more attacks on shooting from Chris Packham

[markm]

Adge.

 

I started to write a post, trying to be positive and see your way of thinking, unfortunately I got bored and moved on.

 

I am a bit of a internet troll, watching Avery / packham etc. I find them very annoying. More than anything factually inaccurate.

 

Good luck, I'm sure you will always be welcome here, but your opinions are unusual for this forum.

[Adge Cutler]

Adge.

 

I started to write a post, trying to be positive and see your way of thinking, unfortunately I got bored and moved on.

 

I am a bit of a internet troll, watching Avery / packham etc. I find them very annoying. More than anything factually inaccurate.

 

Good luck, I'm sure you will always be welcome here, but your opinions are unusual for this forum.

Thanks.. it would be boring indeed if we all agreed.

[Whitebridges]

Adge.

 

I started to write a post, trying to be positive and see your way of thinking, unfortunately I got bored and moved on.

 

I am a bit of a internet troll, watching Avery / packham etc. I find them very annoying. More than anything factually inaccurate.

 

Good luck, I'm sure you will always be welcome here, but your opinions are unusual for this forum.

 

Adge is a bit of a turncoat but he got lost and decided to rummage around on here and **** most people off again. Bless.

Edited September 29, 2016 by Whitebridges

[Adge Cutler]

If your political forecasts and aspirations are anything to go by Adge you will be so so wrong!

Not wishing to Hijack the thread but Give it time.. we are not out of Europe yet by a long way...Camerons resignation was a smoke screen toget May in immediately and derail the process. I see the big car manufacturers are reviewing their options too.

I was so right about Farage and UKIP though...History. !!

Edited September 29, 2016 by Adge Cutler

[scotslad]

Don't be horrified..

 

I believe he will be the next Attenborough to be honest ...the people like him and he's already filthy rich.

 

He also spent a lot of his own money taking on the indiscriminate guns in Malta

 

Packham is only the conservation equivalent of Jeremy Clarkson.

 

No offence adge as ur obviously a keen and passionate birder, but packham wouldn't know about conservation if it bit him on his ****.

 

And to be quite honest an awful lot of birder's and shooters would also fall into the same category.

 

I spent 4 yrs at uni studying conservation and 1 of the most important things they taught u was to try to be unbaised and not express ur personal oipion, Attenborgh does that very well, Packham does not.

 

I freely admit to being very pro shooting and conservation and potentially biased, but i also try to see it from the other sides prespective and question my own views and opinions in case i am wrong.

As yet with a lifetime working in agriculture, forestry and keepering to various extents and uni studies all points to shooting doing massive overall good to the wider environment. Don't get me wrong there is some things shooting could do better, but the rogues are now the older generation and it really is not common at all.

Plenty of folk still drink drive yet no one attempts to tar all drivers with the same brush.

Nothing has made me really question them yet, infact most of the time i wonder wot the hell other folk are thinking when they can not see the blindingly obvious.

The scientific and ancedotal evidence is overwhelming in favour of the benefits of well managed shooting

 

 

If u banned shooting how would many of these rural economies survive (pubs garages, hotels,) esp out of season?

There are studies showning how much of the land mass of uk is managed for shooting and how much is spent on habitat work. The area is vast and money massive, most of that would stop. Who is going to fill the gap?

Even the ammount of feed put out in hoppers across the country, (now part of some HLS schemes paying farmers to feed throu winter) shooters have been doing that for free for decades

 

U show me ANY evidence that a uk species has been shot to dangerously low levels and i'll rethink my opinion. Uk shooters are some of the most conservationly minded there is.

There simply is no answers and they just play on a few half truths and a bit of class warfare/jealousy. Uk's wildlife would really be up the creek without shooting.

Watch wot happens at langholm over the next few years now the keepers are pulled out, grouse will plummet, waders will plummet, HH will plumet crows and foxes will rise.

[Whitebridges]

Not wishing to Hijack the thread but Give it time.. we are not out of Europe yet by a long way...Camerons resignation was a smoke screen toget May in immediately and derail the process. I see the big car manufacturers are reviewing their options too.

I was so right about Farage and UKIP though...History. !!

 

Oh dear sir you are so wrong. Anyway you used to be Fisherman Mike, right? You left this forum and told everyone that Adge Cutler doesn't do politics, right?

 

So you won't comment on my reply.

