Jump to content

Sporting Shooter magazine attacks wildfowling.


mudpatten
 Share

Recommended Posts

Haven’t read the report and won’t be reading it have to agree with Scully what type of man who claims to be a outdoors man would write a derogatory article on another branch of field sports For example I wouldn’t shoot hares or woodcocks but would never think of criticism of anyone who does Just gives the antis a reason to bitch Regarding punt guns I’m sure there’s forum members who know people who participate in this sport and how does this editor know what they used for shot years back Think we should put this article to bed and not give this editor of a shooting magazine anymore posting 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My  answer to the writer of the article, would be you could get any Joe off the street and give an hour long clay lesson and then stick him out on a driven shoot and he would probably do ok.

Give him the hour lesson and give him a punt and tell him to go out and shoot , the difference between the two would be very interesting ,if he survives it!!!!.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Pushandpull said:

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 

THANK YOU

The utter ignorance of the sport even from wildfowlers is astonishing

It worries me that there are less and less people who actually punt, rather than people who just think they know what it is about. 

Edited by ClemFandango
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, aberisle said:

My  answer to the writer of the article, would be you could get any Joe off the street and give an hour long clay lesson and then stick him out on a driven shoot and he would probably do ok.

Give him the hour lesson and give him a punt and tell him to go out and shoot , the difference between the two would be very interesting ,if he survives it!!!!.

Really? And your point is? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Salopian said:

Scully,

 I think the point is there is a great deal to learn about punting , time , tides , wind speed  , cripple stoppers , sculling , etc. etc .

But the point is we’re all killing stuff for recreation.

Driven game shooters don’t have the monopoly on wounding quarry nor ‘unsportsmanlike’ behaviour.

Neither is in any position to criticise the other. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, aberisle said:

You should try and get a day out in a punt and you would see the difference between the two methods of shooting/hunting

It really doesn’t appeal to me, but the differences are immaterial. Whether stalking deer, shooting foxes, decoying or driven game; the vast majority of those doing it are doing it for the same reason...recreation, and the end results are the same.

Like I said, no one who shoots live quarry for recreation is in any position to criticise others for doing the same. 

While we’re at it, does anyone actually believe that by pointing the finger at one section of shooting sports, will improve the view of their own? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, Pushandpull said:

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.

Excellent post..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Scully said:

It really doesn’t appeal to me, but the differences are immaterial. Whether stalking deer, shooting foxes, decoying or driven game; the vast majority of those doing it are doing it for the same reason...recreation, and the end results are the same.

Like I said, no one who shoots live quarry for recreation is in any position to criticise others for doing the same. 

While we’re at it, does anyone actually believe that by pointing the finger at one section of shooting sports, will improve the view of their own? 

but you can criticise the way it's carried out,what would be said if i posted a picture of a deer with a bullet hole in it's back end because when i shot it the deer was running at about 20mph??

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, Scully said:

 

Like I said, no one who shoots live quarry for recreation is in any position to criticise others for doing the same. 

While we’re at it, does anyone actually believe that by pointing the finger at one section of shooting sports, will improve the view of their own? 

I agree with you entirely thats why the editor of Sporting Shooter magazine should NOT have published an article criticizing ANY other form of shooting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, andrewluke said:

but you can criticise the way it's carried out,what would be said if i posted a picture of a deer with a bullet hole in it's back end because when i shot it the deer was running at about 20mph??

Yes, you can, but no one is suggesting it's ok to shoot a running deer up the chuff, but running deer are in fact shot, as are boar, which brings us back to one of the issues neither wildfowlers or game shooters have the monopoly on, and that's wounding. 

24 minutes ago, aberisle said:

I agree with you entirely thats why the editor of Sporting Shooter magazine should NOT have published an article criticizing ANY other form of shooting.

I agree, he shouldn't. One type of shooter started criticism of the methods of another in a magazine, which led to another type of shooter criticising the methods of another, but on this forum! You couldn't make it up! 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Scully said:

Yes, you can, but no one is suggesting it's ok to shoot a running deer up the chuff, but running deer are in fact shot, as are boar, which brings us back to one of the issues neither wildfowlers or game shooters have the monopoly on, and that's wounding. 

but shooting a running deer is frowned upon but shooting a running wild boar seems to be the thing to do???

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think that rather than criticise each sportsman , we should actually criticise the Editor and the so called journalist.

For more than fourty years I bought every shooting magazine .

But since Edward Watson died and Shooting Gazette have not replaced him, Shooting Times publishes drivel since John Humphreys died and all the other magazines are worthless and pointless . It is better to just enjoy your sport, you certainly will not get educated by the current journalists who all appear to be still wet behind the ears.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Salopian said:

I think that rather than criticise each sportsman , we should actually criticise the Editor and the so called journalist.

For more than fourty years I bought every shooting magazine .

But since Edward Watson died and Shooting Gazette have not replaced him, Shooting Times publishes drivel since John Humphreys died and all the other magazines are worthless and pointless . It is better to just enjoy your sport, you certainly will not get educated by the current journalists who all appear to be still wet behind the ears.

I took the Gazette when it first came out but concluded it was a reader vanity publication whereby the monied left it on the coffee table open at the page where visitors could see their host's photo taken on shoot day.

It's many years now since Shooting Times could be considered a text book in weekly instalments. You can bet your bottom dollar that the publishers have done their homework and have researched what it is that their potential  purchasers want to read and which explains why most, if not all, of them have dumbed down.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 26/02/2019 at 19:14, 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.

The bloke is a plank he is ignorant and inaccurate in his comments this is only the tip of the iceberg though, ruling him out and moving on why did the editorial staff publish such a article  ? A full written apology on the article i imagine wont be forth coming. People in the press and media really should try and be factual in what they publish it helps no body and portrays our sport in a bad light in times when we have enough to contend with  without effectively being fouled by our own team.

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...