Thunderbird Posted November 1, 2012 Report Share Posted November 1, 2012 whats the difference between breeding a sporting quarry and breeding in captivity for food? Well it's self-evident isn't it? One is one and one is the other. Pigeons also aren't bred for food (at least the ones we shoot aren't). al4x to be fair he has pointed out the difference in his 'abattoir charging people to come in and shoot animals for sport' analogy. I know the end result is not different but in all honesty the means are. I think you'll have to agree to differ and leave it at that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ollie Posted November 1, 2012 Report Share Posted November 1, 2012 Problem is you said slight difference.... game birds are bred... at great expense.... to be shot... FOR FUN... by well heeled chaps in tweed who pay a lot of money for the privilage of doing it... not for food, that is just a by product, or for medical research This is the same rubbish the Antis use to try and gain support from non shooters Not all game is bred, there are a lot of game birds which are wild. Grouse, Woodcock, Snipe, Grey Partridge, Wildfowl. I agree with a lot of posts which state that it is not just the well heeled; on our syndicate it is just a friends and family shoot and everyone pitches in financially and with the feeding etc. Can everybody please get on, at the end of the day we are all interested in country sports and we should look out for each other. If there are any Anti's reading this they will be having a great laugh to themselves. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
al4x Posted November 1, 2012 Report Share Posted November 1, 2012 i have a problem breeding animals to be used as target practice... are you telling me that's not what you do? There is a side to this with stalking that if you manage a population for a sustainable harvest then you are doing exactly the same thing, keeping the number at a level where you can satisfy your own target practice requirement. We release birds to supplement a wild population so I guess some fit your description some don't. Personally I have experience of a fair few sides to shooting as a sport and also have a farming background so have a fair idea what actually goes on and I would choose a pheasant over a free range chicken any day of the week for the table. Ollie there is an anti reading it he is well in our midst Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
castletyne Posted November 1, 2012 Report Share Posted November 1, 2012 Nope, many more cull beasts are shot than trophies. Just pointing out that game shooting is not the only form of shooting where people pay money just for the thrill of it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
al4x Posted November 1, 2012 Report Share Posted November 1, 2012 Just pointing out that game shooting is not the only form of shooting where people pay money just for the thrill of it its the same deal whether reared or wild its just some people can put an odd justification to slaking their killing requirement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
e2000e2000e Posted November 1, 2012 Report Share Posted November 1, 2012 I just wanted to speak up for abattoirs in all this, I keep a few animals, pigs and sheep, and I take them to a small abattoir at the back of a butchers shop, and may animals are treated well right upto a bolt to the head and it's lights out. Halal slaughter isn't always as bad as its made out to be, whilst this country dosn't require pre-stunning for animals for religious slaughter many Halal animals are pre-stunned and its just blessed by the Imman! Oh loads of fastfood chicken is from Thailand and slaughtered under Halal rules, and conditions in life are worse, avoid. Eat pork and don't worry about Halal (Can you tell I keep pigs?) I understand what VIPA is on about to, we can't really use the arguement that game shooting is about food production, if we want free range pheasent this is not the cheapest, most effective or even humane way of achiving it. I have no problem with game shooting, the animals have a great life, a good death, shoots boost biodivisty, poors money in to rural communities, its a great passtime for all involved! I think we need to justfy shooting in those terms and be above reproach on welfare issues, ensuring all meat is used, and seen to be used! I think we would loose the arguement that it is about ethical food production, although shot game is an ethical meat, but the arguement that game shooting is nothing but a positive for the British countryside that's an arguement we can win! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CharlieT Posted November 1, 2012 Report Share Posted November 1, 2012 Whilst many see nothing wrong with breeding and raising of birds for the sole purpose of providing a living target to shoot at others, understandably, find it morally questionable. Some find the practice repugnant. Vipa actually has a point and has obviously given the subject some thought. In fact there is a very good argument to be made in defense of Vipers side of the debate. Is it really morally right to breed and release an animal as a live target for a shooters enjoyment. Over a 100 years ago our forefathers were enlightened enough to ban the use of live pigeon trap shooting yet today we still continue to release millions of pheasants and partridges as targets and call it sport. We must not get carried away trying to justifying this practice in the name of food production, conservation or to satisfy some inbuilt primeval hunter's instinct. These reasons are all whitewash and a smoke screen. Birds are worth peanuts and have to be shipped abroad to even find a market for them, hardly an economic excuse to shoot them. The actual conservation benefits pheasant shooting delivers is, to my mind, highly questionable. Pheasants, by their very nature, are ground scratching birds. They erode banks and hedges, compete with native birds for natural food and encourage the over breeding of Raptors' which, when all the pheasants have been shot or caught up are unable to find food. The few employed in the industry would, I could suggest, be better served working in agriculture putting ethical food on our tables and those who are most vociferous about the conservation work they do, would, if they cared as deeply as they would have us believe, do it anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
