Didn't think we shot geese like this

[Penelope]

14 minutes ago, figgy said:

If your there to control them as pests, your there to shoot them for the farmer.

If you want to go Wildfowling, go to a Wildfowling club.

Inland goose shooting isn't like being out on a marsh

No, but is damned good fun if done responsibly.

[aberisle]

On 09/02/2020 at 13:55, motty said:

 This type of shooting appeals more to people who are too old or lazy to shoot them on the foreshore.

 

This sums it up perfectly

[Scully]

Punt gunning? Just saying. 

[Old farrier]

27 minutes ago, Scully said:

Punt gunning? Just saying. 

And that’s easy 

have you ever done it? 
 

I can see no comparison Whatsoever between the video of decoyed hungry geese coming into feed  and being ambushed by half a dozen blokes with semi autos

and a bloke in a punt stalking into a position to possibly get a shot 

[islandgun]

10 minutes ago, Old farrier said:

And that’s easy 

have you ever done it? 
 

I can see no comparison Whatsoever between the video of decoyed hungry geese coming into feed  and being ambushed by half a dozen blokes with semi autos

and a bloke in a punt stalking into a position to possibly get a shot 

Agreed 

[WalkedUp]

Let’s not argue amongst ourselves, we all agree that shooting ducks and geese inland is not wild fowling - it is game shooting and pest control respectively. Nonetheless it is possible to enjoy different aspects of our overall field sports body. The geese shot inland certainly do not harm wild fowling pursuits, the geese numbers and inland shot numbers are, I believe, at the highest ever level in the UK.
 

Shooting pigeons on a flight line vs decoyed pigeons.... lamped rabbits vs walked up rabbits - all great fun, one side is more challenging in field craft one side is more challenging in shooting. Perhaps it is the paid guide that troubles, but it is the same as for pigeon decoying. 
 

Perhaps if this topic was in the pest control section it would have less of a rough ride? 

[Scully]

49 minutes ago, Old farrier said:

And that’s easy 

have you ever done it? 
 

I can see no comparison Whatsoever between the video of decoyed hungry geese coming into feed  and being ambushed by half a dozen blokes with semi autos

and a bloke in a punt stalking into a position to possibly get a shot 

No, I’ve never done it; it has no interest for me whatsoever, but does making it difficult make it more acceptable?

‘Stalking’ waterfowl in a punt and blasting huge quantities ( compared to even a 10 bore ) of shot into the midst of fowl sitting on the water, crippling and wounding who knows how many in the process! 
I find punt gunning just as acceptable as I do the form of shooting in the video, even though I’ve never done the former, I just find it very hypocritical and a tad annoying when some ‘Fowler’s’ seem to give the impression their type of shooting is much more noble and ethically acceptable than other types of shooting. 
We’re all killing stuff for our own pleasure....each to their own eh? 👍

[islandgun]

14 minutes ago, Scully said:

No, I’ve never done it; it has no interest for me whatsoever, but does making it difficult make it more acceptable?

‘Stalking’ waterfowl in a punt and blasting huge quantities ( compared to even a 10 bore ) of shot into the midst of fowl sitting on the water, crippling and wounding who knows how many in the process! 
I find punt gunning just as acceptable as I do the form of shooting in the video, even though I’ve never done the former, I just find it very hypocritical and a tad annoying when some ‘Fowler’s’ seem to give the impression their type of shooting is much more noble and ethically acceptable than other types of shooting. 
We’re all killing stuff for our own pleasure....each to their own eh? 👍

personally, i wasn't  condemning anyone, i was a agreeing that theres very little comparison between the two !

[Scully]

11 minutes ago, islandgun said:

personally, i wasn't  condemning anyone, i was a agreeing that theres very little comparison between the two !

My post wasn’t really aimed at anyone in particular, more a response to several posts in general and perhaps with the OP’s initial post uppermost in mind. I was hoping people would simply see it for what it was without critisizing or claiming the moral high ground over others. 
Nevermind. 

[islandgun]

2 minutes ago, Scully said:

My post wasn’t really aimed at anyone in particular, more a response to several posts in general and perhaps with the OP’s initial post uppermost in mind. I was hoping people would simply see it for what it was without critisizing or claiming the moral high ground over others. 
Nevermind. 