 

Farage was the best thing that happened to British politics at the time. The British people weren't listened to and the people voted. Nigel Farage disrupted and shot the whole system. You hated this approach that will serve our country well.

 

Just because your pocket is harder to fill doesn't mean Nigel is a bad man. I'd say he's a hero.

 

Don't complain, we have a tory leader that will do a fantastic job sorting out the mess that is Europe.

Edited September 29, 2016 by Whitebridges

[Scully]

I agree with the majority of your post but personally I don't kill things for fun, sport or entertainment! I shoot for fun, sport, and entertainment! the enjoyment of being in the countryside and wild places, the satisfaction I feel when I'm accurate with a gun, seeing my quarry, outwitting my quarry by my own field craft, success with my homeloaded cartridges, the unpredictability of your quarry, the tiredness I feel after a day in the field, the enjoyment of a day in the field with friends and likeminded folk etc, etc, etc...............Killing something does provide a welcome supply of free range meat..........but is still merely a byproduct of my enjoyment of the sport of shooting!

 

I might have moral reservations about killing things for sport, enjoyment or fun.......but I have no such moral reservations about shooting for sport, enjoyment or fun!

You're kidding yourself and no one else. You shoot for fun, enjoyment or sport but don't mind at all if something dies as a result of your shooting for enjoyment, fun or sport, or to put it another way, killing something in the process.

You can try and justify what you do by any means at all, but what you do won't endear you to anyone who opposes what you do, at all.

I can't say I derive pleasure from the act of killing something, otherwise I'd be killing anything and everything, and I won't do that, and have been saddened sometimes at the things I've killed, but to a lesser or greater extent I'm indifferent to the act, and while I don't like to see things suffer, it doesn't bother me to the extent I'd pack it all in.

Dress it up anyway you like, but you're not deluding anyone. Something dies as a result of your enjoyment.

[islandgun]

panoma1 isnt kidding me, I can understand exactly where he's coming from and agree, I shoot a handful of birds in the season and see it as a sustainable harvest of a locally abundant resource, (greylags are considered a pest here) although i expend considerable amounts of time and money for this meat on the table, i also spend considerable time and money making my land attractive to all birds, sowing un- harvested oats for corn buntings and twites, creating a small splash for waders, planting 1000's of trees (src willow mainly). i dont enjoy the death of a goose but enjoy the feeling of harvest when i return home, it is also about being there as is often mentioned in the wildfowling thread, i think it is similar to the coarse fisherman who will sit by the river for hours only to return all the fish, having said this I fish in the sea and still enjoy the feel of the fish and don't hesitate to knock it on the head ! I also shoot rabbits for the table as they are also plentiful, and an honest source of sustianable meat. but I can honestly say i dont enjoy their death.

 

You're kidding yourself and no one else. You shoot for fun, enjoyment or sport but don't mind at all if something dies as a result of your shooting for enjoyment, fun or sport, or to put it another way, killing something in the process.
You can try and justify what you do by any means at all, but what you do won't endear you to anyone who opposes what you do, at all.
I can't say I derive pleasure from the act of killing something, otherwise I'd be killing anything and everything, and I won't do that, and have been saddened sometimes at the things I've killed, but to a lesser or greater extent I'm indifferent to the act, and while I don't like to see things suffer, it doesn't bother me to the extent I'd pack it all in.
Dress it up anyway you like, but you're not deluding anyone. Something dies as a result of your enjoyment.

[Brixsmaid]

And here is the GWCT response, if we are going back on track !

[Penelope]

FM - Just playing devil's advocate here, but if science came up with a device, say sound emission based, that 100% stopped pigeons from feeding on a crop and the land owners where you shoot installed such a device, would you give up pigeon shooting?

 

For this argument the GL would still be in place too.

 

 

I really cant see why you all see my or Woodlanders views on Packham and my views on game shooting as such a threat...you must feel really insecure and frustrated about its future.

 

I don't see myself as being hypocritical at all..why on earth should we want to have a word with ourselves ...?

 

I shoot pigeons as a means of pest control, which predate crops grown by farmers and have done for nearly 50 years

 

I don't shoot much else apart from the odd crow and magpie. ( or rabbit for the pot)

 

If I see a pigeon on the bird table I don't immediately reach for the cabinet keys or plan its demise, I observe it as the beautiful bird it is...when the time comes to pull the trigger I'm happy to do so however.

