Jump to content

Badgers


ShootingEgg
 Share

Recommended Posts

Been involved with shooting for more years than I care to remember, I have known a fair few keepers and yes this type of thing does go on but these videos are imo fake,

If you look at the guy with the mask in the first part of the video 25sec in, he is standing by a rock and shooting the snare/badger and then we see the badger run off but at 47sec in he is out in the open shooting the snare/badger.

 

They look like staged shots and in all my years I have never seen a keeper who is known in the area wear a mask and if the police were involved it would not take much to identify those cloths he is wearing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 55
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

If the idiot in the glasses wearing the Deerhunter camo hat and Veil, looking straight at the camera at close range, whilst holding up "snares" with a blue vinyl gloved hand is a "gamekeeper".........I'm a seventeen year old nymphomaniac!

 

Don't get excited guys....I'm not!! Lol!

Edited by panoma1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can't see a problem? He released the badger in the safest way possible for both and shot a fox....? Am I missing something?

Yes, you're missing the lies and drama created around the video to further the cause of the dope smoking crusty who sat and watched the trapped badger suffer rather than Try and help it in order to make.his little film

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can't see a problem? He released the badger in the safest way possible for both and shot a fox....? Am I missing something?

It's the questionable honesty of the accusations and the slant put on it, and the implied lawbreaking by "gamekeepers" as reported in the media that is the problem..........even if its inaccurate anti propaganda and a complete fabrication.....joe public will believe it! And the antis have scored points by damaging the reputation of fieldsports.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, you're missing the lies and drama created around the video to further the cause of the dope smoking crusty who sat and watched the trapped badger suffer rather than Try and help it in order to make.his little film

With ya now 👍

It's the questionable honesty of the accusations and the slant put on it, and the implied lawbreaking by "gamekeepers" as reported in the media that is the problem..........even if its inaccurate anti propaganda and a complete fabrication.....joe public will believe it! And the antis have scored points by damaging the reputation of fieldsports.

Didn't think of it like that. Cheers

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The most over protected creature in the country

They need controlling for sure, a general license should be issued to shoot them I'm sure.

It would be a mistake, big mistake, to ignore the feelings of the general population, misguided that perhaps some are. There is no need for a general license. Simply authorising occupiers to tke action as and when it is deemed necessary, letting them quietly get on with it would suffice and would avoid the uproar that would undoubtably ensue following a free for all of a general licence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It would be a mistake, big mistake, to ignore the feelings of the general population, misguided that perhaps some are. There is no need for a general license. Simply authorising occupiers to tke action as and when it is deemed necessary, letting them quietly get on with it would suffice and would avoid the uproar that would undoubtably ensue following a free for all of a general licence.

I think there would be high number of farmers applying for authority/licence to cull badgers, so I don't think that would go unnoticed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am a farmer and know of quite a few other beef and dairy farmers that don't mind badgers on their land as long as they are tb free. Putting them on the general license is a very good idea. They would be controlled as and when needed but not wiped out.

Foxes are not wiped out are they.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

These are things both basc, ca and ngo shopuld be getting together and really going after the paper, and try to get the (non) story retracted.

Althou even if they were succesful u'd probably only get a tiny apology hidden somewhere so the damage is still done.

I think shooters and their orgs have thought by keeping ourself's quiet and hiding we would be forgotten about, but it's not worked we should be fighting every 1 of these 'fake' news stories

 

Almost every other country in europe still hunts badgers and they won't have anywhere near the population/density we have.

I really can see no reason why the protection on badgers could not be taken away altogether, like others have said u still see foxes and no protection on them, yes they'd probably be hammered intially but then it would settle down when u got them to a sensible level and u'd start to see bumble bee's, hedge hogs and many other things coming back to the countryside

 

For some reason this country has completely lost the plot on wildlife/conservation countryside issues in the last few decades.

 

 

Strictly speaking the General Licence is for birds only, but even that makes no sense with some of the geese species on it with only 50-70K population yet Buzzards are completely protected with numbers of 300K, even u can apply for licences to shoot cormarants/gooseanders and there populations are way way lower.

There is absolutley no scientific logic to the whole protection system at all

Edited by scotslad
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am a farmer and know of quite a few other beef and dairy farmers that don't mind badgers on their land as long as they are tb free. Putting them on the general license is a very good idea. They would be controlled as and when needed but not wiped out.

Foxes are not wiped out are they.

I also think farmers should be allowed to control badger under licence as and when necessary, e.g. farms/areas that have regular positive TB results.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

These are things both basc, ca and ngo shopuld be getting together and really going after the paper, and try to get the (non) story retracted.

Althou even if they were succesful u'd probably only get a tiny apology hidden somewhere so the damage is still done.

I think shooters and their orgs have thought by keeping ourself's quiet and hiding we would be forgotten about, but it's not worked we should be fighting every 1 of these 'fake' news stories

 

Almost every other country in europe still hunts badgers and they won't have anywhere near the population/density we have.

I really can see no reason why the protection on badgers could not be taken away altogether, like others have said u still see foxes and no protection on them, yes they'd probably be hammered intially but then it would settle down when u got them to a sensible level and u'd start to see bumble bee's, hedge hogs and many other things coming back to the countryside

 

For some reason this country has completely lost the plot on wildlife/conservation countryside issues in the last few decades.

