel............. Secret cameras have recorded huntsmen shooting and killing hounds that had been used for hunting. The pictures, filmed by anti-hunting groups the Hunt Investigation Team and Keep the Ban and shared exclusively with ITV News, is the first time footage of a hunt shooting its hounds has been shown publicly. Hounds can be killed for several reasons including being too old to hunt, or if they get ill or injured. The practice is not illegal. The pictures were taken at the kennels of the Duke of Beaufort's Hunt in Badminton, Gloucestershire. The Duke of Beaufort's Hunt told ITV News that its hounds are "humanely euthanised" if they cannot be rehomed. It added that the majority of hounds are "unsuitable for rehoming" because "they are not house-trained and have only ever been used to living in a pack environment". The secret footage, recorded over several periods between April and September, shows four separate examples of hounds being shot: In two cases, a huntsman is seen putting a gun to the head of the hound and killing it. In another, the hound appears to be unwell and is carried onto the grass by the hunt staff before being shot.
  7. The RSPCA does indeed put down dogs they can't find homes for. The latest figure I read was over 7000 a year. Perhaps 1282 should offer them his magic wand, or is it that the RSPCA is more realistic in that putting them down is the kindest thing to do.
  8. If you hunt why on earth are you so vehemently against it.
  9. Exactly and we'll have the likes of 12guage82 and his like to thank for it.
  10. I find it truly incredible that good old shooting men, who happily shoot deer or breed and nurture pheasants for the sole purpose of shooting them for fun/hobby/sport, call it what you will, feel outraged by someone putting down their own dog with a pistol. Some posters really have lost touch with reality and as for signing that petition, well I'm dumbstruck.
  11. As a somewhat thick farmer not versed in such matters, I bow to your more educated knowledge. However, as FELWG, shooting organisations and the shooting press have been beating the drum about statutory guidance for a couple of years I presumed most shooters would have known about it. Just for interest.............. The Policing and Crime Act 2017 makes provision for the Home Secretary to issue statutory guidance to the police on their firearms licensing functions. The police will have a duty to have regard to the guidance when they exercise their firearms licensing functions.
  12. But it will. The Government consultation on statutory guidance ended on 17th September last year and draft statutory guidance has since been updated (23rd August) and published.
  13. Simply because all they are required to do is complete the police medical pro forma from the patients medical record.
  14. To be fair, GP's are are only required to state that the applicant does not/has not suffered from specific conditions. They most certainly are not asked to give their opinion.
  15. Dave, I believe that is what is due happen soon when "the guidance" becomes statutory.
  16. Exactly. All that is required is for the police to actually follow the procedures that are currently in place.
  17. It becomes obvious when reading the survey that the PCC's are backing the police and FELWG in their quest for full cost recovery. A very weighted survey which seeks to solicit draconian replies from Joe public who didn't even realise that people actually had a firearm for recreational purposes. A completely pointless exercise designed with one end in mind.
  18. You don't actually shoot then. Shame, you should try it as it's tremendous fun.
  19. Gordon Bennett indeed............ poor blighters been standing on his peg for the last 2 years trying to hit one !!!
  20. CharlieT


    Why should serious questions be asked. Worst case scenario is that this case is one of the 1 in 5000 false positives. What you seem to refuse to accept is that at the moment it's the only test we have and as far as I'm concerned it's an acceptable error rate. Heartbreaking for stock owners, but necessary for the greater good.
  21. CharlieT

    Variocele op.

    Has it shrunk or has the other actually outgrown the other. Varicoceles cause the affected testicle, usually the left, to grow more slowly.
  22. CharlieT


    It's the best that's currently available for live animals and to be truthful is acceptably accurate. There is more chance of a false negative than a false positive with around 20% - 25% of false negatives, whereas real world practical results show that only 1 in 5000 is a false positive. The current testing regime where the whole herd is tested gives a good indication of bTB prevalence in the herd, which is why the whole herd is put under restriction with repeat testing thus enabling further testing to pick up any false negatives. The only reason this particular animal avoided being killed straight away was because the owner used the legal system, a bit like Mr Packham and the GL fiasco.
  23. CharlieT


    I don't see how it can be political in any way shape or form. The animal tested positive and as such the law of the land states it must be destroyed.
  24. To be fair to LB, none of my clothing has a makers logo, but then I don't wear tracksuits or trainers
  • Create New...