War on Field Sports?

[panoma1]

26 minutes ago, Scully said:

Everyone has a view of what is ‘sport’ or not when it applies to live quarry shooting. If it makes you feel better about why you do what you do then fair enough, but don’t kid yourself that you’re killing for any other reason than your own pleasure. You try convincing an anti that your ‘sport’ is more justifiable than anyone else’s. 

You got the last paragraph right and I’d agree entirely; it’s a commercial industry; supplying demand for profit. The only downside I can see which currently needs to be addressed is the use of those birds afterwards. 

If we are killing for no other reason than our own pleasure, why not shoot a sitting duck or a crouching partridge or a running pheasant?....or shoot every early season flapper?..........it wouldn't be because it is not 'sporting' would it?

I have no need to make myself "feel better" about why I do what I do, because what I do is lawful, and complies fully with my own moral standards.....

[ips]

peoples moral standards vary, as long as its legal then it is merely down to what one is comfortable with.

[Guest stevo]

11 minutes ago, ips said:

peoples moral standards vary, as long as its legal then it is merely down to what one is comfortable with.

But is that not the problem , we as shooters , are we too comfortable with it in everyone else’s eyes. We as shooters will never be able to justify pulling a trigger , regardless of weather we can get everything into the food chain or not , if the public was to go nuts over game meat , the powers that be would NOT rely on us to provide it . Everything would be reared and processed just like , chicken,beef,lamb .

there is no need for us to get involved, the whole business would not want anything to do with us . 

Edit to say. We like a lot of villages have a big commercial game shoot , running three days a week right through the season. They have been farming there since1928 

I will give the game shooting side of the estate 10yrs tops ! 

Edited January 3, 2018 by stevo

[panoma1]

2 minutes ago, ips said:

peoples moral standards vary, as long as its legal then it is merely down to what one is comfortable with.

Agreed! But lawful or not, other people (including antis) will also have an opinion on standards of behaviour and what is morally acceptable, it's easier for them to attack us if the public find what we do morally unacceptable! It's in our own interests to bear this in mind when deciding how shooting is conducted!

[Harnser]

Individual morals have a lot to bear on this issue of killing massive amounts of game birds in one day for profit . Some people have morals ,others don’t . I most certainly do have morals when it comes to shooting wild game . To me ,shooting these massive bags of immature and mature game birds is totally immoral and it needs to stop before shooting as we know it stopped .

 

harnser

[ips]

9 hours ago, Harnser said:

Individual morals have a lot to bear on this issue of killing massive amounts of game birds in one day for profit . Some people have morals ,others don’t . I most certainly do have morals when it comes to shooting wild game . To me ,shooting these massive bags of immature and mature game birds is totally immoral and it needs to stop before shooting as we know it stopped .

 

harnser

the thing is what is a big bag ?

what figure is the cut off and based on what reason ?

personally I believe the deciding factor is "food chain" my syndicate of 16 shoot between 20-40 per day, all of the members take birds home. The estate I work on average 250 and I know for a fact that all birds enter food chain. That is my moral standard. Having said that if a shoot can ensure 400 enter food chain then that is also acceptable to me. Conversely if a bloke shoots a pigeon for no specific reason other than sport and chucks it in a hedge then that is morally wrong in my eyes. So Imo its not the numbers that make it morally unacceptable but what happens to the bag.

[panoma1]

34 minutes ago, ips said:

the thing is what is a big bag ?

what figure is the cut off and based on what reason ?

personally I believe the deciding factor is "food chain" my syndicate of 16 shoot between 20-40 per day, all of the members take birds home. The estate I work on average 250 and I know for a fact that all birds enter food chain. That is my moral standard. Having said that if a shoot can ensure 400 enter food chain then that is also acceptable to me. Conversely if a bloke shoots a pigeon for no specific reason other than sport and chucks it in a hedge then that is morally wrong in my eyes. So Imo its not the numbers that make it morally unacceptable but what happens to the bag.

