Would You

[Richie10]

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.

 

Hmmm you have just described deer stalking in England without the 'preditor protection'.

As someone who has no experience of this how can you even comment on what they do? How do you know where the money goes?

 

As for fishing for salmon that has swam it's way up rivers, over water falls, dodged nets for it to be caughted, played till exhaustion, pulled out the water taken photo of and then put back expecting it to recovery when infact it's energy is spent as it hasn't eaten in weeks and then dies, doesn't sound like putting something back to me.

 

It would have been kinder to kill it or not fish for it in the first place.

[ollie]

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 you like going stalking deer but you aren't happy about someone shooting a giraffe. I think that is a bit hypocritical; I would be 99% sure the meat from the giraffe goes into the food chain like venison, I'm sure the head of the giraffe is a sought after trophy like many medal deer heads, the income generated by the shooting of a giraffe is important to the local economy like stalking in some rural areas and I'm pretty sure giraffe numbers have to be controlled the same as deer.

 

I'm in no way calling you a trophy hunter as I am sure you are not, but I don't think you have the right to criticise another persons hunting.

[FalconFN]

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.

 

I agree, and as I said in an earlier post it is easy to judge without knowing the facts, I was just saying what my own personal views are in response to motty's post about shooting purely for fun.

[FalconFN]

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.

u

Sorry, that wasn't well explained. It just means I don't go wildfowling or make an effort to shoot wildfowl, but as life isn't black and white I wouldn't be against taking one for the pot if the opportunity arose. I turned down an offer to go shooting Canada geese because they weren't causing problems and they aren't particularly good to eat, they would have just been a moving target, nothing more, nothing less, and that isn't why I shoot. Similarly, I won't go on a driven shoot (I have been invited a handful of times) but I'd happily go rough shooting and take a pheasant flushed by my cocker. Then again I know several people that wouldn't be seen dead rough shooting or sitting in a pigeon hide, each to their own I say.

 

I would never say don't do it because I don't like it, and I have never suggested that people shouldn't shoot game of any size, I just aired my own opinion on what and why I shoot.

[islandgun]

A very emotive subject, it seems each to their own whether its Lion or Crow if there is a surfeit of anything and someone is prepared to pay for the privilege and it helps the local economy so be it, your gonna need a very high wall to mount your giraffe trophy though

[dougall]

I saw an article about an American 'hunter' who has just paid $350,000 to take 1 black rhino in Namibia.On the face of it who on earth would want to shoot a very rare animal..however the majority of the trophy goes into a fund which conserves/manages black rhino.........I have no interest in such trophy hunts,and initially was pretty disgusted by the vulgarity of the fee for such an act...but if this helps in the long run with the conservation of such an incredible animal I have to be reconciled that it could be a good thing. Big game hunting revolts me personally Lion/Tiger/Leopard/Giraffe.......I could not imagine shooting any of them.BUT if it is within the realms of appropriate tightly managed conservation then is not akin to a professional stalker managing say red deer in the Highlands? And as has been said above the context of this giraffe picture is unknown,it may have had a broken leg for all we know....

[Richie10]

u

Sorry, that wasn't well explained. It just means I don't go wildfowling or make an effort to shoot wildfowl, but as life isn't black and white I wouldn't be against taking one for the pot if the opportunity arose. I turned down an offer to go shooting Canada geese because they weren't causing problems and they aren't particularly good to eat, they would have just been a moving target, nothing more, nothing less, and that isn't why I shoot. Similarly, I won't go on a driven shoot (I have been invited a handful of times) but I'd happily go rough shooting and take a pheasant flushed by my cocker. Then again I know several people that wouldn't be seen dead rough shooting or sitting in a pigeon hide, each to their own I say.

 

I would never say don't do it because I don't like it, and I have never suggested that people shouldn't shoot game of any size, I just aired my own opinion on what and why I shoot.

 

Canada geese are great to eat, believe me. Just don't roast them unless you know what you are doing.

 

Must admit your life rules sound quite complicated, but that is your choice.

[al4x]

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'.

Ok how do you know there weren't too many in the area? Tree eating herbivores may be but they do help cause deforestation in areas where once the trees are gone the area can descend into desert. Much the same as too many elephants in an area can have the same problem, they also have no predators so effectively populations can have no control other than availability of food. When that runs out they tend to suffer disease and starvation so ultimately being managed can actively help

[fenboy]

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.

Is that not pretty much what people do on a driven day ?

