Scully Posted February 11, 2016 Report Share Posted February 11, 2016 If the birds/deer are being eaten and not just killed for the sake of it, how is it any different than any other meat? Other than they would've had a substantially better life? There is nothing wrong with admitting you like "killing animals for food", or 'hunting' as its been called for the last several hundred thousand years . Its perfectly natural, every animal does and whether some people want to admit it, humans are just animals as well. Its comical to hear people saying "oh i could/would never kill an animal", yeah put them in a real hunger situation or have the animal threaten them or their loved ones and we'll see how long that lacquer of 'moral superiority' lasts Its only the last 60-70 years of social engineering that has removed us from the source, origin and preparation of our food that has bred the unnatural feelings some people have about it, and its only the wealth/abundance of resources of our nation that permits such silliness to continue. Ask how many Ethopian vegans there are (by choice that is). OK so we don't need to hunt our own meat these days, someone else can do the dirty work for us and the deluded amongst us can pretend an animal hasn't had to die for us to eat it, but then again you don't need to put premium fuel in your car, wear quality clothes (that weren't made by a child labourer) and have solid wood furniture, but its nice to isn't it, and you don't hear people bleating on about others doing it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
old'un Posted February 11, 2016 Report Share Posted February 11, 2016 Just playing devil's advocate here, so are you suggesting large scale driven shoots should not be allowed, and if so where is the cut off for bag size that would be acceptable to an anti? Over the years I have been involved with small diy shoots and large commercial shoots, there is a lot of wastage on large shoots come mid/late season. Don't really know what the answer is but if you put yourself in the antis shoes where would you put your efforts, small one for the pot or large commercial shoots that involve big money. Should we ban large shoots, difficult one, if we say yes then we play into the hands of the antis, if we say no then they will use this type of shooting against all types of shooting, look how they portrayed fox hunting. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scully Posted February 11, 2016 Report Share Posted February 11, 2016 One form of shooting that does not help are large commercial game shoots, they are fuel for the enemy. If it wasn't for the big commercial shoots and those who participate and the equally big money they attract, I seriously doubt the small shoots would exist. There is a big difference between a small diy shoot shooting 50+ birds and a commercial shoot shooting 500+ birds, I know I have been involved with a few over the years. So have I; there is no difference at all. Thos birds are being shot for no other reason that 'sport', whether it's 50 or 500, they're still being killed for entertainment. Do you seriously believe those who oppose us would be happy to accept the small time shoots if the big commercial shoots didn't exist? Look at the outrage regarding one fox being hunted 'for fun'. You can't even dress up game shooting as pest control; it's killing for fun. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
STOTTO Posted February 11, 2016 Report Share Posted February 11, 2016 One thing that galls me about antis is that they think they have the right to tell me how to live but they don't actually DO anything themselves for conservation. I don't know any that pay hundreds of pounds a year in rent to grow cover crops that provide for a vast array of wildlife, besides gamebirds, for example. Understanding one’s subject permits constructive logical argument with the likeminded but usually puts you at loggerheads with the irrationally prejudiced, wilfully misinformed! Therefore reducing resolution of irreconcilable differences in attitude to a confrontational, ‘Force of Will’, with a forlorn hope of the support of, “The Rule of Law’! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blackpowder Posted February 11, 2016 Report Share Posted February 11, 2016 Here is an example of how a lot of those tree hugging vegans quote the same old rhetoric without knowing what they are talking about. A face book post by some stupid woman who was calling for a ban on grouse shooting illustrated her post with a photo of soeone picking up a dead cock pheasant. Obviously she did not know what a grouse was but had to get her anti two pennyworth in. Unfortunately I could not find a way into the post to put her right in public. Blackpowder Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
old'un Posted February 11, 2016 Report Share Posted February 11, 2016 If it wasn't for the big commercial shoots and those who participate and the equally big money they attract, I seriously doubt the small shoots would exist. So have I; there is no difference at all. Thos birds are being shot for no other reason that 'sport', whether it's 50 or 500, they're still being killed for entertainment. Do you seriously believe those who oppose us would be happy to accept the small time shoots if the big commercial shoots didn't exist? Look at the outrage regarding one fox being hunted 'for fun'. You can't even dress up game shooting as pest control; it's killing for fun. Think you are missing my point here, we are in agreement that we should not give into antis and the points you have made are valid ones and the numbers shot on small and large shoots dose not really matter to shooting people, but the very nature of large shoots and big money will get more attention my point is they will use these numbers and the waste against us in the media. Think there was more than one fox killed during the hunting season. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yod dropper Posted February 11, 2016 Report Share Posted February 11, 2016 Reason doesn't come into it. You could transpose this to any number of causes that come under the umbrella of this collective of the left. Bigotry, bullying and intimidation are commonplace, involving the sort of people who call themselves liberal but who are actually illiberal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scully Posted February 11, 2016 Report Share Posted February 11, 2016 I see your point entirely, I just don't agree with it. If numbers and wastage wasn't an issue would that placate the antis? I think we both know the answer. Game shooting as we've said, is BIG business, and whether we like it or not game birds are a highly sustainable and legitimate product of that business. It is not only the numbers, the wastage and the killing for fun that outrages the antis, but also the 'type' ( perceived wealth and class ) of people doing the killing. My point regarding the fox is that it isn't the numbers involved but much the same criteria as that above. Fox hunting was never about the fox. We killed 11 foxes in less than two hours last season; I don't know of any hound pack which could beat that. If more commercial game shoots were more openly honest about their methods of operation rather than denying wastage occurs, it would dilute the antis strength of argument, but while wastage goes on and shoots deny it and antis can prove it, then they do no one any favours. Personally I can't understand why wastage of game birds occurs, but I would have to reluctantly and shamefully concede that it does. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ozzy518 Posted February 11, 2016 Report Share Posted February 11, 2016 Way I see it and what I try to explain to antis is that yes we kill animals for food, be it livestock or birds. But all of these animals would not have a life at all if not to be eventually eaten. The flocks of sheep, herds of cattle etc you see roaming in the fields ain't pets Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scully Posted February 11, 2016 Report Share Posted February 11, 2016 Way I see it and what I try to explain to antis is that yes we kill animals for food, be it livestock or birds. But all of these animals would not have a life at all if not to be eventually eaten. The flocks of sheep, herds of cattle etc you see roaming in the fields ain't pets It's a valid point, and one which I started a topic about some time ago, asking what would our countryside look like if no one ate meat. LACS barred me from their website for a while after I asked what would happen to all the horses used for racing and who would pay for their upkeep if horse racing were banned, as they suggest it should be. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peck Posted February 11, 2016 Report Share Posted February 11, 2016 Way I see it and what I try to explain to antis is that yes we kill animals for food, be it livestock or birds. But all of these animals would not have a life at all if not to be eventually eaten. The flocks of sheep, herds of cattle etc you see roaming in the fields ain't pets Unbelievable argument. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spanj Posted February 11, 2016 Report Share Posted February 11, 2016 Unbelievable argument. why ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paganus Posted February 11, 2016 Report Share Posted February 11, 2016 its funny how fishing never seems to get the same publicity, at the end of the day people will always have differing views on shooting or hunting it's an emotive subject for some. Unfortunately we live in a world where society is increasingly urbanised and disjointed from the countryside and agriculture, children and in many cases adults believing or wanting to believe that the cut of meat in the supermarket in a vacuum pack is nothing to do with the animals seen on the television which just happen to be there. The countryside has been shaped by the hand of man, deer, rabbits, foxes, pigeons all need controlling and I think most of the general public understand this, the thorny issue is driven shooting because people enjoy it, they enjoy the sport, they enjoy taking a challenging pheasant. I don't think this can be labelled as right or wrong if done cleanly and with respect and as long as it is not wasted. A driven shoot run properly is beneficial to the countryside and its economy as the abundance of wildlife on shoots pays testament too. however in my humble opinion if you shoot a bird on a driven day as a mark of respect as a gun you must take a bird even if it's not for your table otherwise you should be shooting clays. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saltings Posted February 11, 2016 Report Share Posted February 11, 2016 (edited) bring back kill it cook it eat it on prime time tv or showing my age, jacks game and even star shot then the un educated may learn something sometimes seeing is believing and to so many people chicken nuggets is good grub and game is too expensive so their taste buds do not override the brain and ignorance can be manipulated, a pity BASC and other organisations cannot get together and produce informative programs covering all country sports and take up the time some begging charities get on tv ok rant over my 5p worth and forgot to mention showing other animals going out for lunch as not all are like autumn watch presenters would have everyone beleive Edited February 12, 2016 by Saltings Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ozzy518 Posted February 12, 2016 Report Share Posted February 12, 2016 Unbelievable argument. Care to express an opinion? I'd be interested to hear it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jeffjjack Posted February 12, 2016 Report Share Posted February 12, 2016 I just ask them what their stance on rats and what they'd do if they had them in their house. Unless it's pretty or cute they don't seem interested. The fashion for putting bloody foxes on every piece of women's country accessories ain't helping matters. If a fox/pheasant deserves to live then so does a rat or mouse? I bet half of them would put poison down if they had rats in their house! Miss informed, band wagoning idiots Unless you live in the forest and make shoes out of tree bark you have no choice but to use, wear or ingest some kind of animal biproduct! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Royboy Posted February 12, 2016 Report Share Posted February 12, 2016 If the birds/deer are being eaten and not just killed for the sake of it, how is it any different than any other meat? Other than they would've had a substantially better life? There is nothing wrong with admitting you like "killing animals for food", or 'hunting' as its been called for the last several hundred thousand years . Its perfectly natural, every animal does and whether some people want to admit it, humans are just animals as well. Its comical to hear people saying "oh i could/would never kill an animal", yeah put them in a real hunger situation or have the animal threaten them or their loved ones and we'll see how long that lacquer of 'moral superiority' lasts Its only the last 60-70 years of social engineering that has removed us from the source, origin and preparation of our food that has bred the unnatural feelings some people have about it, and its only the wealth/abundance of resources of our nation that permits such silliness to continue. Ask how many Ethopian vegans there are (by choice that is). OK so we don't need to hunt our own meat these days, someone else can do the dirty work for us and the deluded amongst us can pretend an animal hasn't had to die for us to eat it, but then again you don't need to put premium fuel in your car, wear quality clothes (that weren't made by a child labourer) and have solid wood furniture, but its nice to isn't it, and you don't hear people bleating on about others doing it. That is on the nose 👌 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vince Green Posted February 12, 2016 Report Share Posted February 12, 2016 (edited) I blame Walt Disney for a lot of this Edited February 12, 2016 by Vince Green Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
norfolk dumpling Posted February 12, 2016 Report Share Posted February 12, 2016 How many shoots are disrupted and where? We have a regular pain in the *** in Norfolk/Suffolk - a married couple who turn upon shoots, hunts and even try to disrupt horse betting. On our last day shooting this pair turned up after the first drive and videoed and told us what naughty cruel people we are. This lot seem to be out every Saturday looking for shoots to disrupt and they have spotters looking for hunts and hare shoots - I regularly get followed in my dirty 4x4 with CA/BASC stickers which they must look for. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
panoma1 Posted February 12, 2016 Report Share Posted February 12, 2016 How many shoots are disrupted and where? We have a regular pain in the *** in Norfolk/Suffolk - a married couple who turn upon shoots, hunts and even try to disrupt horse betting. On our last day shooting this pair turned up after the first drive and videoed and told us what naughty cruel people we are. This lot seem to be out every Saturday looking for shoots to disrupt and they have spotters looking for hunts and hare shoots - I regularly get followed in my dirty 4x4 with CA/BASC stickers which they must look for. Self appointed social conscience terrorists, just because they don't like it, doesn't mean they have the right to deliberately disrupt and interfere with others engaged in lawful activities? Is this not classified as conduct likely to cause a breach of the peace? Or can they not be prosecuted under stalking and harassment laws? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yod dropper Posted February 12, 2016 Report Share Posted February 12, 2016 Self appointed social conscience terrorists, just because they don't like it, doesn't mean they have the right to deliberately disrupt and interfere with others engaged in lawful activities? Is this not classified as conduct likely to cause a breach of the peace? Or can they not be prosecuted under stalking and harassment laws? I'd like to think something like this could happen to them, in fact I seem to recall a BASC article a couple of years back explaining how to go about doing this though possibly under different allegations. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NickS Posted February 13, 2016 Report Share Posted February 13, 2016 My daughter is vegan - partly through choice (she was vegetarian), partly for medical reasons (severe reaction to dairy products). She never lectures or harangues those of us who eat meat and fish but has her beliefs and I can respect that. I actually have no issue with those who campaign lawfully for if we suppress one arguement, we suppress them all. It does get my goat when distortions and outright lies are used to support a point of view but the idiots are not those telling them but those who believe everything they are told and never consider other sources of information. Those who go out to intimidate and threaten, whether it is over animal rights or for political reasons, should be treated as the criminals they are. What point does an organisation have to sink to before being classed as a terrorist group? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scully Posted February 13, 2016 Report Share Posted February 13, 2016 My daughter is vegan - partly through choice (she was vegetarian), partly for medical reasons (severe reaction to dairy products). She never lectures or harangues those of us who eat meat and fish but has her beliefs and I can respect that. I actually have no issue with those who campaign lawfully for if we suppress one arguement, we suppress them all. It does get my goat when distortions and outright lies are used to support a point of view but the idiots are not those telling them but those who believe everything they are told and never consider other sources of information. Those who go out to intimidate and threaten, whether it is over animal rights or for political reasons, should be treated as the criminals they are. What point does an organisation have to sink to before being classed as a terrorist group? Good post. I've often said I don't mind those who oppose or disagree with what I do, so long as they do it with honesty; but when they resort to manipulation of the facts and downright dishonesty to push an agenda, then they've lost the argument as far as I'm concerned, and aren't worthy of any respect. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
E27N_JD Posted February 15, 2016 Report Share Posted February 15, 2016 has anyone seen the video of the antis on raveningham estate in south norfolk. they are a bunch of *****. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scully Posted February 15, 2016 Report Share Posted February 15, 2016 Just watched a Fieldsports tv clip of a anti assaulting a minor. The woman was a teacher and as well as being prosecuted she also lost her job. Sorted. 👍 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.