Jump to content

Workin in a antis house


Grundog
 Share

Recommended Posts

I suppose you do fit the absolutely loaded tweed wearing type Charlie that Vipa has the main grudge against ;)

 

And there's another subject that erodes the little will to live I have left.

Quite why so many find tweeds "strange" is beyond me. We happily wear tweed sports jackets, overcoats, trousers and hats to go about our daily lives but the very thought of wearing anything tweed to shoot in sends shivers down peoples spines. I suppose it's a sign of the times and the shell suit generation !

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 156
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

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.

 

Like I've said though, isn't that just a moral cloak to hide behind, when you think about it? Eating meat in 2012, in one of the most developed places in the history of mankind is, to all intents and purposes, redundant. We do not need it. We do it for pleasure and not a great deal else. Given that then surely a venison steak on your plate is morally exactly the same as the antlers of the deer it came from on the wall?

 

J.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Like I've said though, isn't that just a moral cloak to hide behind, when you think about it? Eating meat in 2012, in one of the most developed places in the history of mankind is, to all intents and purposes, redundant. We do not need it. We do it for pleasure and not a great deal else. Given that then surely a venison steak on your plate is morally exactly the same as the antlers of the deer it came from on the wall?

 

 

No no no - it isn't a moral cloak in any way shape or form. I very deliberately omitted to 'cloak' what I said in any moral sentiment because I did it to illustrate the very point that I do not have a moral issue with something that others might have, I simply don't want to do it because it doesn't interest me.

 

My general and overarching point being that attempting to justify shooting on moral grounds is inadvisable.

 

In fact justifying it at all might be inadvisable too. Just get the hell on with it and enjoy it!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

 

you'd think so but Park deer also get sold as venison and that can be very different to wild stalking.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

you'd think so but Park deer also get sold as venison and that can be very different to wild stalking.

 

This is true but it is essentially no different, is it not? The deer concerned don't know the difference and the way they are shot is no different. There are no welfare issues that are different, as far as I'm aware.

 

J.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

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.

 

Actually Jonathan, we are omnivores... We are designed to eat both vegetation and meat. Because of our design the best source of protein and fats which are both essential to health.

 

Yes, you can cut out meat and become a veggie but it isn't actually that easy to get he protein and fats we need without meat.

 

I do not eat meat just because I can or because it is fun... Nature has seen fit to reward us for eating, reproducing etc... If it didn't feel good we wouldn't do it and more than likely die out... I eat meat because that is what my body craves tomsatisfy it's need for essential nutrients.. Remember.. Eating meat is not a life choice as is not eating meat (if that makes any sense at all) in other words.. The normal state of play is that we eat meat & vegetation. To cut meat out of the diet is to make a choice to adopt an abnormal state.

 

Anyhoo.. Whilst I appreciate you may find it difficult to understand, please read back as to my reasons for starting stalking in the first place. To me it is very much about harvesting my own meat first and foremost... The upside is I really enjoy getting out there and living in the forest for a few days at a time to accomplish my goals and I enjoy the hunt too.. I have the same DNA as the rest of you after all! (Alex may disagree based on my occupation :-)). This is NOT the same as stalking for pleasure with the meat being the bonus.

 

As I have said time and time again (and it's nice to see a few peeps can see my point of view and accept that it is mine and I'm entitled to it) I have absolutely no issues at all with hunting and killing live quarry for fun, food or whatever but I cannot accept specifically rearing birds just sothey can be shot for fun..

 

If you cannot see there is a difference between this and other types of shooting or rearing animals for food then I'm sorry we obviously have very different moral compasses.. That being said, I have no problem others doing it, I just don't find it very palatable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

J.

Halleluyah.....how do you spell halleluja?Second attempt I think?

If you're not enjoying that bacon sarnie that someone killed for your enjoyment,then STOP EATING IT!

I've analysed this for a long time,ever since an anti accused me of killing for fun,and it wasn't an opinion I'd given much thought to prior to this.But I had to admit they were right.I don't relish the death of anything,but have to accept that I love shooting,and if it means something has to die to satisfy that urge then I can live with that,as Gimlet rightly said,we are predators.We even shoot foxes to protect the birds we raise to shoot for fun,and this too sits easy with me,but it wouldn't if they weren't eatent(the birds,not the foxes).Saying that I will also happily shoot corvids,some of which are ferret food,but the majority are ditched.

Edited by Scully
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I cannot accept specifically rearing birds just so they can be shot for fun..

 

 

 

I don't agree with the use of the word 'fun'.

 

Apart from clays/targets I don't think I've ever shot anything for fun.

 

Don't get me wrong I enjoy shooting, and I take pleasure in doing it, but I don't think I've ever killed anything for fun.