Indeed

[captainhastings]

Also accessibility. I can get access to a few geese inland though to be honest trying to figure them out after the harvest is mission impossible lol. But its easier inland to find a permission where as joining a club you need a dog etc which i don't have. Basically I frown on any snobbery there should be no them and us rich and poor. We all enjoy our own little outings and long may they continue .

[Penelope]

14 hours ago, islandgun said:

Agreed 

Seconded.

And yes, I have tried it, twice, although only the gunner not the pusher, where the real skill is.

[henry d]

On 10/02/2020 at 20:13, ChrisWill184 said:

When they land on the stubble its not so much of an issue but when you have a couple of thousand of them land on a grass field, or winter sowing, eating, defecating on and flattening the grass that you are wanting to keep for your sheep or successful crop, they get to be a nuisance

Pretty much that, but the guy is a guide and will (to a certain extent) allow his guns to do as they please, I cannot be sure but it also looked quite well on in the morning and I don`t like to do that as they need to feed and not be pushed from one set of decoys to another.

Over 25 years I`ve shot them on stubble, grass, winter wheat and on the foreshore, I have never felt the urge to shoot a goose on the deck unless it is winged and likely to get away, if they are coming in they get shot and that will put them off the field if damage/crop protection is needed.

[SuperGoose75]

16 hours ago, Scully said:

No, I’ve never done it; it has no interest for me whatsoever, but does making it difficult make it more acceptable?

‘Stalking’ waterfowl in a punt and blasting huge quantities ( compared to even a 10 bore ) of shot into the midst of fowl sitting on the water, crippling and wounding who knows how many in the process! 
I find punt gunning just as acceptable as I do the form of shooting in the video, even though I’ve never done the former, I just find it very hypocritical and a tad annoying when some ‘Fowler’s’ seem to give the impression their type of shooting is much more noble and ethically acceptable than other types of shooting. 
We’re all killing stuff for our own pleasure....each to their own eh? 👍

I'm not techy enough to do highlighting sentences ect.. But I will point out that that is were I see a notable difference in the approach taken by both types of shooters. Wildfowling in its truest sense is not all about killing stuff and there is far more pleasure to be had on the shore/coast than there ever will be inland.

I don't think anybody is taking the moral high ground when they are merely pointing out facts. Inland goose shooting over decoys and coastal flighting are two completely different things when it comes to gauging what is more challenging.

I'd bet all I have ''which isn't much'' that a shooter would have far more blank flights on the shore than he ever will if shooting inland over decoys. 

As you say, each to their own and if people are enjoying what they do and how they do it! then fair play to them.

It's an old cliche that one goose on the shore is worth 5 inland but one I'd agree wholeheartedly with.

And if it comes down to shooting geese for pest control ect. then I'm afraid that has little to do with the essence of Wildowling as a sport.

You might not agree but I'll say it anyway. Wildfowling on the shore is a nobler sport than inland goose shooting over decoys. 

I've never be lucky enough to experience Puntgunning but I know enough about it to say that it is in no way comparable in any sense to the topic in hand.

 

[squirrelhall]

I suppose it depends where you live and your circumstances as to your stance on wildfowling  and goose shooting  when I moved to scotland 18 years ago  there was a dozen or so greys where I worked they were  left alone for a long time and they breed on grouse  moors and with keepers. keeping predators in check there are a lot about know . I don,t suppose they have ever seen salt water as they roost on reservoirs and lochs  The pinks i get to shoot also roost on lochs and reservoirs  I m getting past it  now  have health problems and live some distance from a coastal  roost I mostly  shoot on my own and i don,t  see  the problem with decoys

[Gerry78]

2 hours ago, SuperGoose75 said:

I'm not techy enough to do highlighting sentences ect.. But I will point out that that is were I see a notable difference in the approach taken by both types of shooters. Wildfowling in its truest sense is not all about killing stuff and there is far more pleasure to be had on the shore/coast than there ever will be inland.

