Sporting Shooter magazine attacks wildfowling.

[mudpatten]

The editor of Sporting Shooter magazine has printed an article in this months edition written by one Adam Smith which is a completely unresearched, heavily biased and grossly inaccurate attack on wildfowling.

With morons like this writing for and in charge of our shooting magazines what hope do we have for the future?

Worryingly, and since Adam Smith writes about gamekeeping, a branch of shooting sports under great pressure and increasingly close scrutiny, what with the dumping of gamebirds, raptor persecution, excessive bags, wounding - the list goes on - that the magazine should try to divert attention away from this towards a minority sport is morally wrong and utterly reprehensible.

[Scully]

4 minutes ago, mudpatten said:

The editor of Sporting Shooter magazine has printed an article in this months edition written by one Adam Smith which is a completely unresearched, heavily biased and grossly inaccurate attack on wildfowling.

With morons like this writing for and in charge of our shooting magazines what hope do we have for the future?

Worryingly, and since Adam Smith writes about gamekeeping, a branch of shooting sports under great pressure and increasingly close scrutiny, what with the dumping of gamebirds, raptor persecution, excessive bags, wounding - the list goes on - that the magazine should try to divert attention away from this towards a minority sport is morally wrong and utterly reprehensible.

Here we go again! I haven't read the article, but do you mean similar to your post above regarding gamekeeping? Perhaps you should write to him instead of launching an attack on yet another minority sport. Perhaps you could point out to him that highlighting shortcomings and criticism of one shooting 'sport' will do nothing to minimise the criticism of the other. Just a thought. 

[mudpatten]

I mean exactly that. The attack on wildfowling is now in the public domain and cannot be withdrawn. I have addressed this with the editor and I await his response with interest.

An attack on one branch of shooting is an attack on us all. So why did he do it?  -  except to get a cheap reaction. This is really desperately poor Editing. I`d much prefer that he did not use the sport that many of us love dearly to sell a  few more magazines.

 

 

[Scully]

4 minutes ago, mudpatten said:

The attack on wildfowling is now in the public domain and cannot be withdrawn. I have addressed this with the editor and I await his response with interest.

Good for you.

An attack on one branch of shooting is an attack on us all. So why did he do it?  -  except to get a cheap reaction. Oh the irony! 

 

 

 

[mudpatten]

Absolutely exquisite ain`t it, unfortunately I do not subscribe to the "turn the other cheek" philosophy. One of the few benefits of the internet is that we can now take the editor to task in a more public forum. It might serve as an example to him and other magazine editors to think before they print.

[johnnytheboy]

That’s just rambling a lot of ****, it isn’t even an article!

[Wildfowler]

It’s an appalling “article”

I for one will be urging all shooting friends not to be buying that publication ever again!

[nic]

rather than people rushing out to buy and read it, can someone scan it and post on here

 

[holloway]

7 minutes ago, nic said:

rather than people rushing out to buy and read it, can someone scan it and post on here

 

+1 as i have no inclination to boost there sales.or if you cant scan it just some details would be good.

 

[Perazzishot]

I have read the article and to be honest it is quite factual and honest and portrays what punt gunning was originally about, which was harvesting as many ducks or geese as possible to supply food to families, communities or in return for other goods and was carried out back then more by the needy and especially during the war and after when rationing seriously reduced meat supply.

 

As for the bit regarding using nuts, bolts and nails for projectiles once again very true as above these were people with very little and also shot was not a available during the war so improvisation was used.

Now the article itself is in a shooting magazine and the ethics are exactly the same as many articles on this forum regarding shots and taking them to ensure clean kills the rights the wrongs etc etc. If it is on the internet it is in the public domain it just depends who chooses to read it. We do enough debating on here about wounding and clean kills to give the anti's piles of evidence!

Punt gunning is never going to ensure clean kills. Fact. You won't retrieve every duck or goose shot. Fact. Birds will fly off and die elsewhere. Fact Most punts don't have space foe a dog. Fact

Apart from nostalgia what is the reason nowadays for a traditional 4 bore mounted punt gun? I think this is the more pertinent question rather than look to be offended look at the point being made!

 

 

[Big Mat]

16 minutes ago, Perazzishot said:

I have read the article and to be honest it is quite factual and honest and portrays what punt gunning was originally about, which was harvesting as many ducks or geese as possible to supply food to families, communities or in return for other goods and was carried out back then more by the needy and especially during the war and after when rationing seriously reduced meat supply.

 

As for the bit regarding using nuts, bolts and nails for projectiles once again very true as above these were people with very little and also shot was not a available during the war so improvisation was used.

Now the article itself is in a shooting magazine and the ethics are exactly the same as many articles on this forum regarding shots and taking them to ensure clean kills the rights the wrongs etc etc. If it is on the internet it is in the public domain it just depends who chooses to read it. We do enough debating on here about wounding and clean kills to give the anti's piles of evidence!

Punt gunning is never going to ensure clean kills. Fact. You won't retrieve every duck or goose shot. Fact. Birds will fly off and die elsewhere. Fact Most punts don't have space foe a dog. Fact

Apart from nostalgia what is the reason nowadays for a traditional 4 bore mounted punt gun? I think this is the more pertinent question rather than look to be offended look at the point being made!