I think the answer is that what we as shooters and sportsmen do, must be morally defendable! Not just to ourselves but to those on the outside looking in......the antis are a lost cause, they will never change their opinion of live quarry shooting! But shooting must be able to defend its conduct and show the general public that what we do and the way we go about doing it is morally acceptable!.....otherwise we hand our enemies the stick with which to beat us!

[old'un]

53 minutes ago, ips said:

the thing is what is a big bag ?

what figure is the cut off and based on what reason ?

personally I believe the deciding factor is "food chain" my syndicate of 16 shoot between 20-40 per day, all of the members take birds home. The estate I work on average 250 and I know for a fact that all birds enter food chain. That is my moral standard. Having said that if a shoot can ensure 400 enter food chain then that is also acceptable to me. Conversely if a bloke shoots a pigeon for no specific reason other than sport and chucks it in a hedge then that is morally wrong in my eyes. So Imo its not the numbers that make it morally unacceptable but what happens to the bag.

I guess the question there is, if you shoot Crows, Magpies, Rooks, Jackdoors, Squirrels, Rats, Etc, what do you do with them?

[panoma1]

1 hour ago, old'un said:

I guess the question there is, if you shoot Crows, Magpies, Rooks, Jackdoors, Squirrels, Rats, Etc, what do you do with them?

Whatever you like! Because the difference is between what is necessary and what is voluntary!

I think that shooting the above species fits into another catagory! Such as, crop protection, pest/vermin control etc....all necessary, for a variety of reasons! Including conservation! Other species are lawfully shot for food (or should be!) voluntarily, and there is nothing morally wrong with enjoying that, it's called 'sport'!

But once we start killing anything, not in the above categories, purely for the sake of it, and paying to do so! when the once living creature, is discarded as worthless and unwanted, It is disrespectful, ceases to be 'sport' and becomes something else!......which is hard to defend!

Edited January 4, 2018 by panoma1

[Uilleachan]

"Thing is what is a big bag" 

For me it's all you can use.

The only time I've ever shot something I haven't planned to eat has been shot in the name of pest control, or been so shot up to be unusable. 

Was at an estate 40 bird sporting shoot on the 2nd, not that well attended on account of the weather but attended well enough for there to be a good spot of craic. I shot so badly last year, and on the first stand this year to not be in a place contention, but well enough this year to win my first bit of silverware on the shoots handicap system. Might not be much but I was really pleased to be able to add my name to the 47 year old trophy.

Take a prize win a prize, one lad brought a brace of french partridges from a covey that had appeared on their ground. Being the handicap winner I had 4th dibs from the prize table, there were still a bottle of nice spirits but I made a point of taking the partridges, which was nice when the lad that brought them was announced as 2nd in the handicap meaning he got the bottle.

Had them last night with my mother for dinner, which she enjoyed very much and, I can smell that my partridge soup stock is coming along nicely, as I type. 

I think if we (royal all inclusive "we") have such a surplus of driven game that it can't be used, then I thing we have a problem. IMVHO, game has to be eaten to justify taking it. But other opinions are available.   

[ips]

1 hour ago, old'un said:

I guess the question there is, if you shoot Crows, Magpies, Rooks, Jackdoors, Squirrels, Rats, Etc, what do you do with them?

indeed hence my "no particular reason"

pest control as said above is or rather can be a necessity and no one is expected to eat a rat or put a crow into the food chain. The antis presumably would have no problem with a rat being killed if it was under there kitchen cupboard but a wealthy bloke in expensive tweed shooting twenty pheasant in a day is wrong ? I don't get it.

3 minutes ago, Uilleachan said:

"Thing is what is a big bag" 

For me it's all you can use.

The only time I've ever shot something I haven't planned to eat has been shot in the name of pest control, or been so shot up to be unusable. 

Was at an estate 40 bird sporting shoot on the 2nd, not that well attended on account of the weather but attended well enough for there to be a good spot of craic. I shot so badly last year, and on the first stand this year to not be in a place contention, but well enough this year to win my first bit of silverware on the shoots handicap system. Might not be much but I was really pleased to be able to add my name to the 47 year old trophy.