 

Likewise in the field if I see game birds or plovers, or duck or grouse I don't view them as quarry so I don't feel it necessary to kill them indiscriminately for no other reason than I might enjoy bringing its life to an end.

 

If forum members want to pay lots of money to shoot grouse or pheasant good for them.... its just not for me... no point you all getting upset, having a hissy fit and throwing your toys out of the pram..it wont change anything or affect my views or allegiances.

 

The shooting community need to engage with the likes of Packham not isolate him fail in this undertaking and as Spanj said above... shooting is doomed.

 

I think some of you are jumping to conclusion and erroneously assuming I signed the bloody petition.

 

Its unwise to jump to conclusions

Edited September 30, 2016 by Penelope

[panoma1]

You're kidding yourself and no one else. You shoot for fun, enjoyment or sport but don't mind at all if something dies as a result of your shooting for enjoyment, fun or sport, or to put it another way, killing something in the process.

You can try and justify what you do by any means at all, but what you do won't endear you to anyone who opposes what you do, at all.

I can't say I derive pleasure from the act of killing something, otherwise I'd be killing anything and everything, and I won't do that, and have been saddened sometimes at the things I've killed, but to a lesser or greater extent I'm indifferent to the act, and while I don't like to see things suffer, it doesn't bother me to the extent I'd pack it all in.

Dress it up anyway you like, but you're not deluding anyone. Something dies as a result of your enjoyment.

In this post you start off by critisizing my post , then seemingly proceed to agree with what I said!??

 

I will repeat ( and I am not trying to endear myself to anyone!) I do not derive pleasure from the act of killing something! For the reasons I have already given the pleasure for me, is derived from the sport of shooting.

 

It is in the interests of protectionists like Packham to portray the likes of myself as callous fiends with an insatiable blood lust, because that lie suits his agenda, the fact is as a shooter I am a conservationist who cares very much about wildlife and nature and I spend money for real conservation....but I am grown up enough to understand that conservation is about husbandry, management and balance not about protectionism!.... The surplus created by this husbandry, management and balance is the harvest I and other shooters reap!

 

If you keep on questioning the motives of shooters, you do shooting a disservice......what you are doing is helping to give a truth to their lies and advancing the anti's protectionist agenda.

[panoma1]

And here is the GWCT response, if we are going back on track !

 

Excellent scientific fact from the GWCT......the true conservationists..............emotive misinformation and downright lies from..........the protectionists! Edited September 30, 2016 by panoma1

[Penelope]

Autumn Watch is due fairly soon, lets see if Snipe, Woodcock and Goldies are featured and comments made about numbers? If the are, then we can be sure that Packham is influencing the BBC.

[Adge Cutler]

And here is the GWCT response, if we are going back on track !

That's a reasonable response and I think we do indeed need to get back on track with this topic, lets cut away from the vilification of Packham and his admirers (of which Im one admittedly) I don’t agree with everything he says but generally he knows that if he gets a petition to parliamentary debate stage and subsequently any impartial consultation, he will have to produce hard factual evidence to reinforce his claims.

 

It’s no different to mediation and arbitration cases Ive been involved with in recent years in my industry. All the facts will be considered from both sides and some common ground will be sought. Normally both parties have to make some concessions in order to reach a sensible compromise

 

Ive read Packhams petition where he’s calling for a cessation on wader shooting pending further investigation into reasons for the birds decline and as some posters have suggested this would appear to be a sensible idea.

 

We have some very eloquent and emotive posters on this subject, but to date Ive not read any tangible reason justifying wader shooting.

 

Irrespective of how Packham has solicited his votes you can be assured when and if the time comes for representation in Parliament or at any subsequent consultation he will be prepared to the hilt armed with evidence to support his claims. The fact that many think he’s a dangerous activist deviant, mentally ill, self publicising piece of dirt with a personal agenda wont cut much ice with the man in the wig Im afraid.

 

Do I think Grouse shooting will eventually be banned ? No I don’t. I do think however its popularity will diminish significantly over many years to the extent it will become untenable.

 

Do I think Waders including Woodcock will eventually be removed from Defras general list. ?

Plovers and Snipe yes.. Woodcock possibly.

[Adge Cutler]

FM - Just playing devil's advocate here, but if science came up with a device, say sound emission based, that 100% stopped pigeons from feeding on a crop and the land owners where you shoot installed such a device, would you give up pigeon shooting?