 

 

From reading your post, it's clear to see that even my dog knows more about punt gunning than you

[Seadog1408]

12 minutes ago, Big Mat said:

From reading your post, it's clear to see that even my dog knows more about punt gunning than you

Ha ha, but is there room in the punt for your dog?!!!

[TWAG]

People what you are really talking about here is wounding. The use of any weapon that fires multiple projectiles will never assure a first strike kill. End of story. It doesn't matter whether is a 410 or a punt gun.

[Pushandpull]

Perazzishot, you are ludicrously ignorant of what you write about. It is the sort of stuff you can find on American sites.

Punting is a stalking sport. It is about getting close and killing as cleanly as possible (like  much that we all do).

There is only one form of shooting in which the range is often artificially increased, thereby increasing the chances of wounding birds, and this is driven shooting.

Put down the stones and come out of the glasshouse.

[andrewluke]

22 minutes ago, TWAG said:

People what you are really talking about here is wounding. The use of any weapon that fires multiple projectiles will never assure a first strike kill. End of story. It doesn't matter whether is a 410 or a punt gun.

but with a shotgun you are concentrating on a single bird not a pack of birds

[Smokersmith]

I can't comment on the article ... but punting can and will cause a number of wounded birds ... hence why many punters carry 'cripplestoppers' ... i.e. at least one 12g to effectively minimize any suffering as quickly as possible.

[WelshAndy]

Is there a link to the article or can someone scan it and post??

 

aint gonna waste my ££ buying it. 

 

Thanks

[guy baxendale]

I would place a large bet that more birds are wounded in a single day on one high volume high bird pheasant shoot than in an entire year by all the punts afloat in the whole country.

The article is a nonsense.

If anyone wants to see the article it is posted in most of the wildfowling groups on facebook.

 

 

[Perazzishot]

6 hours ago, Big Mat said:

From reading your post, it's clear to see that even my dog knows more about punt gunning than you

Why is that Mat

To insult with backing it up without explanation is usual a sign of poor intelligence.

Having shot for over 35 years and grown up in Lincolnshire and known quite a few punt gunners over the years, I actually know everything I wrote above to be true.

Now explain what your dog knows, because it knows more than you too!

6 minutes ago, guy baxendale said:

I would place a large bet that more birds are wounded in a single day on one high volume high bird pheasant shoot than in an entire year by all the punts afloat in the whole country.

The article is a nonsense.

If anyone wants to see the article it is posted in most of the wildfowling groups on facebook.

 

 

But the article wasn't about driven pheasant shooting, it is an article that shows that no matter you look the ethics of what we all do can be questioned and challenged.

Yet far more effort will be made to recover the pricked and injured birds on a driven pheasant shoot that can be ever done from a punt!

[Old farrier]

Room for the dog in my punt 😊

[grahamch]

Read the article in the newsagent this evening, the author knows nothing of modern fowling and should be ashamed of himself. 

The editor of the magazine can have no credibility or professional standard to allow it to be published.

The author claims to be a game keeper - wonder how many birds are wounded on driven days and not picked?? Especially on so called extreme pheasants. 

The older I get the more I doubt the ethics and morality of large scale commercial game shooting. 

 

 

 

[Pushandpull]

Mr Perazzishot, I usually try to trade in facts in my occasional posts here.

So let's start with "nuts bolts and nails". I have never found any basis for this strange myth. Lead shot was available cheaply from village ironmongers etc. I am old enough to have known chaps who went afloat during the war, and they would have laughed in your face at the suggestion.

"Space for a dog". There is space for a dog but they are not typically needed. The late Christopher Dalgety used to take his spaniel with him at times. I know the boat he used and it is a fairly ordinary sized double.

"Clean kills". This must be contentious but you are using BB shot which is fair stopper.

"Retrieval". We are talking about (typically) the open shore with miles of mud or sand. Any fowl not dead will be quickly brought to hand.

As for the "traditional 4 bore mounted punt gun" - this surely shows your lack of real knowledge. 4 bore is nor a traditional calibre although some doubles exist.

Age does not bestow knowledge or wisdom, but it helps. I have been shooting for nearly 70 years and first went on the coast 60 years ago. It is 49 years since I first went afloat, and I have studied the history of wildfowling as well as I can. I know little compared with others such as Mudpatten though.

 

This is a nasty little family row which can only damage all shooting sports and i suggest we leave it to die down without descending to mud-slinging.

[Perazzishot]

Push and pull I respect your comments but I have heard all the comments above from punt gunners.

The 4 bore was a deliberate mistake as I waited for someone to correct me. Well Done. I do indeed know it is a restricted 1.75" bore. 

[Big Mat]

53 minutes ago, Perazzishot said:

Push and pull I respect your comments but I have heard all the comments above from punt gunners.

The 4 bore was a deliberate mistake as I waited for someone to correct me. Well Done. I do indeed know it is a restricted 1.75" bore. 

You didn't hear any of that from punt gunners. It's pretty much the content of any American article or book on punt gunning. 

[Scully]

These threads never fail to amaze me; one group of shooters criticising another for doing exactly the same as them, namely killing birds for recreation. We really do get what we deserve.