Take a prize win a prize, one lad brought a brace of french partridges from a covey that had appeared on their ground. Being the handicap winner I had 4th dibs from the prize table, there were still a bottle of nice spirits but I made a point of taking the partridges, which was nice when the lad that brought them was announced as 2nd in the handicap meaning he got the bottle.

Had them last night with my mother for dinner, which she enjoyed very much and, I can smell that my partridge soup stock is coming along nicely, as I type. 

I think if we (royal all inclusive "we") have such a surplus of driven game that it can't be used, then I thing we have a problem. IMVHO, game has to be eaten to justify taking it. But other opinions are available.   

totally agree. As I said earlier if an estate can ensure a 400 bag goes into the food chain then it isn't a big bag. This is my point the size of the bag is irrelevant its what happens to it.

if an individual rough shooting takes four pheasant knowing he only has room in the freezer for two then that was a big bag, unless he gave two to a neighbour, then it isn't ?

[Uilleachan]

10 minutes ago, ips said:

totally agree. As I said earlier if an estate can ensure a 400 bag goes into the food chain then it isn't a big bag. This is my point the size of the bag is irrelevant its what happens to it.

if an individual rough shooting takes four pheasant knowing he only has room in the freezer for two then that was a big bag, unless he gave two to a neighbour, then it isn't ?

Absolutely. Knowing friends or neighbour will take game means you can take more should the opportunity arise, in that sense then bag size is relative.

Fishing is the same for me, I do a lot of that and on occasion there's opportunity to exceed one's capacity to use it all. A couple of years back I caught 50+ pan sized finock, half to three quarter lb, I kept 6, a brace for me, a brace for the GF and a brace for a pal who's disability means he can't access that spot, the rest went back. My rule is that I'll only take for people who've specifically asked, with game or fowl people who've asked and I know can deal with a whole bird, although I will prep a bird for someone who can't, occasionally.  

[Scully]

15 hours ago, panoma1 said:

If we are killing for no other reason than our own pleasure, why not shoot a sitting duck or a crouching partridge or a running pheasant?....or shoot every early season flapper?..........it wouldn't be because it is not 'sporting' would it?

I have no need to make myself "feel better" about why I do what I do, because what I do is lawful, and complies fully with my own moral standards.....

But you are shooting for your own pleasure for the simple reason you don’t need to do it. Do you not see that? There will always be those who justify their ‘one for the pot’ by claiming it is just that, but antis will ask ‘ why can’t you just buy your meat’ which leads us well off topic and opens up all manner of discussion and debate, including the ‘how do you justify the bird you wounded flying off never to be found?’ 

You’re tarred with the same brush as the rest of us who get the Adrenalin rush of a red letter hide day for no other reason than they enjoy it. It is immensely satisfying, otherwise they and you and me wouldn’t do it. It’s unnecessary but fabulous fun. 

It’s recreation but it isn’t sport. 

I entirely agree that shot game birds unused is deplorable, but it’s never attractive to attemp to justify your own activities by criticising those of others who also kill for entertainment.

As an addition, don’t puntgunners attract fowl to decoys and then blast them on the water; killing and wounding who knows how many at a time? It’s not a criticism, merely an observation. Each to their own. 

[ips]

good post sully.

and yes, what about pigeon or rook decoyed ?

there is no difference between that and driven game Imo

as you allude to, we need to be honest with ourselves, we do it or fun and we justify it or rather we should that with the odd exception of pest control such as rat, the fruit of our endeavours are consumed the same as the reared chicken in the supermarket

[Pushandpull]

Puntgunners do not use decoys. They do not "blast" fowl - they shoot them with large sized shot to minimalise wounding. Any wounded birds are rapidly gathered ; shot with a 12g if necessary. Who knows how many ? Double figures is a result, every 3 or 4 trips.

[andrewluke]

19 minutes ago, Pushandpull said:

Puntgunners do not use decoys. They do not "blast" fowl - they shoot them with large sized shot to minimalise wounding. Any wounded birds are rapidly gathered ; shot with a 12g if necessary. Who knows how many ? Double figures is a result, every 3 or 4 trips.

puntgunners don't  pick out a particular bird but a pack of birds?