 

For this argument the GL would still be in place too.

 

 

Several times this year the estate manager on one of the large farms I shoot has rung me and asked me to pop up to so and so or down to wherever for a few minutes and just let off a few shells to move the birds on...

 

I don't shoot the fields which they have bangers on either...

 

When there are no pigeons to be shot my guns are in the cabinet sometimes for 9 month at a time.. ( Honestly)

 

If such a device was 100% effective then my services wouldn't be required and yes I wouldn't shoot. I would probably do more fishing or go and shoot some crows..

 

Its Adge by the way FM is no more

Edited September 30, 2016 by Adge Cutler

[scotslad]

Now u are an admirer of packhams and if he genuinely cares about all birds where are his petions on other bird species in decline??

 

Capercallie is on verge of extinction in this country now purely due to Pine martin predation, where's his appeals for a scientific cull on PM before the animals are ate out and become extinct (again)?

 

Where's his petion for tree sparrows? or waders in general? Plenty of birds are on the red list in real terminal decline yet he only seem's to focus on the ones where he can point a finger at shooters, is that just a coincidence??

 

I'd have no problem with packhams petion if he was putting equal work into all bird species in decline, but he doesn't.

As beefy has said they've forgot about the birds.

No doubt he is clever and knowledgable but he's now on a crusade or an ego trip

 

The GWCT report pretty much blows most of his half truths/lies out of the window.

Most of the reason given for any decline would actually be adversely affected if shooting of them was stopped.

In the old days keepers used to spread blood and muck on there snipe bogs as well as topping them to encourage more snipe and woodcock, but not allowe to spread blood like that now

 

Because of the rspb's constant full attack or constant sniping against shooting i'd imagine most shooting estates won't let them on, so as lot of the survey numbers will be out as ur not getting access to the best habitat with proper vermin control

 

U really should take some time and read throu the GWCT website, some of the stuff there doing really is ground breakking and quite practical, they were the original brains behind many conservation ideas/techniques that are now standard practice.

 

Think ur also confused between wot the GL and quarry list are, General Licence is the reason how and why u can control pest species, quarryy list is something different entirely.

 

 

Wot u do is up to u and ur own moral/ethical code, but i do find it strange how u think ok to shot some birds and not others and still think its perfectly acceptable to drag a fish about by a hook in its mouth only to release it again, potentailly after keeping it in a small net for long periods.

But each to their own.

 

Wot are packhams views on fishing?? Make no mistake if packham/they ever managed to stop shooting do u think they are going to go away? Or set there sights on the next worst thing fishing? I know where my money is.

Edited September 30, 2016 by scotslad

[wymberley]

Don't be horrified..

 

I believe he will be the next Attenborough to be honest ...the people like him and he's already filthy rich.

 

He also spent a lot of his own money taking on the indiscriminate guns in Malta

 

Packham is only the conservation equivalent of Jeremy Clarkson.

Hopefully not; whereas Attenborough is at the top of the Premier Division, Packham is near the bottom of the Conference. We did have a man who did us more good than harm, but when Clarkson smacked someone in the gob it wasn't a hanging offence. However, when this man was sufficiently politically incorrect - which it seems is a capital offence - the BBC put paid to him for having the gall to declare that in his opinion global warming was a load of codswallop. Comparing his charisma to that of Packham, it makes that projected by the latter akin to a load of rotting fish. We sorely need a replacement for him. I leave you to fathom out who he is.

[Scully]

panoma1 isnt kidding me, I can understand exactly where he's coming from and agree, I shoot a handful of birds in the season and see it as a sustainable harvest of a locally abundant resource, (greylags are considered a pest here) although i expend considerable amounts of time and money for this meat on the table, i also spend considerable time and money making my land attractive to all birds, sowing un- harvested oats for corn buntings and twites, creating a small splash for waders, planting 1000's of trees (src willow mainly). i dont enjoy the death of a goose but enjoy the feeling of harvest when i return home, it is also about being there as is often mentioned in the wildfowling thread, i think it is similar to the coarse fisherman who will sit by the river for hours only to return all the fish, having said this I fish in the sea and still enjoy the feel of the fish and don't hesitate to knock it on the head ! I also shoot rabbits for the table as they are also plentiful, and an honest source of sustianable meat. but I can honestly say i dont enjoy their death.