I don't think anybody is taking the moral high ground when they are merely pointing out facts. Inland goose shooting over decoys and coastal flighting are two completely different things when it comes to gauging what is more challenging.

I'd bet all I have ''which isn't much'' that a shooter would have far more blank flights on the shore than he ever will if shooting inland over decoys. 

As you say, each to their own and if people are enjoying what they do and how they do it! then fair play to them.

It's an old cliche that one goose on the shore is worth 5 inland but one I'd agree wholeheartedly with.

And if it comes down to shooting geese for pest control ect. then I'm afraid that has little to do with the essence of Wildowling as a sport.

You might not agree but I'll say it anyway. Wildfowling on the shore is a nobler sport than inland goose shooting over decoys. 

I've never be lucky enough to experience Puntgunning but I know enough about it to say that it is in no way comparable in any sense to the topic in hand.

 

Well said I totally agree us as true wildfowlers sometimes aren’t allowed to express our views by other members of the shooting fraternity Who lets be honest look down there noses at wildfowlers  Myself would rather walk miles in shore mud and maybe get one shot than shoot dozens of birds inland But each till there own 👍

[Smokersmith]

I would take anyone looking down on a 'fowler as more of a poor reflection on them, than on us !!

[WalkedUp]

33 minutes ago, Gerry78 said:

the shooting fraternity Who lets be honest look down there noses at wildfowlers

I have never experienced that but cannot dispute it and so am disappointed that it ever happens. I shoot on the foreshore (previous member of a few Welsh clubs)  and inland, i also shoot driven game, and walked up game, and pest control, and stalk.
 

Shooting and fieldsports is a broad church, the factionalism and internal negativity that is rife between segments of our community drives me nuts. The lack of cohesion will ultimately be our undoing. I want to protect fieldsports for my children and future grandchildren. Likewise if you just shoot clays or wildfowl or magpies you should still investigate and fight any proposed ban on driven grouse etc. They will not stop once they have chipped away one discipline. We should support each other, be open to experience and respect that even if you have no interest in e.g. deer stalking, that each to their own!

[Scully]

On 12/02/2020 at 11:35, SuperGoose75 said:

I'm not techy enough to do highlighting sentences ect.. But I will point out that that is were I see a notable difference in the approach taken by both types of shooters. Wildfowling in its truest sense is not all about killing stuff and there is far more pleasure to be had on the shore/coast than there ever will be inland.

I don't think anybody is taking the moral high ground when they are merely pointing out facts. Inland goose shooting over decoys and coastal flighting are two completely different things when it comes to gauging what is more challenging.

I'd bet all I have ''which isn't much'' that a shooter would have far more blank flights on the shore than he ever will if shooting inland over decoys. 

As you say, each to their own and if people are enjoying what they do and how they do it! then fair play to them.

It's an old cliche that one goose on the shore is worth 5 inland but one I'd agree wholeheartedly with.

And if it comes down to shooting geese for pest control ect. then I'm afraid that has little to do with the essence of Wildowling as a sport.

You might not agree but I'll say it anyway. Wildfowling on the shore is a nobler sport than inland goose shooting over decoys. 

I've never be lucky enough to experience Puntgunning but I know enough about it to say that it is in no way comparable in any sense to the topic in hand.

 

But there we have that term 'sport' again! What is 'sporting' about paddling up to a load of fowl on the water and blasting them with a punt gun? A punt gun has a huge bore to give it 's user as much chance of bagging as many birds as possible, whilst giving absolutely no consideration to how many are crippled or wounded in the process. 

What is 'sporting' about a 10 or a 12 bore on the foreshore or inland? We even have double barrelled guns and semi automatic guns to give us an even bigger chance of killing something! If we're so concerned about giving something a 'sporting' chance, why aren't we using single barrels, or even better a bow and arrow? The entire design of shot and shot cartridges is to give the shooter every possible chance of killing something...that is it's one and only purpose; nothing at all to do with giving something a 'sporting' chance. 