[243deer]

Everyone involved in shooting needs to 'recruit' as many folk as possible by introducing them to game meat in order to increase demand. Preparing it for them if they do not have the skills or possibly the stomach for it. 

However many folk you have 'recruited' in 2017 try and double it in 2018.

Gamekeepers could really help us all do this by putting far more effort into advertising that free birds are available so that this can be achieved. They can easily do this via forums like this. Yet I have never once seen this done.

[Uilleachan]

40 minutes ago, 243deer said:

Everyone involved in shooting needs to 'recruit' as many folk as possible by introducing them to game meat in order to increase demand. Preparing it for them if they do not have the skills or possibly the stomach for it. 

However many folk you have 'recruited' in 2017 try and double it in 2018.

Gamekeepers could really help us all do this by putting far more effort into advertising that free birds are available so that this can be achieved. They can easily do this via forums like this. Yet I have never once seen this done.

Problem there is that sold or given, by the estate/farm/shoot on an official capacity, i.e. "free game birds/low cost game birds" is that we're into food hygiene regs etc... a minefield most don't want/can't get into, hence the existence of game dealers. If there's so much that supply is leaving demand in it's wake to the extent that game dealers can't cope with the sheer volume then we have an issue. 

Perhaps the answer is to have the guns take the birds. Thus shifting the burden of responsibility away from the shoot and placing it on the individual.

  

[Scully]

2 hours ago, Pushandpull said:

Puntgunners do not use decoys. They do not "blast" fowl - they shoot them with large sized shot to minimalise wounding. Any wounded birds are rapidly gathered ; shot with a 12g if necessary. Who knows how many ? Double figures is a result, every 3 or 4 trips.

There you go then; I stand corrected. I used the word ‘blast’ as an emotive term just as an anti would.

It’s worth remembering that fox hunters couldn’t decide whether they were involved in ‘sport’ or pest control. 

I still don’t consider there is anything ‘sporting’ about wing shooting; ‘shot’ itself was developed to give the hunter a distinct advantage in bringing down flying quarry, not for ‘sport’ but for sustenance. We don’t need to hunt to sustain ourselves, but many of us still have that hunting gene, but because the average man in the UK couldn’t hunt his own food without poaching on the land of the landed gentry and aristocracy, we have no tradition of hunting.  What we are involved in is recreational hunting, ( we don’t need to do it ) whether it’s driven or otherwise. 

Its a very interesting and complicated subject, but it isn’t ‘sport’. 

[old'un]

1 hour ago, 243deer said:

Everyone involved in shooting needs to 'recruit' as many folk as possible by introducing them to game meat in order to increase demand. Preparing it for them if they do not have the skills or possibly the stomach for it. 

However many folk you have 'recruited' in 2017 try and double it in 2018.

Gamekeepers could really help us all do this by putting far more effort into advertising that free birds are available so that this can be achieved. They can easily do this via forums like this. Yet I have never once seen this done.

good point, I bet there are plenty of people, shooters or not that would jump at the chance of a brace of birds.

 

Makes me smile, years ago poachers would take some big numbers at night and sell them on, pity they are not still around, we could give them as many as they wanted.

Edited January 4, 2018 by old'un

[panoma1]

3 hours ago, Scully said:

But you are shooting for your own pleasure for the simple reason you don’t need to do it. Do you not see that? There will always be those who justify their ‘one for the pot’ by claiming it is just that, but antis will ask ‘ why can’t you just buy your meat’ which leads us well off topic and opens up all manner of discussion and debate, including the ‘how do you justify the bird you wounded flying off never to be found?’ 

You’re tarred with the same brush as the rest of us who get the Adrenalin rush of a red letter hide day for no other reason than they enjoy it. It is immensely satisfying, otherwise they and you and me wouldn’t do it. It’s unnecessary but fabulous fun. 

It’s recreation but it isn’t sport. 

I entirely agree that shot game birds unused is deplorable, but it’s never attractive to attemp to justify your own activities by criticising those of others who also kill for entertainment.

As an addition, don’t puntgunners attract fowl to decoys and then blast them on the water; killing and wounding who knows how many at a time? It’s not a criticism, merely an observation. Each to their own. 

