Scully Posted March 13, 2017 Report Share Posted March 13, 2017 .....and this is one of the reasons why... http://www.countryside-alliance.org/bbc-accused-hypocrisy-sanctions-freelance-contributor/?utm_source=Grassroots&utm_campaign=756600e4ca-E-Newsletter+100317&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_021d6b93bd-756600e4ca-217260533 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
besty57 Posted March 13, 2017 Report Share Posted March 13, 2017 Talk about double standards. Of course we all know the BBC arnt biased in anyway!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
toontastic Posted March 13, 2017 Report Share Posted March 13, 2017 (edited) And yet when they put their minds to it they can make some informative and impartial programming. A few years ago I enjoyed a series they did with Julia Bradbury called kill it, cook it, eat it. But then again that was before the leftie takeover and I notice that not long after Julia disappeared from countryfile. Edited March 13, 2017 by toontastic Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TIGHTCHOKE Posted March 13, 2017 Report Share Posted March 13, 2017 They (the BBC) really do not offer a consistent approach, we all know they are anti fieldsports. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobt Posted March 13, 2017 Report Share Posted March 13, 2017 I still remember the CA bloke saying foxes being shot suffered more than hunted ones, I left them the following day, Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scully Posted March 13, 2017 Author Report Share Posted March 13, 2017 I still remember the CA bloke saying foxes being shot suffered more than hunted ones, I left them the following day, That's fair enough, and the only thing keeping me from joining is the inconsistencies they claim regarding the hunting of foxes, but I like their diligence, their dogged determination and their willingness to rankle and get under the skin of any body of so called authority on issues that the ordinary man on the street finds frustrating. These are often issues of nothing more than minor in importance, but if left unchallenged can grow to lend a sense of righteousness to those who oppose what we do. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mick miller Posted March 14, 2017 Report Share Posted March 14, 2017 (edited) I still remember the CA bloke saying foxes being shot suffered more than hunted ones, I left them the following day, I clearly remember that too. Same sentiment. Edited March 14, 2017 by mick miller Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
itchy trigger Posted March 14, 2017 Report Share Posted March 14, 2017 I was a member of The British Field Sports Society back in the day, was booked on the coach to London as soon as it was organised, the march/ protest was against the proposed hunting ban, then we got the dilution of the perceived reason for the march, thanks to the CA, bus service ect, I blame them for the ban, they took away the focus of the march in the media, on the day it was all about hunting, the atmosphere was amazing, Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scolopax Posted March 14, 2017 Report Share Posted March 14, 2017 I still remember the CA bloke saying foxes being shot suffered more than hunted ones, I left them the following day, Probably a lot of truth in the statement, what upset you about it ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Piebob Posted March 14, 2017 Report Share Posted March 14, 2017 Probably a lot of truth in the statement, what upset you about it ? I suspect it's the hypocrisy of the statement/stance taken. i.e. The CA were saying something along the lines of - (fox) hunters and shooters are all in this together, it's an attack on all our country sports, whilst at the same time casting a blight on shooting as regards wounding rates. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mick miller Posted March 14, 2017 Report Share Posted March 14, 2017 (edited) Probably a lot of truth in the statement, what upset you about it ? Shot in the head/chest with a 55gn bullet at 3000fps or ripped apart by dogs, which would you prefer as a method of meeting your maker? Most nations, at some point or other in their recent history, have resorted to a firing squad to administer capital punishment. One wonders why they didn't do it humanely by using a pack of dogs? The idea that fox hunting with dogs is 'humane' in comparison is laughable and doesn't require further comment. Edited March 14, 2017 by mick miller Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scolopax Posted March 14, 2017 Report Share Posted March 14, 2017 Not every fox is shot with the optimal caibre/ round or for that matter in the right place for a clean kill. A great many are shot with shotguns, not always cleanly. A great many are still shot with .22 rimfires, not always cleanly. Witha pack of hounds the fox fox either got away or was killed. Wounding almost unheard of. I have never heard a hunt servant say " He was hit hard but got away, never mind, gangrene will see to him within the week" which i have heard many times by shooters Any fox I have seen killed by hounds was killed just as quickly as any rat by a terrier, in fact probably quicker. The carcasses is rarely broken up and if so post mortem. Charlie don't care by then. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JDog Posted March 14, 2017 Report Share Posted March 14, 2017 I still remember the CA bloke saying foxes being shot suffered more than hunted ones, I left them the following day, I remember that too. The bloke who uttered those words was a fool, not because the statement was untrue but because it attempted to deflect detrimentally from fox hunting to shooting as a means of pest control. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anser2 Posted March 14, 2017 Report Share Posted March 14, 2017 (edited) Never been a fan of the CA ( I used to be a member of BFFS )since they tried to deflect those who in opsition to hunting towards shooting. Also we had a couple of CA reps at a wildfowling club meeting touting for business and it very soon became clear they knew nothing about wildfowling and the problems it faced. Unlike BASC the CA did not even have a wildfowling department saying that if wildfowling had a problem they would bring in consultants to sort it out. Never had any respect for the organisation since. Edited March 14, 2017 by anser2 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.