 

 

I haven't accused anyone of 'enjoying' the death of anything. I don't derive any pleasure from the act of killing, but I have to admit I am more or less indifferent to causing the death of a living creature otherwise I wouldn't do it.

I too spend a lot of my free time creating a habitat for the game I shoot, and this benefits a countless amount of other wildlife, and we put a lot more back into our little part of the countryside than we get out of it, but apart from the bird feeders I hang in my garden I only do it on the places I shoot, nowhere else. What does that make me? A conservationist? I wouldn't be doing it if there wasn't anything in it for me.

Sustainability or conservation, shooting for the pot as part of a 'sustainable harvest' are all part of how we justify what we do, and that is killing things because we enjoy shooting.

The antis don't care about how it is dressed up; they see it as killing for sport. There is no other way to describe it.

I can live with that and don't feel the need to justify it by dressing it up as something else.

In this post you start off by critisizing my post , then seemingly proceed to agree with what I said!??

 

I will repeat ( and I am not trying to endear myself to anyone!) I do not derive pleasure from the act of killing something! For the reasons I have already given the pleasure for me, is derived from the sport of shooting.

 

It is in the interests of protectionists like Packham to portray the likes of myself as callous fiends with an insatiable blood lust, because that lie suits his agenda, the fact is as a shooter I am a conservationist who cares very much about wildlife and nature and I spend money for real conservation....but I am grown up enough to understand that conservation is about husbandry, management and balance not about protectionism!.... The surplus created by this husbandry, management and balance is the harvest I and other shooters reap!

 

If you keep on questioning the motives of shooters, you do shooting a disservice......what you are doing is helping to give a truth to their lies and advancing the anti's protectionist agenda.

I refer you to the reply I gave to Islandgun above.

Edited September 30, 2016 by Scully

[Scully]

Just to add I don't shoot Woodcock ( and neither do we shoot them in our syndicate ) nor Snipe anymore, nor any other waders, and if Curlew came back onto the quarry list I wouldn't be shooting them either as I love to hear that hauntingly beautiful cry of an evening. Saying that, I wouldn't criticise anyone who did though.

[islandgun]

 

I haven't accused anyone of 'enjoying' the death of anything. I don't derive any pleasure from the act of killing, but I have to admit I am more or less indifferent to causing the death of a living creature otherwise I wouldn't do it.

I too spend a lot of my free time creating a habitat for the game I shoot, and this benefits a countless amount of other wildlife, and we put a lot more back into our little part of the countryside than we get out of it, but apart from the bird feeders I hang in my garden I only do it on the places I shoot, nowhere else. What does that make me? A conservationist? I wouldn't be doing it if there wasn't anything in it for me.

Sustainability or conservation, shooting for the pot as part of a 'sustainable harvest' are all part of how we justify what we do, and that is killing things because we enjoy shooting.

The antis don't care about how it is dressed up; they see it as killing for sport. There is no other way to describe it.

I can live with that and don't feel the need to justify it by dressing it up as something else.

I refer you to the reply I gave to Islandgun above.

 

Im not dressing up or justifying my life to anyone, i couldn't give a toss what antis or anyone else thinks to be honest, i just simply gave my view, note i shoot rabbits for the table no other reason and i enjoy wildfowling for the mystique (if you like), or not, who cares. Do not judge me by your standards

[Penelope]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GpZfyAWAsP8

 

Hopefully not; whereas Attenborough is at the top of the Premier Division, Packham is near the bottom of the Conference. We did have a man who did us more good than harm, but when Clarkson smacked someone in the gob it wasn't a hanging offence. However, when this man was sufficiently politically incorrect - which it seems is a capital offence - the BBC put paid to him for having the gall to declare that in his opinion global warming was a load of codswallop. Comparing his charisma to that of Packham, it makes that projected by the latter akin to a load of rotting fish. We sorely need a replacement for him. I leave you to fathom out who he is.

[Penelope]

Scully, Island Gun and panoma, you are all decent chaps and all right, there is no need to quibble over very minor details, that's what the likes of Packham want.

 

We all enjoy what we do, and what we do involves killing stuff, not for any gratuitous lust for blood and inflicting suffering, but as part of the primeval hunting instinct, innate in some of human kinds genetic make up.

 

I have the right to make music, the right to make art, the right to invent and so should I have the right to hunt, it's part of what makes us human at the deepest level.

[Scully]

 

Im not dressing up or justifying my life to anyone, i couldn't give a toss what antis or anyone else thinks to be honest, Good for you; neither could Ii just simply gave my view, note i shoot rabbits for the table no other reason and i enjoy wildfowling for the mystique (if you like), or not, who cares. Do not judge me by your standards Believe me, I'm not in any position to judge you or anyone else; I'm just telling it as it is.

 

 

I have the right to make music, the right to make art, the right to invent and so should I have the right to hunt, it's part of what makes us human at the deepest level.

 

Couldn't agree more.

[Adge Cutler]

Now u are an admirer of packhams and if he genuinely cares about all birds where are his petions on other bird species in decline??

 

Capercallie is on verge of extinction in this country now purely due to Pine martin predation, where's his appeals for a scientific cull on PM before the animals are ate out and become extinct (again)?

 

Where's his petion for tree sparrows? or waders in general? Plenty of birds are on the red list in real terminal decline yet he only seem's to focus on the ones where he can point a finger at shooters, is that just a coincidence??

 

I'd have no problem with packhams petion if he was putting equal work into all bird species in decline, but he doesn't.

As beefy has said they've forgot about the birds.

No doubt he is clever and knowledgable but he's now on a crusade or an ego trip

 

The GWCT report pretty much blows most of his half truths/lies out of the window.

Most of the reason given for any decline would actually be adversely affected if shooting of them was stopped.

In the old days keepers used to spread blood and muck on there snipe bogs as well as topping them to encourage more snipe and woodcock, but not allowe to spread blood like that now

 

Because of the rspb's constant full attack or constant sniping against shooting i'd imagine most shooting estates won't let them on, so as lot of the survey numbers will be out as ur not getting access to the best habitat with proper vermin control

 

U really should take some time and read throu the GWCT website, some of the stuff there doing really is ground breakking and quite practical, they were the original brains behind many conservation ideas/techniques that are now standard practice.

 

Think ur also confused between wot the GL and quarry list are, General Licence is the reason how and why u can control pest species, quarryy list is something different entirely.

 

 

Wot u do is up to u and ur own moral/ethical code, but i do find it strange how u think ok to shot some birds and not others and still think its perfectly acceptable to drag a fish about by a hook in its mouth only to release it again, potentailly after keeping it in a small net for long periods.

But each to their own.

 

Wot are packhams views on fishing?? Make no mistake if packham/they ever managed to stop shooting do u think they are going to go away? Or set there sights on the next worst thing fishing? I know where my money is.

Pine Martins are not solely responsible for Capercalle decline...not even the majority part of it.. The European Population is very stable and exists in areas mainly where natural predation is high ( plenty of crows, foxes and Pine Martins ) Many of these areas are not intensively forested however or over grazed by Red Deer. The bird originally became extinct in the late 18th Century due to deforestation and habitat destruction.

 

If I catch a trout I kill it cleanly take it home and eat it..If I catch a coarse fish I put it back..the moral analogy of fishing with shooting waders ( which is what we are concerned with here ) is weak and mainly irrelevant to be blunt.

 

I don't have any concern about Packhams opinion of fishing I'm afraid...I know he eats it though, some species at least.

[Scully]

 

 

If I catch a trout I kill it cleanly take it home and eat it..If I catch a coarse fish I put it back..the moral analogy of fishing with shooting waders ( which is what we are concerned with here ) is weak and mainly irrelevant to be blunt.

 

 

Well from the viewpoint of an anti...not really too far removed nor irrelevant really. Antis despise those who kill things for 'sport', be it a Matador, a shooter or an angler.

None of us NEED to kill anything; we do it from choice because we can.

Granted I'd view it as hypocritical for someone who enjoys a steak to criticise me for shooting something, as they are eating it simply because they enjoy the taste and not from a viewpoint of survival, but is there any need to hook a fish through its mouth, gills etc and haul it from its natural environment simply so you can take a picture? Why do you do that; for enjoyment? Because it gives you pleasure? If it doesn't then why do it? I'm not criticising you for doing so as I've done the same, and enjoy doing it immensely, but see it from the point of view of the anti. Why inflict such a thing on a living creature simply because you enjoy it?

Not as irrelevant as you make out perhaps.

We're all in this thing together; if you don't care enough to defend it and would simply walk away if it were banned then fair enough, but others will fight to the end to defend what we do, including me.

Like I've said; I have no objection to those who oppose what I do, but do it with honesty please.