 

 

Strictly speaking the General Licence is for birds only, but even that makes no sense with some of the geese species on it with only 50-70K population yet Buzzards are completely protected with numbers of 300K, even u can apply for licences to shoot cormarants/gooseanders and there populations are way way lower.

There is absolutley no scientific logic to the whole protection system at all

Good post :good:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am a farmer and know of quite a few other beef and dairy farmers that don't mind badgers on their land as long as they are tb free. Putting them on the general license is a very good idea. They would be controlled as and when needed but not wiped out.

 

That's precisely what I was trying to get at - with the exception of a general license (GL). I simply can't avoid thinking that a general free for all would not go down too well. If it (GL) was to be introduced, then there could well be a need for another change to the law. I'm not quite sure about this bit as events may well have overtaken me with regard to the maximum power of a 22LR. Suffice to say, that the legal minimum muzzle energy is 160 ftlbs. When the law was introduced this effectively took the 22LR out of the equation - the next step up being the 22 WMR. I'm sure I need go no further as you'll have got my drift.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mud sticks, even if they are fake it will put shooting in a bad light for the cat lovers and anti shooting bunch, that's all that matters.

 

Shooting orgs would have to spend big money proving there fake but even if it was proven the likes of the mirror won't do a big article on how it was a set up to discredit grouse shooting.

 

So job done mud sticks

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The accusers are hardly impartial!.........Surprising how they know just exactly where to place covert cameras to capture these "crimes" on a many thousand acre moor innit?

 

I suspect the reason prosecutors in Scotland have recently declined to persue a number of alleged wildlife (so called raptor persecution) crimes backed up by photographic evidence is because the "evidence" is provided by people/organisations with a vested interest in, by whatever means discrediting Fieldsports and with a biased anti shooting agenda?

 

The reason Crown Office decided not to take the cases to court is nothing to do with the evidence being provided by those with a vested interest.

 

Under the RIPSA regs, the use of cameras in the obtaining of evidence is very strictly regulated. The recent high profile cases where clear video evidence showed offences being committed were binned as the proper and legal process for the placement of the cameras were not followed . As such the video evidence was not admissible. This explanation is the simplified, condensed version.

There is absolutely no suggestion that the video images were not authentic and the decision not to pursue the cases had nothing to do with those obtaining the evidence having an anti shooting agenda.

 

The entire case hinged on evidence which was simply not admissible as it was not obtained "legally"

Edited by bobthedug
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The reason Crown Office decided not to take the cases to court is nothing to do with the evidence being provided by those with a vested interest.

 

Under the RIPSA regs, the use of cameras in the obtaining of evidence is very strictly regulated. The recent high profile cases where clear video evidence showed offences being committed were binned as the proper and legal process for the placement of the cameras were not followed . As such the video evidence was not admissible. This explanation is the simplified, condensed version.

There is absolutely no suggestion that the video images were not authentic and the decision not to pursue the cases had nothing to do with those obtaining the evidence having an anti shooting agenda.

 

The entire case hinged on evidence which was simply not admissible as it was not obtained "legally"

Quote "clear video evidence showed offences being committed"......of course it shows nothing of the sort! It is a video from an unregulated, therefore questionable source that was (in your own words) "not obtained legally" which claims to show offences being committed!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Found this on my AOL email news page, Titled Peak District Gamekeepers Killing Animals. What a load of Carp, but once again the media prints whatever it wants and Joe public will probably believe it. The picture insert is titled as Masked Gamekeeper, ? I am unable to post the link to the Mirror report(Fiction).

 

Butch.

post-969-0-79388700-1499849908_thumb.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote "clear video evidence showed offences being committed"......of course it shows nothing of the sort! It is a video from an unregulated, therefore questionable source that was (in your own words) "not obtained legally" which claims to show offences being committed!

 

We could argue the point back and forward all day. If you see the video I refer to, the game keeper is seen as clear as a bell setting a pole trap at the site of a raptor nest.

 

The video camera was according to the RSPB, placed, simply to attempt to establish as to why the birds were declining.

 

The reality was that they had information that a game keeper was trapping and killing them. The camera was now being used to obtain evidence of a specific crime and that where they went wrong. Under these circumstances, a different process should have been followed which would have allowed the video evidence to be admissible.

 

I am no fan of the RSPB or any of the anti hunting groups but I live in an area where raptor shooting has been commonplace. My friend lost two of his birds of prey to poison which had been left where a dog was also killed due to secondary poisoning.

 

A "gamekeeper" was suspected but due to police incompetence there was no case ever reported. I live with thousands of acres on my doorstep but had to walk my dogs on a lead for fear of them becoming victim to poison.This "gamekeeper" boasted to many people that he was actively embarking on a process to reduce the numbers of buzzards and resorted to using a deadly poison placed in rabbit carcasses. It was used in such a high concentration that the police became involved after several reports were made of groups of crows lying dead around dead rabbits.

 

They had been laced with large amounts of a deadly poison which was banned decades ago.

 

I do not wish to come into conflict with a fellow shooter but cases of wildlife crime are widespread and those with the remit of detecting those responsible have a duty to ensure that the investigation and gathering of evidence is legal and properly conducted.

 

There are those who manage shooting estates and do so without breaking the law and being irresponsible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...