castletyne Posted November 1, 2012 Report Share Posted November 1, 2012 (edited) Whilst many see nothing wrong with breeding and raising of birds for the sole purpose of providing a living target to shoot at others, understandably, find it morally questionable. Some find the practice repugnant. Vipa actually has a point and has obviously given the subject some thought. In fact there is a very good argument to be made in defense of Vipers side of the debate. Is it really morally right to breed and release an animal as a live target for a shooters enjoyment. Over a 100 years ago our forefathers were enlightened enough to ban the use of live pigeon trap shooting yet today we still continue to release millions of pheasants and partridges as targets and call it sport. We must not get carried away trying to justifying this practice in the name of food production, conservation or to satisfy some inbuilt primeval hunter's instinct. These reasons are all whitewash and a smoke screen. Birds are worth peanuts and have to be shipped abroad to even find a market for them, hardly an economic excuse to shoot them. The actual conservation benefits pheasant shooting delivers is, to my mind, highly questionable. Pheasants, by their very nature, are ground scratching birds. They erode banks and hedges, compete with native birds for natural food and encourage the over breeding of Raptors' which, when all the pheasants have been shot or caught up are unable to find food. The few employed in the industry would, I could suggest, be better served working in agriculture putting ethical food on our tables and those who are most vociferous about the conservation work they do, would, if they cared as deeply as they would have us believe, do it anyway. If this is starting to be the views of other shooters then I think shooting is doomed These are the same things the antis say... its only a few farmers could they not just get another job or move why kill badgers Edited November 1, 2012 by glen fox Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
poppythedog Posted November 1, 2012 Report Share Posted November 1, 2012 Whilst many see nothing wrong with breeding and raising of birds for the sole purpose of providing a living target to shoot at others, understandably, find it morally questionable. Some find the practice repugnant. Vipa actually has a point and has obviously given the subject some thought. In fact there is a very good argument to be made in defense of Vipers side of the debate. Is it really morally right to breed and release an animal as a live target for a shooters enjoyment. Over a 100 years ago our forefathers were enlightened enough to ban the use of live pigeon trap shooting yet today we still continue to release millions of pheasants and partridges as targets and call it sport. We must not get carried away trying to justifying this practice in the name of food production, conservation or to satisfy some inbuilt primeval hunter's instinct. These reasons are all whitewash and a smoke screen. Birds are worth peanuts and have to be shipped abroad to even find a market for them, hardly an economic excuse to shoot them. The actual conservation benefits pheasant shooting delivers is, to my mind, highly questionable. Pheasants, by their very nature, are ground scratching birds. They erode banks and hedges, compete with native birds for natural food and encourage the over breeding of Raptors' which, when all the pheasants have been shot or caught up are unable to find food. The few employed in the industry would, I could suggest, be better served working in agriculture putting ethical food on our tables and those who are most vociferous about the conservation work they do, would, if they cared as deeply as they would have us believe, do it anyway. Might I ask exactly what sort of shooting do you do? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
al4x Posted November 1, 2012 Report Share Posted November 1, 2012 he runs a driven shoot as far as I know Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thunderbird Posted November 1, 2012 Report Share Posted November 1, 2012 Truths, however uncomfortable they may be, are still true. Just because someone doesn't blindly support and enthuse about every aspect of shooting doesn't make them some sort of scab or anti. I personally have no desire to shoot a deer purely to hang the antlers on my wall, fair play to those who do, it's their choice. The reason for me not wanting to do it is not a 'moral' one,it just doesn't float my boat. Shoot a deer for culling/food yes, but as a trophy head, no. It's just me, doesn't make me an anti, does it? I happily support driven shooting, I think it's a great day out. But I think we have to get real about our motives. Be they moral or otherwise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dunkield Posted November 1, 2012 Report Share Posted November 1, 2012 Trophy deer get eaten too. Just saying... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