Of course we go shooting for our own enjoyment, but when a team of guns kill 400/500 birds in a day and take none home......Why? They don't want what they shoot! So are they just killing for pleasure?...........I confess I am struggling to identify any other reason!

What the antis say is largely irrelevant, they will always try to show live quarry shooting in a negative light.......what is important is how the general public see it........they/we make up our society and if the majority of society finds what we do unacceptable....politicians will legislate to control/regulate/end it?

Dont get me wrong, I take part in and support driven shooting, but I do have concerns about commercial, big bag, driven pheasant days, the motives and morality of those taking part, particularly bearing in mind that many of the huge number of birds killed are unwanted by the people who killed them! Are it seems unwanted at the gamedealers! And in consequence are disposed of in questionable circumstances!........In my opinion the forgoing is a weakness in the ongoing battle to defend live quarry shooting, which will surely be exploited by the antis...to the detriment of all shooting!

[panoma1]

4 hours ago, ips said:

good post sully.

and yes, what about pigeon or rook decoyed ?

there is no difference between that and driven game Imo

as you allude to, we need to be honest with ourselves, we do it or fun and we justify it or rather we should that with the odd exception of pest control such as rat, the fruit of our endeavours are consumed the same as the reared chicken in the supermarket

But we don't shoot driven game for pest control or crop protection reasons!

Pigeons and Rooks are wild and have natural population levels.....driven game, such as pheasant, are bred in captivity and released, usually in artificially high numbers, for no other purpose but to shoot!

Theres the difference!

[Guest stevo]

Just now, panoma1 said:

But we don't shoot driven game for pest control or crop protection reasons!

Pigeons and Rooks are wild and have natural population levels.....driven game, such as pheasant, are bred in captivity and released, usually in artificially high numbers, for no other purpose but to shoot!

Theres the difference!

You beat me to it ??

[panoma1]

1 hour ago, Scully said:

There you go then; I stand corrected. I used the word ‘blast’ as an emotive term just as an anti would.

It’s worth remembering that fox hunters couldn’t decide whether they were involved in ‘sport’ or pest control. 

I still don’t consider there is anything ‘sporting’ about wing shooting; ‘shot’ itself was developed to give the hunter a distinct advantage in bringing down flying quarry, not for ‘sport’ but for sustenance. We don’t need to hunt to sustain ourselves, but many of us still have that hunting gene, but because the average man in the UK couldn’t hunt his own food without poaching on the land of the landed gentry and aristocracy, we have no tradition of hunting.  What we are involved in is recreational hunting, ( we don’t need to do it ) whether it’s driven or otherwise. 

Its a very interesting and complicated subject, but it isn’t ‘sport’. 

Fox hunters probably couldn't decide" because it's both! Pest control and sport!

Its not shooting a gun that's 'sporting'.....it's how you carry out the activity of shooting as a whole.........shooting a pheasant on the ground is shooting, but it's not considered 'sporting'........  so again I'll ask, why do we not shoot pheasants and other winged game, on the ground?........Don't answer that, the question is rhetorical!...........The reason is, because it's not considered sporting! Conversely, shooting winged game on the wing is considered sport/sporting!

[motty]

2 hours ago, old'un said:

good point, I bet there are plenty of people, shooters or not that would jump at the chance of a brace of birds.

 

Makes me smile, years ago poachers would take some big numbers at night and sell them on, pity they are not still around, we could give them as many as they wanted.

That was back in the day when most folk would eat game. So many people these days turn their noses up at the mere thought of it. People are far too fussy these days.

11 minutes ago, panoma1 said:

Fox hunters probably couldn't decide" because it's both! Pest control and sport!

Its not shooting a gun that's 'sporting'.....it's how you carry out the activity of shooting as a whole.........shooting a pheasant on the ground is shooting, but it's not considered 'sporting'........  so again I'll ask, why do we not shoot pheasants and other winged game, on the ground?........Don't answer that, the question is rhetorical!...........The reason is, because it's not considered sporting! Conversely, shooting winged game on the wing is considered sport/sporting!

I think the reason most of us wouldn't shoot winged game on the ground is because there is no fun in it.