jayDT10 Posted February 2, 2016 Report Share Posted February 2, 2016 i agree it would be hypocritical because we are all shooters, but I have never shot in a hide with 11 guys right next me jumping up and all shooting at the same time it would make feel very uneasy and unsafe and would turn down the chance to, it just isn',t my thing either and never will be, in fact It wouldn,t surprise me if the end of someone's barrels get blown off or even worse someone's head in a future trip yeah sorry I didn't explain very well, I meant our decoying is similar but without all the guns in one hide and the swinging dispatch ,If you listen closely I'm sure he shouts fore before whacking . Lol. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scully Posted February 2, 2016 Report Share Posted February 2, 2016 Killing is a dirty business however one tries to justify it, either as 'sport' or pest control. Other countries do things differently to us and I think it a tad hypocritical for anyone who actually kills living creatures out of choice to criticise another. I can understand unsuitable methods being criticised, but not the choice to kill nor the act of killing. My nephew worked in N. Zealand for six months and was taken out shooting feral goats by his employer. He was armed with a .22rf, his mate a .303, and their employer a Zabala shotgun, and a couple of other locals armed with various firearms. My nephew and his mate were ridiculed for taking the time to pick their targets; the locals simply opened fire. My nephew said there were wounded animals and bits flying everywhere, but that's the way they did it. A mate who visits his daughter out there has been invited boar hunting by his son in law, using dogs to keep them at bay while he sneaks in to stick the pig. He's looking forward to it. Those who participate in shooting live quarry find it acceptable in this country to use a cannon in a punt to blast countless birds on the water, wounding who knows how many in the process; the retrieval of wounded quarry by dogs, which must be terrifying for the prey; the pursuit of foxes by hounds and the outcome of that pursuit; dragging a fighting fish from water via a hook; shoving a ferret down a rabbit hole and listening to the squeals of pain and fear deep underground, or wounding a creature and failing to recover it for one reason or another; and don't tell me you find this latter unacceptable because if you did you'd never shoot another living thing. It is regrettable but it doesn't stop any of us doing it again. I can understand the criticism of the method of despatching a wounded creature, although it was effective, but can't understand the criticism of the rest of it. They do things differently in other countries. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grrclark Posted February 2, 2016 Report Share Posted February 2, 2016 Well said Scully. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chris1961 Posted February 3, 2016 Report Share Posted February 3, 2016 Not my cup of tea no respect shown to their quary and their firearm safety was none existant Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
955i Posted February 3, 2016 Report Share Posted February 3, 2016 Meh,apart from the "golf clubbing" nothing to see here thats much different from decoying geese/pigeons and in fact of seeing way more unsporting geese decoyers but then its Murica so the usuals will destroy them. The despatching of the bird with the shotgun is nothing but stupid however. +1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Milo Posted February 3, 2016 Report Share Posted February 3, 2016 1.34 shocking use of a shotgun... Complete sphincter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Breastman Posted February 3, 2016 Report Share Posted February 3, 2016 Killing is a dirty business however one tries to justify it, either as 'sport' or pest control. Other countries do things differently to us and I think it a tad hypocritical for anyone who actually kills living creatures out of choice to criticise another. I can understand unsuitable methods being criticised, but not the choice to kill nor the act of killing. My nephew worked in N. Zealand for six months and was taken out shooting feral goats by his employer. He was armed with a .22rf, his mate a .303, and their employer a Zabala shotgun, and a couple of other locals armed with various firearms. My nephew and his mate were ridiculed for taking the time to pick their targets; the locals simply opened fire. My nephew said there were wounded animals and bits flying everywhere, but that's the way they did it. A mate who visits his daughter out there has been invited boar hunting by his son in law, using dogs to keep them at bay while he sneaks in to stick the pig. He's looking forward to it. Those who participate in shooting live quarry find it acceptable in this country to use a cannon in a punt to blast countless birds on the water, wounding who knows how many in the process; the retrieval of wounded quarry by dogs, which must be terrifying for the prey; the pursuit of foxes by hounds and the outcome of that pursuit; dragging a fighting fish from water via a hook; shoving a ferret down a rabbit hole and listening to the squeals of pain and fear deep underground, or wounding a creature and failing to recover it for one reason or another; and don't tell me you find this latter unacceptable because if you did you'd never shoot another living thing. It is regrettable but it doesn't stop any of us doing it again. I can understand the criticism of the method of despatching a wounded creature, although it was effective, but can't understand the criticism of the rest of it. They do things differently in other countries. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marki Posted February 3, 2016 Report Share Posted February 3, 2016 Well said Scully. +1. Foxes don't bother me and I'll happily watch them hunting or playing in a field but I have never, and will never, critise anyone for killing them. Each to his own. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FalconFN Posted February 3, 2016 Report Share Posted February 3, 2016 +1. Foxes don't bother me and I'll happily watch them hunting or playing in a field but I have never, and will never, critise anyone for killing them. Each to his own. Would you not be critical if someone knocked a wounded foxes head off after a running blow with a sledge hammer or beat it to death with a shotgun barrel? As has been said lots of times on this thread, it isn't what they are doing but how they are doing it which is worthy of criticism. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
E.w. Posted February 3, 2016 Report Share Posted February 3, 2016 Killing is a dirty business however one tries to justify it, either as 'sport' or pest control. Other countries do things differently to us and I think it a tad hypocritical for anyone who actually kills living creatures out of choice to criticise another. I can understand unsuitable methods being criticised, but not the choice to kill nor the act of killing. My nephew worked in N. Zealand for six months and was taken out shooting feral goats by his employer. He was armed with a .22rf, his mate a .303, and their employer a Zabala shotgun, and a couple of other locals armed with various firearms. My nephew and his mate were ridiculed for taking the time to pick their targets; the locals simply opened fire. My nephew said there were wounded animals and bits flying everywhere, but that's the way they did it. A mate who visits his daughter out there has been invited boar hunting by his son in law, using dogs to keep them at bay while he sneaks in to stick the pig. He's looking forward to it. Those who participate in shooting live quarry find it acceptable in this country to use a cannon in a punt to blast countless birds on the water, wounding who knows how many in the process; the retrieval of wounded quarry by dogs, which must be terrifying for the prey; the pursuit of foxes by hounds and the outcome of that pursuit; dragging a fighting fish from water via a hook; shoving a ferret down a rabbit hole and listening to the squeals of pain and fear deep underground, or wounding a creature and failing to recover it for one reason or another; and don't tell me you find this latter unacceptable because if you did you'd never shoot another living thing. It is regrettable but it doesn't stop any of us doing it again. I can understand the criticism of the method of despatching a wounded creature, although it was effective, but can't understand the criticism of the rest of it. They do things differently in other countries. Very well put scully, I bet you feel better for that chap splendid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
muncher Posted February 3, 2016 Report Share Posted February 3, 2016 (edited) The only reason he clubbed it with a gun is that beak! you either shoot it or club it, I wouldn't take a chance with my eye sight with a crane bill, would you? must say I would of shot it again for safety reasons. Edited February 3, 2016 by muncher Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Remimax Posted February 3, 2016 Report Share Posted February 3, 2016 wonder if Aldi will be doing breasted crane soon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greenergp Posted February 3, 2016 Report Share Posted February 3, 2016 It was pretty sick, i did'nt like the way the guy dispatched the wounded crane either Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marki Posted February 3, 2016 Report Share Posted February 3, 2016 Would you not be critical if someone knocked a wounded foxes head off after a running blow with a sledge hammer or beat it to death with a shotgun barrel? As has been said lots of times on this thread, it isn't what they are doing but how they are doing it which is worthy of criticism. You're being a bit of a drama queen over it and taking it completely out of context. Why not go the whole way and compare it to taking a kittens head off with a JCB? To answer the question, no, it would not bother me. I've seen many foxes and badgers taken out with several tons of steel travelling at high speed and no one usually bats an eyelid. The method used was certainly effective, far faster dispatch than some I've seen trying, and failing, to take out a netted rabbit with a priest. If you read the posts there are a number that do criticise what they are doing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cranfield Posted February 3, 2016 Report Share Posted February 3, 2016 I think this has had enough of an airing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts