Argentina

[Hamster]

 

That hardly happened at all.

 

Why make a dramatic statement, with two exclamation marks for emphasis, when it is just your imagination rather than your experience? Not helpful to the original poster or other members reading this post who might consider going.

 

I agree Cosd did make a meal of his point but how would you know that hardly happened at all ? It is absolutely inconceivable that plenty of wounding does not take place on such hunts where after a while when quotas are easily reached on close birds people inevitably start to pick their shots.

 

Not criticising these shoots as I'd love to try it once myself but to pretend wounding is not a real problem with the vast numbers of shooters of varying abilities is naive.

[Milo]

 

I agree Cosd did make a meal of his point but how would you know that hardly happened at all ? It is absolutely inconceivable that plenty of wounding does not take place on such hunts where after a while when quotas are easily reached on close birds people inevitably start to pick their shots.

 

Not criticising these shoots as I'd love to try it once myself but to pretend wounding is not a real problem with the vast numbers of shooters of varying abilities is naive.

 

How do I know? Because, as stated in post #21, I have done it at the most famous and prolific estate in Argentina. Note, I said "happened" not happens.

 

As with many things, the reality is somewhat different from how people imagine it to be.

[Milo]

 

I agree Cosd did make a meal of his point but how would you know that hardly happened at all ? It is absolutely inconceivable that plenty of wounding does not take place on such hunts where after a while when quotas are easily reached on close birds people inevitably start to pick their shots.

 

Not criticising these shoots as I'd love to try it once myself but to pretend wounding is not a real problem with the vast numbers of shooters of varying abilities is naive.

 

And there are no "quotas".

[Hamster]

 

And there are no "quotas".

 

There are, it's your own self imposed daily limits which are either fatigue or money related, but then you knew that.

 

And you also I suspect know very well that regardless of how well you happen to shoot it is impossible to not have pricked birds. The more shots fired the higher the probability, I am not criticising and I have no solution to offer but it IS there.

[dodeer]

Of course there will be pricked birds, just like roost shooting pigeons or decoying or driven shooting.

[Mungler]

There's not a man on this forum who wouldn't go tomorrow if they won an all expenses paid trip out there.

 

If you shoot 100 or a thousand that's your business, much the same when standing in a field in England.

 

I'm going, it's going to be great and so anyone who isn't going but wants to throw stones about how terrible or ethically wrong it is, you crack on because I ain't listening

[Scully]

There's not a man on this forum who wouldn't go tomorrow if they won an all expenses paid trip out there.

 

If you shoot 100 or a thousand that's your business, much the same when standing in a field in England.

 

I'm going, it's going to be great and so anyone who isn't going but wants to throw stones about how terrible or ethically wrong it is, you crack on because I ain't listening

 

This ^

[Old farrier]

There's not a man on this forum who wouldn't go tomorrow if they won an all expenses paid trip out there.

 

If you shoot 100 or a thousand that's your business, much the same when standing in a field in England.

 

I'm going, it's going to be great and so anyone who isn't going but wants to throw stones about how terrible or ethically wrong it is, you crack on because I ain't listening

Have a great time 😊😊😊

[rimfire4969]

There's not a man on this forum who wouldn't go tomorrow if they won an all expenses paid trip out there.

 

If you shoot 100 or a thousand that's your business, much the same when standing in a field in England.

 

I'm going, it's going to be great and so anyone who isn't going but wants to throw stones about how terrible or ethically wrong it is, you crack on because I ain't listening

Well said.

[lakeside1000]

Regardless of the fact that there are thousands of doves killed on these trips you should remember that this is a poor country for most of its inhabitants, they struggle to earn enough to raise a family, these shooting trips provide invaluable income and employment to hundreds of locals, also don't forget the fact, the farmers who grow crops in the areas affected by these 'swarms ' of doves cannot afford any crop protection, the doves shot by visiting guns at least goes some way to help reduce numbers and keep them on the move,

For those who are against this type of control would you prefer the doves were poisoned and have slow painful deaths, because that's probably the only alternative to shooting as a means of controlling the numbers,

Yes there are a few people growing richer by the day , exploiting the shooters lust for the slaughter, but that's just the way these things work, the only thing to suffer is the dove and hopefully the suffering is kept to a minimum but these shooting trips will continue as long as the numbers of doves are there to exploit.

My vote is for the shooting trips, as long as the numbers continue to be a problem. if you worried about the odd birds that are 'pricked' but escape you would never pick up a gun again.

[scotslad]

Well said Mungler and Lakeside.

Mungler u'll have a great time out there. Depending how its organised u can possibly ask to shoot different 'types' of birds. A keeper whos boss paid for him to go out got bored quite quick with the whole numbers thing so guides took him into some vsalleys or places where the birds were pretty sporting. He said it was far better like being in the hot peg on a high bird drive for hourss, just a fairly constant supply of birds so u could pick ur birds a bit more and not just blasting away like some of the other guns were doing.

 

 

It does provide massive money for pretty poor areas (how much filters down to locals may be debatable and probably not as much as should, but hey thats life)

there gettin crops protected for free and locals gettin free foodf as well as some work guiding/loading and pretty good tips of the guns too.

 

Anytime u pick up a shotgun u have to ackknowledge that fact hence why we have dogs etc, u just have to try ur best and shoot within ur ability

[Cosd]

There's not a man on this forum who wouldn't go tomorrow if they won an all expenses paid trip out there.

 

If you shoot 100 or a thousand that's your business, much the same when standing in a field in England.

 

I'm going, it's going to be great and so anyone who isn't going but wants to throw stones about how terrible or ethically wrong it is, you crack on because I ain't listening

 

Hey Mungler.

I don't have an issue with the numbers shot and I fully understand the problem over there and the revenue it generates. The more sporting type of shooting mentioned by Scotslad sounds excellent, but I've seen some videos of guys just shooting into flocks and that for me is just wrong on any level. So this isn't based on cost, it is just my personal feeling based on what I've seen.

 

My intention wasn't to judge anyone, and I hope you and the OP enjoy it.

 

 

Cos

[Old farrier]

You could have a day like this

Africa 😊

Not Argentina

 

If your worried about pricked birds full choke minimises the problem 😊

[JDog]

There's not a man on this forum who wouldn't go tomorrow if they won an all expenses paid trip out there.

 

If you shoot 100 or a thousand that's your business, much the same when standing in a field in England.

 

I'm going, it's going to be great and so anyone who isn't going but wants to throw stones about how terrible or ethically wrong it is, you crack on because I ain't listening

I'm afraid that you are wrong. I would not go on such a trip, all expenses paid or not.

 

Several years ago at the Scottish Game Fair I went onto a stand set up by a man who at that time held the record for shooting the most doves in a day. The number was 7,000 I believe. He saw shooting that many as a competition. The man was a fool.

[Hamster]

I'm afraid that you are wrong. I would not go on such a trip, all expenses paid or not.

 

Several years ago at the Scottish Game Fair I went onto a stand set up by a man who at that time held the record for shooting the most doves in a day. The number was 7,000 I believe. He saw shooting that many as a competition. The man was a fool.

 

Not often I agree with you JDog but I too abhor the record chasers.

[scotslad]

But does it really make any difference if there chasing records?? The doves are pests. U could argue it is a benifit to have boys shooting big numbers quickly so rest of wildlife can settle down.

Is that really any different to trying to break ur record at pigeon's over decoys?

 

These boys chasing records are usually very good shots and are also spending vast vast sums of money to get any where near the record.

I know a fella thats been out twice and has held the 'record' (althou i think they just make it up) a nicer man u could not meet, paid for his keeper to go out twice and paid for the dove guide to come over for 10ish days in uk, put him up in london and took him for a few days driven shooting on my local estate where i took him out flighting a few times

I have been told wot the trip cost, it was eye wateringly expensive, buisness/1st class flights out, small plane/heli to dove fields and tip's very well..I'm sure guides, loaders, bar staff and cooks would of made more out of his party for a week than a month of average joes shooting (just as we don't have that sort of cash to throw around)

 

The lad mentioned above is 1 of the best shots i've ever seen, so in theory if u had more 'killers' like him and less hobby shooters (basically like me) u'd actually get far less wounding

 

The whole numbers thing just like shooting big commercail bags or trophy hunting is not my thing (even if i could afford it) but these high rollers/fools are the people who almost subsidise it and make it vaible for the mere mortals to go out and have an affordable trip. Someone paying thousands to shoot a red stag/pony of hill etc means u can have a day at hinds for 150 quid, same with shooting a mini driven 50 bird day or even a 100-150 day at pheasants the shoots need the bigger days to make big profits to make these smaller days vaible.

 

Like i said earlier keeper was not into the numbers thing so he asked them to show some quality birds, he said it was great, so no one is forcing u to shoot massive numbers.

As long as dove population can sustain the harvest i really don't see a problem with it no matter how many an individual shoots, its up to there morality?/ethics and wallet after that.

[Scully]

It matters little to me what numbers are shot; it's pest control. I seem to recall Mr Digweed shooting a huge amount in a single day ( over 600 ?) in a single session some years ago, no one seemed to think it was a bad thing, with the exception of those who would object to the shooting of even one bird.

I regard you as a well respected PW member JDog, and I'm not being belligerent; nor seeking an argument; I just seriously, and with the utmost respect, can't understand the logic behind your objections ( or anyone else who shoots live quarry ) when you shoot birds for your own enjoyment. I honestly cannot get my head around that logic at all. It baffles me.

[Hamster]

It matters little to me what numbers are shot; it's pest control. I seem to recall Mr Digweed shooting a huge amount in a single day ( over 600 ?) in a single session some years ago, no one seemed to think it was a bad thing, with the exception of those who would object to the shooting of even one bird.

I regard you as a well respected PW member JDog, and I'm not being belligerent; nor seeking an argument; I just seriously, and with the utmost respect, can't understand the logic behind your objections ( or anyone else who shoots live quarry ) when you shoot birds for your own enjoyment. I honestly cannot get my head around that logic at all. It baffles me.

 

It's totally easy. Most including myself have made it clear we'd love the chance to try this at least once in a life time, I personally don't think I'd do it more than that even for free because the element of the chase is missing.

 

As for why I think it's obscene to deliberately go out to kill 10,000 plus for a record well honestly can you not see that almost every single element of hunter V hunted has been taken away to be replaced instead with pre-planning with a military precision. They use upwards of 5 semi's with teams of loaders and practically have to dip the rifles in water to prevent them from melting. The ONLY goal at the end is the celebration of a numerical figure which the slaughterer (not hunter) can boast to his mates and get his name onto Youtube. Birds become nothing but moving targets, during the day they exist not as wildlife to be appreciated and admired but mere clicks on a counter. It degrades and trivialises their life to such a callous degree that some cannot bring themselves down to that level, it borders on the sadistic.

 

Wildlife aren't targets and numbers are no achievement.

Edited May 11, 2016 by Hamster

[JDog]

Scully

 

My attitude shouldn't baffle you. I come from the angle that shooting live quarry should never have a competitive element to it. Creatures should be treated with more respect than simply being a number.

 

Numbers are not everything. I have turned down invitations to shoot large bags of game and if any of the Guns on the shoots I have an involvement with start to get competitive I put a stop to it.

 

As for my own pigeon shooting I have been lucky to shoot a fair number of pigeons in my life time but I never set up hoping to shoot a hundred, only to have a good day.

 

By the way I do not take the slightest bit of umbrage with regards to your post number 42.

[Scully]

 

It's totally easy. Most including myself have made it clear we'd love the chance to try this at least once in a life time, I personally don't think I'd do it more than that even for free because the element of the chase is missing.

 

As for why I think it's obscene to deliberately go out to kill 10,000 plus for a record well honestly can you not see that almost every single element of hunter V hunted has been taken away to be replaced instead with pre-planning with a military precision. They use upwards of 5 semi's with teams of loaders and practically have to dip the rifles in water to prevent them from melting. The ONLY goal at the end is the celebration of a numerical figure which the slaughterer (not hunter) can boast to his mates and get his name onto Youtube. Birds become nothing but moving targets, during the day they exist not as wildlife to be appreciated and admired but mere clicks on a counter. It degrades and trivialises their life to such a callous degree that some cannot bring themselves down to that level, it borders on the sadistic.

 

Wildlife aren't targets and numbers are no achievement.

 

I don't understand the comment 'the element of the chase is missing'. There is no chase involved in any live quarry shooting unless you're describing a stalk or the chase as mounted hunting.

Hunter v hunted doesn't apply either unless once again, you're describing a stalk or something along the lines of lamping.

It is pest control, albeit on a monumental scale. The only difference between this and decoying is again the scale. Are you trying to tell me that you would stop shooting if that little morning you planned on the deeks looked like turning into a red letter day like no other you'd ever experienced?

King George the wotsit had loaders on hand to ensure he bagged as many as possible on 'sporting' driven days, ( didn't he have a record number 'dead in the air' ) and the practice of double gunning and loaders continues today.

When all is said and done none of us are forced to shoot anything. We shoot ( and kill ) live quarry for our own entertainment, whether it's one or one thousand. Therefore I can't comprehend the criticism of one by another.

There are certain types of shooting which don't float my boat, but as one who kills for no other reason than a love of shooting, I am in no position to criticise others for doing the same.

Some shoot because they love the challenge; and while I must admit shooting record numbers doesn't interest me, it is most certainly a challenge.

It isn't 'totally easy' in my view.

[grrclark]

 

It's totally easy. Most including myself have made it clear we'd love the chance to try this at least once in a life time, I personally don't think I'd do it more than that even for free because the element of the chase is missing.

 

As for why I think it's obscene to deliberately go out to kill 10,000 plus for a record well honestly can you not see that almost every single element of hunter V hunted has been taken away to be replaced instead with pre-planning with a military precision. They use upwards of 5 semi's with teams of loaders and practically have to dip the rifles in water to prevent them from melting. The ONLY goal at the end is the celebration of a numerical figure which the slaughterer (not hunter) can boast to his mates and get his name onto Youtube. Birds become nothing but moving targets, during the day they exist not as wildlife to be appreciated and admired but mere clicks on a counter. It degrades and trivialises their life to such a callous degree that some cannot bring themselves down to that level, it borders on the sadistic.

 

Wildlife aren't targets and numbers are no achievement.

 

Philosophical argument Hammy, what is an acceptable number that separates disrespectful slaughter from respectful sport?

 

The premise behind dove shooting in large numbers is crop control, so in that objective the greater the number killed the more effective the crop control is.

 

If 10 guns in a group kill 7000 doves at 700 per gun does that make it sport versus one gun who can kill 7000 where it is slaughter?

 

If every one of the 7000 doves die a death of equal magnitude what is the differentiator?

 

If the motivation of the gun is simply to kill as many as they can then they are really just being highly efficient in protecting crops, if they choose to shoot less to sate their particular moral conscience are they actually been immoral as they are tacitly approving a greater degree of crop damage from the birds? What has the greater impact on a wider humanitarian level?

 

In respect to say pheasant shooting in this country there is a significant difference as birds are specifically bred in order to be shot for sporting pleasure, whether you shoot 1 bird or 100 you are shooting them because you like to kill pheasants.

 

For the avoidance of doubt this is a devils advocate type post, but it is a really interesting philosophical discussion and highlights how each of us see things in a way that suits our own particular sensitivities.

 

Happy to be candid in saying that Scully has repeatedly shown a refreshing level of candour in these types of threads by being totally unambiguous when expressing his sentiment toward live quarry shooting and I am equally candid in saying that his candour has given me cause to challenge my own thoughts on shooting live quarry and questioning my conscience sating self justifications.

Edited May 11, 2016 by grrclark

[oowee]

When I started shooting i said 5 birds makes a good day then 10 then 20 and so on. Later I realised that what makes a great day for me is the weather the company a few good shots something different I might see and even sometimes just being there. Equally I can see that some want big numbers and good luck to them. I want to shoot and shoot some more If I get a decent bag or not is down to how it was. If we were all the same it would be a boring world. I want to respect any live quarry and try to ensure a clean kill and if numbers get in the way of this then criticism is due otherwise each to his own.

[Scully]

Scully

 

My attitude shouldn't baffle you. I come from the angle that shooting live quarry should never have a competitive element to it. Creatures should be treated with more respect than simply being a number.

 

Numbers are not everything. I have turned down invitations to shoot large bags of game and if any of the Guns on the shoots I have an involvement with start to get competitive I put a stop to it.

 

As for my own pigeon shooting I have been lucky to shoot a fair number of pigeons in my life time but I never set up hoping to shoot a hundred, only to have a good day.

 

By the way I do not take the slightest bit of umbrage with regards to your post number 42.

Fair enough. I have never set out to shoot a hundred either, but have certainly set out to shoot as many as possible, and if I shot 50 and the birds were there the following day I'd be out again and maybe shoot a further 70, totalling 120 in two days. And once again, if the birds are there the following day?...... where do we draw the line?

On driven days at game I could totally agree, but in pest control such as is the case here, numbers are most certainly the aim.

Never mind, I respect your point of view even though I find it difficult to fathom.

[Hamster]

 

I don't understand the comment 'the element of the chase is missing'. There is no chase involved in any live quarry shooting unless you're describing a stalk or the chase as mounted hunting.

Hunter v hunted doesn't apply either unless once again, you're describing a stalk or something along the lines of lamping.

It is pest control, albeit on a monumental scale. The only difference between this and decoying is again the scale. Are you trying to tell me that you would stop shooting if that little morning you planned on the deeks looked like turning into a red letter day like no other you'd ever experienced?

King George the wotsit had loaders on hand to ensure he bagged as many as possible on 'sporting' driven days, ( didn't he have a record number 'dead in the air' ) and the practice of double gunning and loaders continues today.

When all is said and done none of us are forced to shoot anything. We shoot ( and kill ) live quarry for our own entertainment, whether it's one or one thousand. Therefore I can't comprehend the criticism of one by another.

There are certain types of shooting which don't float my boat, but as one who kills for no other reason than a love of shooting, I am in no position to criticise others for doing the same.

Some shoot because they love the challenge; and while I must admit shooting record numbers doesn't interest me, it is most certainly a challenge.

It isn't 'totally easy' in my view.

 

The chase in pigeon shooting terms is the reconnaissance, the effort to find the right fields to begin with and work out where best to set up, the wind, the skill in setting up not just the hide but also the decoys, knowing when and where or IF one needs a whirly, when to bring it in, being able to live with close birds when circumstances force you to as well as knowing how to kill more distant ones. Rabbit shooting with a rifle has its own set of demands and skills hence hunter V hunted. Being driven to a set stand from which you're absolutely guaranteed volume shooting is chalk and cheese.

 

I absolutely have stopped shooting when birds have decoyed too easily, it doesn't happen too often as we all know but I have never shot pigeon because I'm worried about a farmers crops, that is a side issue. I shoot pigeon because of the love of the countryside, wildlife, solitude, etc, and I like a few for the table, I don't need 200 for the freezer.

Edited May 11, 2016 by Hamster

[Hamster]

 

Philosophical argument Hammy, what is an acceptable number that separates disrespectful slaughter from respectful sport?

 

The premise behind dove shooting in large numbers is crop control, so in that objective the greater the number killed the more effective the crop control is.

 

If 10 guns in a group kill 7000 doves at 700 per gun does that make it sport versus one gun who can kill 7000 where it is slaughter?

 

If every one of the 7000 doves die a death of equal magnitude what is the differentiator?

 

If the motivation of the gun is simply to kill as many as they can then they are really just being highly efficient in protecting crops, if they choose to shoot less to sate their particular moral conscience are they actually been immoral as they are tacitly approving a greater degree of crop damage from the birds? What has the greater impact on a wider humanitarian level?

 

In respect to say pheasant shooting in this country there is a significant difference as birds are specifically bred in order to be shot for sporting pleasure, whether you shoot 1 bird or 100 you are shooting them because you like to kill pheasants.

 

For the avoidance of doubt this is a devils advocate type post, but it is a really interesting philosophical discussion and highlights how each of us see things in a way that suits our own particular sensitivities.

 

Happy to be candid in saying that Scully has repeatedly shown a refreshing level of candour in these types of threads by being totally unambiguous when expressing his sentiment toward live quarry shooting and I am equally candid in saying that his candour has given me cause to challenge my own thoughts on shooting live quarry and questioning my conscience sating self justifications.

The ten shooters would have experienced a near once in a life time event and may well remember at least some individual shots. They will be tired but not exhausted unlike the guy who shoots ten times as many in a day. He would have engaged in target shooting with a deliberate purpose of achieving numbers to brag about. There is a difference.

Edited May 11, 2016 by Hamster