al4x Posted November 1, 2012 Report Share Posted November 1, 2012 If they go off to the taxidermist though many don't Just saying............. When you disect things the whole meat eating food chain is pretty much the same its fairly unpalatable if you look at Bambi and donald duck etc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dunkield Posted November 1, 2012 Report Share Posted November 1, 2012 Only head goes to the taxidermist not the whole animal I have sent two and ate the rest and very tasty they were too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
al4x Posted November 1, 2012 Report Share Posted November 1, 2012 depends if they are caped I certainly know a few CWD where the whole animal has gone so as to make sure the taxidermist could get them right Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dunkield Posted November 1, 2012 Report Share Posted November 1, 2012 Both mine were caped by me This is a bit like tennis isn't it... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shaun4860 Posted November 1, 2012 Report Share Posted November 1, 2012 I can see where Vipa is coming from, you might not agree with him, but they are his opinions, which he is allowed, thats the whole point of a public forum. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
al4x Posted November 1, 2012 Report Share Posted November 1, 2012 Indeed quite amusing and a thorough relief from the rest of the tripe in this thread, bet your best practice gralloching had to go out the window though Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dunkield Posted November 1, 2012 Report Share Posted November 1, 2012 Yeah it's more like gynecology training, bearing in mind they like to keep the pelt from the shoulder forward completely intact Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thunderbird Posted November 1, 2012 Report Share Posted November 1, 2012 Trophy deer get eaten too. Just saying... You're right of course and I know they do. But I am specifically saying I don't want to shoot one specifically for the trophy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CharlieT Posted November 1, 2012 Report Share Posted November 1, 2012 he runs a driven shoot as far as I know You are indeed correct Sir. I just love pointing out there are two sides to every argument. I can see where Vipa is coming from, you might not agree with him, but they are his opinions, which he is allowed, thats the whole point of a public forum. Which was exactly the feelings behind my earlier post. Whilst I love my job and would passionately defend pheasant shooting I am not so blinkered as to not try and understand another point of view, particularly opposing views from a fellow shooter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
al4x Posted November 1, 2012 Report Share Posted November 1, 2012 I suppose you do fit the absolutely loaded tweed wearing type Charlie that Vipa has the main grudge against Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonathanL Posted November 1, 2012 Report Share Posted November 1, 2012 slight difference.... game birds are bred... at great expense.... to be shot... FOR FUN... by well heeled chaps in tweed who pay a lot of money for the privilage of doing it... not for food, that is just a by product, or for medical research! When it comes down to it though, all meat production is essentially unnecessary, hence, only exists 'for fun'. We eat meat in this country because we can - not really because we need to. Meat is eaten for personal enjoyment which means we breed animals purely so that they can be killed for our personal gratification. Dead is dead and I see no real moral difference between shooting something for fun and not eating it (although somone else probably will) and having someone else kill something so we can eat it for fun. J. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonathanL Posted November 1, 2012 Report Share Posted November 1, 2012 You seem to have formed a view that I don't agree with shooting for fun... that is not the case at all... If I bought venison from a game dealer I would not know anything about the meat on my plate.. I'd save a lot of money but that would defeat MY primary goal.. my secondary goal is to enjoy the stalk! You would know a hell of a lot more about it than you would about something you bought from Asda. All venison is stalked and shot in the countryside so it will all have been subject to essentially identical welfare standards as a deer you could have shot your self. Given the above as being the case the only variable is your enjoyment of 'stalking'. Of course, by the word 'stalking' you actually mean killing as you could 'stalk' deer with a camera or just with nothing if you so chose. So, in essence, your reason for shooting your own venison is because you enjoy the shooting/killing part of it. J. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonathanL Posted November 1, 2012 Report Share Posted November 1, 2012 Now... I think I was 11 the last time I resorted to name calling because I couldn't win an argument! Thank You TB... at last! Simple... because deer are wild animals, pigeon are a pest and a threat to crops. Free range chicken are bred specifically and solely for food... pheasant are bred solely to be used as target practice. Why is there a moral difference here? It is, strictly speaking, unnecessary for us to eat chicken and is equally unnecessary for us to shoot game birds. Surely any application of logic when coming to a decision of morals would lead you to the conclusion that if one is immoral then so should the other be? J. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts