Salop Matt Posted April 13, 2015 Report Share Posted April 13, 2015 Only if it was injured in an act of kindness to end suffering but other wise, No its not my thing ! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dunkield Posted April 13, 2015 Report Share Posted April 13, 2015 Maybe you should ask her if she would enjoy shooting a couple of hundred pigeons? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richie10 Posted April 13, 2015 Report Share Posted April 13, 2015 Maybe you should ask her if she would enjoy shooting a couple of hundred pigeons? True and why take a pic of a 100 pigeons and pose with them. Cannot see any difference myself. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
islandgun Posted April 13, 2015 Report Share Posted April 13, 2015 ok but why take a picture of it , and that was not a pop at you . i can not see any reason why if it was human dispatch , its not showing any respect to the animal. this is just my view. Difficult one isnt it, the picture does look posey and somehow doesnt sit right but if it was a red deer wouldnt raise any eyebrows, if it had the caption "hunter braves great danger to cull Giraffe with deadly mad giraffe disease and saves herd" then it would be great. I was invited to go kangaroo shooting in W Australia but declined due to the fact that to me they were a rare zoo animal, doesnt make any sense Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WelshMike Posted April 13, 2015 Report Share Posted April 13, 2015 I dont have any objection to to the shooting of such species in the right situations, however it isnt something that I could shoot. That also applies to lions, tigers, elephants etc. Personal choice only. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rim Fire Posted April 13, 2015 Report Share Posted April 13, 2015 (edited) I thought this was a SPORTING PICTURES section Edited April 13, 2015 by Rim Fire Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrpip Posted April 13, 2015 Report Share Posted April 13, 2015 wonder what was used as a back stop Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
motty Posted April 13, 2015 Report Share Posted April 13, 2015 I thought this was a SPORTING PICTURES section It is. To my mind, it is no different to shooting a fox or rabbit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ollie Posted April 13, 2015 Report Share Posted April 13, 2015 When these things are posted on here everyone gets on their high horse (pardun the pun) about shooting these majestic beasts; but to me this isn't any more majestic than a big red stag in the highlands or a large fallow in a lowland wood. Like a lot of animals I'm sure Giraffe's need culled if an area gets overpopulated and they are causing problems for young trees etc. I'm sure the hunter paid a lot of money which will be re-invested into stopping poachers and I'm sure none of the animal went to waste with the local villagers. I have posed with a lot of animals I have shot from the humble pigeon to a large billy goat, so I am not going to start criticising other hunters for posing with their kill. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rim Fire Posted April 13, 2015 Report Share Posted April 13, 2015 The old saying comes to mind when in ROME Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cooooper Posted April 13, 2015 Report Share Posted April 13, 2015 True and why take a pic of a 100 pigeons and pose with them. Cannot see any difference myself. totally agree, not many wild animals in this country we don,t hunt of sorts. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
al4x Posted April 13, 2015 Report Share Posted April 13, 2015 wonder what was used as a back stop Thats what I thought when it looked like a head shot The simple thing is go back to what we do and you see "shooting and conservation"mentioned a lot, if you shoot a lot of these animals you then put a value on them. Once there is a value they tend to do far better as in populations get managed and they need to be worth money to the locals to stop them poisoning / poaching them. It is a subsistence way of life so if they eat their crops they do starve which opens the eyes a little. Most of the meat harvested in instances like this will go to local villages, its easy to condemn but its very much like fluffy cute fox syndrome Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jimmydean Posted April 13, 2015 Report Share Posted April 13, 2015 When we encourage the next generation to take up our sport would we say - shoot anything you want - its just shooting? Or do we encourage them to think and be positive members of our community or just brainless morons? All I can say is, be responsible or our sport is dead. AS Ernest Marples once said - you know it makes sense and, if it doesnt, why are you shooting ? Incidentally pigeons are pests - where does it say that giraffes are; more than, for example Elephants, lions etc ? Come on chaps - this is wrong, whoever writes the script, or lose your sport. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spandit Posted April 13, 2015 Report Share Posted April 13, 2015 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
islandgun Posted April 13, 2015 Report Share Posted April 13, 2015 thats a very very big badger Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
motty Posted April 13, 2015 Report Share Posted April 13, 2015 When we encourage the next generation to take up our sport would we say - shoot anything you want - its just shooting? Or do we encourage them to think and be positive members of our community or just brainless morons? All I can say is, be responsible or our sport is dead. AS Ernest Marples once said - you know it makes sense and, if it doesnt, why are you shooting ? Incidentally pigeons are pests - where does it say that giraffes are; more than, for example Elephants, lions etc ? Come on chaps - this is wrong, whoever writes the script, or lose your sport. Unless you live where the giraffe was shot or know the whole story behind it, I don't understand how you can say it is wrong to shoot one. As Al4x has mentioned, this is similar to the bunny huggers not wanting a cute and cuddly fox to be shot. Anyway, I don't think anyone has said that we should be allowed to shoot anything we like, but in certain countries, things differ. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jimmydean Posted April 13, 2015 Report Share Posted April 13, 2015 Unless you live where the giraffe was shot or know the whole story behind it, I don't understand how you can say it is wrong to shoot one. As Al4x has mentioned, this is similar to the bunny huggers not wanting a cute and cuddly fox to be shot. Anyway, I don't think anyone has said that we should be allowed to shoot anything we like, but in certain countries, things differ. You know what you are saying is 'shooting talk', killing things is a big deal; life is important - you dont just kill everything - all killing has to be explained, if not justified. Pigeons - ok I understand, foxes, them too, rabbits - no problem; giraffes - come on, its a long necked tree eating herbivore. No one eats giraffes do they? Its a big beautiful wild creature - leave the ******* thing alone. Not everything on the planet needs to be shot, or am I in the wrong group of unthinking people. There has to be a reason - not just to kill it. Shooting has to evolve into a justified explanation of the right to take life or we are not just reprehensible but we should be extinct, like many of the species we wish to protect for our future 'sport'. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
motty Posted April 13, 2015 Report Share Posted April 13, 2015 You know what you are saying is 'shooting talk', killing things is a big deal; life is important - you dont just kill everything - all killing has to be explained, if not justified. Pigeons - ok I understand, foxes, them too, rabbits - no problem; giraffes - come on, its a long necked tree eating herbivore. No one eats giraffes do they? Its a big beautiful wild creature - leave the ******* thing alone. Not everything on the planet needs to be shot, or am I in the wrong group of unthinking people. There has to be a reason - not just to kill it. Shooting has to evolve into a justified explanation of the right to take life or we are not just reprehensible but we should be extinct, like many of the species we wish to protect for our future 'sport'. I shoot things because I get satisfaction from it. If these things NEED to be shot is of a secondary consideration. Your attitude seems slightly bizarre to me. There is no REAL justification for rearing pheasants to shot - other than for enjoyment. That doesn't mean we shouldn't do it. May I ask why you shoot? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FalconFN Posted April 13, 2015 Report Share Posted April 13, 2015 I shoot things because I get satisfaction from it. If these things NEED to be shot is of a secondary consideration. Your attitude seems slightly bizarre to me. There is no REAL justification for rearing pheasants to shot - other than for enjoyment. That doesn't mean we shouldn't do it. May I ask why you shoot? We all have our own moral codes but I see things very differently, I enjoy shooting but shooting something for the sake of it, or because you 'can' is distasteful to me. Personally I only feel comfortable shooting quarry if the act of shooting does some good to the wider area - whether that is to the farmer or wildlife in general, and generally I shoot tasty stuff. I know people that will shoot anything that is on the list, fair enough, but that isn't for me. I grew up ferreting and shooting on the South Downs but I was also, probably more so, into natural history so I like to see a good balance of animals around me. There are lots of things I don't shoot - driven game, wildfowl (although I'd take a wild duck for the pot), jays, hares or waders and I will only shoot magpies, jackdaws and rooks if there are too many in an area of they are causing specific problems. The problem with many of the large South African hunting safaris is that they are primarily there for the hunter and not the wildlife. I'm sure they do some good - even if it is just to protect their income stream, but google a couple of big game hunting websites and you'll see that conservation is very much an afterthought. Here's a price list if you are interested...http://www.dalerwaventures.com/price_list.htm Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fenboy Posted April 14, 2015 Report Share Posted April 14, 2015 We all have our own moral codes but I see things very differently, I enjoy shooting but shooting something for the sake of it, or because you 'can' is distasteful to me. Personally I only feel comfortable shooting quarry if the act of shooting does some good to the wider area - whether that is to the farmer or wildlife in general, and generally I shoot tasty stuff. I know people that will shoot anything that is on the list, fair enough, but that isn't for me. I grew up ferreting and shooting on the South Downs but I was also, probably more so, into natural history so I like to see a good balance of animals around me. There are lots of things I don't shoot - driven game, wildfowl (although I'd take a wild duck for the pot), jays, hares or waders and I will only shoot magpies, jackdaws and rooks if there are too many in an area of they are causing specific problems. The problem with many of the large South African hunting safaris is that they are primarily there for the hunter and not the wildlife. I'm sure they do some good - even if it is just to protect their income stream, but google a couple of big game hunting websites and you'll see that conservation is very much an afterthought. Here's a price list if you are interested...http://www.dalerwaventures.com/price_list.htm But if they were not there primarily for the hunter do you think they would exist at all ? I have already said its not my cup of tea personally , but if it was not for hunters putting money into such areas then chances are the big game would be poached to near extinction I would think. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jimmydean Posted April 14, 2015 Report Share Posted April 14, 2015 May I ask why you shoot? I enjoy the day, the company, the wild places, the time to enjoy the wildlife, being a part of the environment when shooting not just as a bystander or onlooker but as a participant, if you can understand that. I like the exercise preparing wild places for shooting. I like wildflowers, butterflies, seeing and hearing wild geese, all of them. I like th loneliness of stalking, the private time of sitting waiting for foxes. Seeing things I wouldnt otherwise see. I could not just shoot to take a life, the act of killing must, for me, be for a bit higher purpose. Remember Peter Scott - we all have our moments but if you shoot simply to kill and not put something back, you arent a thinking mans shooter. Not you but anyone. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fenboy Posted April 14, 2015 Report Share Posted April 14, 2015 May I ask why you shoot? I enjoy the day, the company, the wild places, the time to enjoy the wildlife, being a part of the environment when shooting not just as a bystander or onlooker but as a participant, if you can understand that. I like the exercise preparing wild places for shooting. I like wildflowers, butterflies, seeing and hearing wild geese, all of them. I like th loneliness of stalking, the private time of sitting waiting for foxes. Seeing things I wouldnt otherwise see. I could not just shoot to take a life, the act of killing must, for me, be for a bit higher purpose. Remember Peter Scott - we all have our moments but if you shoot simply to kill and not put something back, you arent a thinking mans shooter. Not you but anyone. So could it not be argued that the person who pays many 1000s to shoot big game are putting something back ? , they are certainly putting something into the economy , they are creating jobs for people , providing food and in some cases helping pay for conservation work . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richie10 Posted April 14, 2015 Report Share Posted April 14, 2015 You know what you are saying is 'shooting talk', killing things is a big deal; life is important - you dont just kill everything - all killing has to be explained, if not justified. Pigeons - ok I understand, foxes, them too, rabbits - no problem; giraffes - come on, its a long necked tree eating herbivore. No one eats giraffes do they? Its a big beautiful wild creature - leave the ******* thing alone. Not everything on the planet needs to be shot, or am I in the wrong group of unthinking people. There has to be a reason - not just to kill it. Shooting has to evolve into a justified explanation of the right to take life or we are not just reprehensible but we should be extinct, like many of the species we wish to protect for our future 'sport'. Yes people do eat giraffes. Also they aren't a rarity. Shooting them has been going on for years for money and they are still here, a reason being because people want to photograph or shoot them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jimmydean Posted April 14, 2015 Report Share Posted April 14, 2015 So could it not be argued that the person who pays many 1000s to shoot big game are putting something back ? , they are certainly putting something into the economy , they are creating jobs for people , providing food and in some cases helping pay for conservation work . It could. However there are other ways than shooting of supporting wildlife. If conservation means anything, at any level to you (one), surely it doesnt necessarily come with the need to shoot? The two can and must (IMHO) go together. Doing what you can to improve the local environment whilst shooting suits me best. I cannot see the justification of going to Africa, killing something beautiful and wild after having someone take you to it, protecting you whilst you stalk from predators, tell you where to shoot it, finish it if you arent good enough, gut it after removing a trophy head, all for a fee which means a years work to the people on the ground and goes in a hunters pocket. There are other ways, better ways, in my opinion. Its perhaps the same, in some ways, as returning a salmon, rather than leaving it on the bank. There was a time when fishermen left a days catch on the bank, it didnt do their image much good and didnt show any concern for ... you get the drift. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richie10 Posted April 14, 2015 Report Share Posted April 14, 2015 There are lots of things I don't shoot - driven game, wildfowl (although I'd take a wild duck for the pot), What does that even mean? You won't shoot wildfowl but you do.... Funny how people will say they won't shoot this and that but will shoot animals through the breeding season, which I don't believe in. It's goes back to 'if I don't like it you shouldn't do it', same reason many things are banned in this country. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.