To me the word fun depicts a jokey/carefree/light hearted state of mind.

Of course I like a bit of banter when shooting, but when the birds are flying the concentration kicks in and my main priority is to go for a quick, clean kill. I actually take the killing of something quite seriously, as I suspect most shooters do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i dont think this thread is going anywhere,we all have our morals and differences and to be honest i accept all and agree on both sides.

i can understand where vipa is coming from which is he,s oppinion ( for which he is entiltled ) as are we all

we all ( or at least i hope ) joined this forum to discuss and talk about the sport (s) we love, of course there are going to be disagreements between one another but after all said and done we love our sport so just enjoy it and be moral with one another

 

AND HAPPY HUNTING

Edited by ROBLATCH
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't agree with the use of the word 'fun'.

 

Apart from clays/targets I don't think I've ever shot anything for fun.

 

Don't get me wrong I enjoy shooting, and I take pleasure in doing it, but I don't think I've ever killed anything for fun.

To me the word fun depicts a jokey/carefree/light hearted state of mind.

Of course I like a bit of banter when shooting, but when the birds are flying the concentration kicks in and my main priority is to go for a quick, clean kill. I actually take the killing of something quite seriously, as I suspect most shooters do.

I don't like the word 'fun' either Poontang,but with me it's because I associate the word with 'sport' which to me signifies opponents competing against each other on a level footing;a good description of clay shooting but not one I'd associate with live quarry shooting.

I have been accused of killing for 'sport', or 'fun' by several antis,and it wasn't a view I'd given much thought to for most of my shooting life,but it made me stop and think,and I had to come to the conclusion they were possibly right.As I've already stated,I don't relish the death of anything,and if I've given the impression I go around killing things with a big clown grin on my face then I sincerely apologise,as I agree with you when you say most shooters take the killing of anything seriously.

The fox cubs we slaughterd earlier in the year(which I was quite reluctant to do)were killed partly because the landowner wanted rid,but also partly because we intended to buy birds to raise and then shoot later in the year.I can live with this;it's something I'm prepared to do to follow my choices of how I mean to live my life,regardless of who opposes me.

I don't agree however,that we need to eat meat in this day and age(in this country anyhow)to survive;I know many vegetarians and vegans who thrive perfectly happily without meat in their lives(a former babysitter is a vegan,but one of the sane ones,who realises it's her lifestyle choice and not one which suits everyone)and therefore in my opinion those antis who eat meat and yet despise me for what I do,are hypocrates.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not sure there is much hypocrisy in this thread. I am also unsure there is much 'condemning' of certain sectors of shooting either.

 

Apart, that is, from people condemning (or maybe, challenging) others for not sharing their view, but then this is the Internet.

 

I'm afraid the more balanced viewpoint is coming across from one side and not the other at the moment.

 

Like I have said, applying morals to this is like puking to windward.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

dont think anyone has a problem with someone who says one form of shooting is not for them but to say that all game birds are bred to be shot by the well healed is just not true

 

To be fair some of them still look quite ill... :whistling:

Sorry about that, couldn't resist.

 

Yes, ahem, I agree. The last pheasant shoot I was on was attended by a bunch of scruffy tramps if I'm honest ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To the OP, let us know how you get on with the customer :good:

 

 

 

The has been generally ok for the last few days I put a few points across as did he , turns out his brother lives in countryside in Cornwall and also goes shooting he has put his point across but says he still has his opinions about what we do nothing against me just doesn't believe that killing is a good sport .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ah, proper toffs then?

 

Indeed you can spot the proper ones when the breeks are obvious hand downs the jacket is a parka type and the gun is a side by side that looks beaten to hell but if you look closely it will be a Boss or Purdey. The owner of the estate here is an absolute classic

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So the best way to end this thread is who is out on driven game this weekend? I am on a small local farm where we have carefully put down 300 birds and looked after them up till now. Just about to knock up a cauldron load of venison and juniper berry casserole to keep everyone fed and I know there is a rather large pheasant and partridge pie coming mix that lot with a tot or two of sloe gin and I can't wait.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

dont think anyone has a problem with someone who says one form of shooting is not for them but to say that all game birds are bred to be shot by the well healed is just not true

 

Are we really clinging on to the well heeled part of my post? is that all that is left? I only threw that part in for effect and because of the fact that most commercial shoots are only affordable by the well heeled.. One of my acquaintainces who beats on a shoot over in Penrith gets picked up in a Range Rover Overfinch with what must be 50 grands worth of walnut furniture built into the luggage compartment to store the Cristal Champaigne!

 

Soooooo take the last seven words off your sentence if it makes you feel better!

 

Alex... have a good shoot... sounds like it will a good day out for all. :good:

Edited by Vipa
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...