[fenboy]

A very emotive subject, it seems each to their own whether its Lion or Crow if there is a surfeit of anything and someone is prepared to pay for the privilege and it helps the local economy so be it, your gonna need a very high wall to mount your giraffe trophy though

 

Yes each to their own absolutely , things are far too black and white for some of us , its far too easy to take a simplistic veiw of things when you actually have to see the whole picture to be able to come to a intelligent conclusion.

[WelshMike]

 

Yes each to their own absolutely , things are far too black and white for some of us , its far too easy to take a simplistic veiw of things when you actually have to see the whole picture to be able to come to a intelligent conclusion.

Well said fenboy.

[Pothunter]

I think the truth is that we construct pseudo-moral defences for things that we just want to do for pleasure really. When it's a deer we can get away with it (ie convince ourselves); even though for those of us who are not professionally employed in managing deer stocks, then only real justification for us paying money to take a day out from our real lives doing other things to go and shoot a deer is that we want to shoot and kill a deer, for fun.

 

It's easy to explain why somebody should be doing it, but much harder to explain, morally, why it should be me. I'm not a forester or a gamekeeper. I just want to do it for my own satisfaction.

 

Logically, I can't see any difference with a giraffe. It's just that the gap between the story we tell ourselves and the reality is so much much bigger. I wouldn't dream of going to Africa to shoot big game. The notion disgusts me. But I can't say it's morally any different at all from going to Scotland specially to shoot big deer, which I tell myself is OK.

[jimmydean]

I think the truth is that we construct pseudo-moral defences for things that we just want to do for pleasure really. When it's a deer we can get away with it (ie convince ourselves); even though for those of us who are not professionally employed in managing deer stocks, then only real justification for us paying money to take a day out from our real lives doing other things to go and shoot a deer is that we want to shoot and kill a deer, for fun.

 

It's easy to explain why somebody should be doing it, but much harder to explain, morally, why it should be me. I'm not a forester or a gamekeeper. I just want to do it for my own satisfaction.

 

Logically, I can't see any difference with a giraffe. It's just that the gap between the story we tell ourselves and the reality is so much much bigger. I wouldn't dream of going to Africa to shoot big game. The notion disgusts me. But I can't say it's morally any different at all from going to Scotland specially to shoot big deer, which I tell myself is OK.

Some of what you say I agree with, deer can also be a pest isnt that why there are leases and target kills ? I accept other peoples view are just as valid as my own so please accept that mine are valid for me, as a minimum. I eat what I shoot but I dont always shoot to eat, sometimes its just pest control. I willingly accept that giraffe may need to be culled when numbers escalate. As for salmon, if they did not survive after being caught I cant see a catch and release policy ever being justified.

Forgive me though we are talking here about an American woman who bow shoots and kills species for the sake of killing them - I have seen her related sponsored videos.

I have also read the list of things which can be killed and the price put on each - not for me. I also feel the guy who paid Thousands of dollars to kill a black rhino was a bit like a rare gun collector - he just wanted something others couldnt have. I'd have felt more about him if he just coughed up a hundred thousand dollars for rhino conservation. He paid to kill that rhino. I also know it couldnt breed and was therefore ' a disposable asset'

We all have different views and circumstances alter cases but nature also has ways of dealing with overpopulation.

My personal hang-ups are my own but its more honest to say ' I like killing ' than manufacturing an oblique justification for it.

 

Last post from me on this - thanks for the exchange of views.

[Richie10]

Some of what you say I agree with, deer can also be a pest isnt that why there are leases and target kills ? I accept other peoples view are just as valid as my own so please accept that mine are valid for me, as a minimum. I eat what I shoot but I dont always shoot to eat, sometimes its just pest control. I willingly accept that giraffe may need to be culled when numbers escalate. As for salmon, if they did not survive after being caught I cant see a catch and release policy ever being justified.

Forgive me though we are talking here about an American woman who bow shoots and kills species for the sake of killing them - I have seen her related sponsored videos.

I have also read the list of things which can be killed and the price put on each - not for me. I also feel the guy who paid Thousands of dollars to kill a black rhino was a bit like a rare gun collector - he just wanted something others couldnt have. I'd have felt more about him if he just coughed up a hundred thousand dollars for rhino conservation. He paid to kill that rhino. I also know it couldnt breed and was therefore ' a disposable asset'

We all have different views and circumstances alter cases but nature also has ways of dealing with overpopulation.

My personal hang-ups are my own but its more honest to say ' I like killing ' than manufacturing an oblique justification for it.

 

Last post from me on this - thanks for the exchange of views.

 

Haven't you been on this forum previously?

[jimmydean]

Haven't you been on this forum previously?

I have been and am on other forums.

[Scully]

I think the truth is that we construct pseudo-moral defences for things that we just want to do for pleasure really. When it's a deer we can get away with it (ie convince ourselves); even though for those of us who are not professionally employed in managing deer stocks, then only real justification for us paying money to take a day out from our real lives doing other things to go and shoot a deer is that we want to shoot and kill a deer, for fun.

 

It's easy to explain why somebody should be doing it, but much harder to explain, morally, why it should be me. I'm not a forester or a gamekeeper. I just want to do it for my own satisfaction.

 

Logically, I can't see any difference with a giraffe. It's just that the gap between the story we tell ourselves and the reality is so much much bigger. I wouldn't dream of going to Africa to shoot big game. The notion disgusts me. But I can't say it's morally any different at all from going to Scotland specially to shoot big deer, which I tell myself is OK.

I can't argue with that.

[motty]

 

Canada geese are great to eat, believe me. Just don't roast them unless you know what you are doing.

 

Must admit your life rules sound quite complicated, but that is your choice.

Yes they are. Don't believe all the rubbish about them tasting rank. All geese cooked in the right way taste fantastic.

[FalconFN]

Yes they are. Don't believe all the rubbish about them tasting rank. All geese cooked in the right way taste fantastic.

I think I asked on here and the consensus was that they are pretty poor unless they are young.

[Richie10]

I think I asked on here and the consensus was that they are pretty poor unless they are young.

 

Their favourite food was also KFC.

[demonwolf444]

I have been a part of the shooting community for almost 7 years more or less and I'm sick of seeing politicians, the media and celebrities do what is, in my mind abuse their positions of influence through presenting their ignorant assumptions as a moral ideal when it comes to these things.

 

Its not exactly an activity i would particularly be super interested in taking part in; to start with i can't get on with the heat in hot countries.

 

However i do have enough faith in man kind to understand that actually we do think before we act a reasonable amount of time, we kind of do understand the impact we can have on the world, and we understand management, conservation, and habitats on a very scientific level.

 

"brutal" "Disgusting" "murdering so and so" "poor beautiful animal" and all things i have seen plastered around social media from the picture and honestly the only thing we should be ashamed of is the blind ignorance we admit when we make comments like this.

[FalconFN]

It is also striking the number of comments on various platforms that call for the killing of the hunter - which nobody seems to bat an eyelid at.

[islandgun]

It is also striking the number of comments on various platforms that call for the killing of the hunter - which nobody seems to bat an eyelid at.

I bet 90% are quite happy to eat chicken or other meat cause that doesn't count and 99.9 % eat dairy products and wear leather !

[FalconFN]

I bet 90% are quite happy to eat chicken or other meat cause that doesn't count and 99.9 % eat dairy products and wear leather !

Yup, and the other 10% don't know that the chicken on their Hawaiian Chinese chicken pizza came from a real live bird.

[OJW]

I think the truth is that we construct pseudo-moral defences for things that we just want to do for pleasure really. When it's a deer we can get away with it (ie convince ourselves); even though for those of us who are not professionally employed in managing deer stocks, then only real justification for us paying money to take a day out from our real lives doing other things to go and shoot a deer is that we want to shoot and kill a deer, for fun.

 

It's easy to explain why somebody should be doing it, but much harder to explain, morally, why it should be me. I'm not a forester or a gamekeeper. I just want to do it for my own satisfaction.

 

Logically, I can't see any difference with a giraffe. It's just that the gap between the story we tell ourselves and the reality is so much much bigger. I wouldn't dream of going to Africa to shoot big game. The notion disgusts me. But I can't say it's morally any different at all from going to Scotland specially to shoot big deer, which I tell myself is OK.

 

Spot on.

 

As for the Giraffe, not for me personally. I can see the allure of big game hunting in the old days when a hunter properly risked his life, hunting a Tiger with limited supplies in the Tigers own habitat (e.g as briefly described in the fictional Flashman Chronicles), but not in the modern canned stuff. Agree with needing to know full facts. If something has to be culled, makes sense to get money into the local community by selling that privilege. Shocking anyone would shoot a Rhino as mentioned above though.

[fenboy]

Yup, and the other 10% don't know that the chicken on their Hawaiian Chinese chicken pizza came from a real live bird.

 

Does it ?, well I never .