A lot of people are still stuck in that mindset of taking one home for the pot, or 'harvesting' ( what a preposterous phrase that is! ) a few for the bag. It's a totally romantic and outdated frame of mind that has nothing at all to do with shooting in todays world. If you can't face up to the real reason you're killing something, then it's time you packed in, even more so if in the process you allow yourselves to take the higher moral ground over others doing exactly the same, whilst claiming yours is more ethical or more noble. We're killing stuff which doesn't need killing because we enjoy the challenge, chase, stalk, the thrill or the buzz. We have reached the pinnacle of shot and shotgun design ( unless you know of a way to improve it ) if you want to give something more of a chance, the only way to do it is to take a backward step. 

Some folk need to come to terms with todays shooting and the problems it's now facing ; claiming you're only shooting one or two for the pot, or 'harvesting' just won't cut it I'm afraid with those who challenge us today. 

They aren't only opposed to large bags, they're opposed to small ones too, because we're still killing something which doesn't need to be killed at all, for nothing more than 'sport'.  We're doing it for our own pleasure.

Pest control is a completely different matter. 

[panoma1]

25 minutes ago, Scully said:

But there we have that term 'sport' again! What is 'sporting' about paddling up to a load of fowl on the water and blasting them with a punt gun? A punt gun has a huge bore to give it 's user as much chance of bagging as many birds as possible, whilst giving absolutely no consideration to how many are crippled or wounded in the process. 

What is 'sporting' about a 10 or a 12 bore on the foreshore or inland? We even have double barrelled guns and semi automatic guns to give us an even bigger chance of killing something! If we're so concerned about giving something a 'sporting' chance, why aren't we using single barrels, or even better a bow and arrow? The entire design of shot and shot cartridges is to give the shooter every possible chance of killing something...that is it's one and only purpose; nothing at all to do with giving something a 'sporting' chance. 

A lot of people are still stuck in that mindset of taking one home for the pot, or 'harvesting' ( what a preposterous phrase that is! ) a few for the bag. It's a totally romantic and outdated frame of mind that has nothing at all to do with shooting in todays world. If you can't face up to the real reason you're killing something, then it's time you packed in, even more so if in the process you allow yourselves to take the higher moral ground over others doing exactly the same, whilst claiming yours is more ethical or more noble. We're killing stuff which doesn't need killing because we enjoy the challenge, chase, stalk, the thrill or the buzz. We have reached the pinnacle of shot and shotgun design ( unless you know of a way to improve it ) if you want to give something more of a chance, the only way to do it is to take a backward step. 

Some folk need to come to terms with todays shooting and the problems it's now facing ; claiming you're only shooting one or two for the pot, or 'harvesting' just won't cut it I'm afraid with those who challenge us today. 

They aren't only opposed to large bags, they're opposed to small ones too, because we're still killing something which doesn't need to be killed at all, for nothing more than 'sport'.  We're doing it for our own pleasure.

Pest control is a completely different matter. 

We have had this discussion before! I for one wouldn't bother with fieldsports if it was only about killing things! And I don’t kill things purely for pleasure.....if I did I’d get a job in a slaughterhouse! Things occasionally get killed in the process of the pleasure I get from field sports.......I have many times travelled over 400 miles on a round trip fowling, without firing a shot, let alone killing anything! The pleasure I have gotten is undiminished, I always look forward to my next trip! .....there is more to fieldsports, than killing things!....that is what we need to get across to the general public

[Scully]

18 minutes ago, panoma1 said:

We have had this discussion before! I for one wouldn't bother with fieldsports if it was only about killing things! And I don’t kill things purely for pleasure.....if I did I’d get a job in a slaughterhouse! Things occasionally get killed in the process of the pleasure I get from field sports.......I have many times travelled over 400 miles on a round trip fowling, without firing a shot, let alone killing anything! The pleasure I have gotten is undiminished, I always look forward to my next trip! .....there is more to fieldsports, than killing things!....that is what we need to get across to the general public

Then why take a gun with you? Many thousands of people go out into and enjoy the countryside like we do,  but without guns. 

I'll agree that shooting in any form isn't just about killing stuff. I've many a time returned from a stalk and thoroughly enjoyed the magic of it all, not having fired a shot, but I have never failed to take a gun! What would be the point? I enjoy shooting in all it's forms, whether it be ferreting to guns, walking the hedgerows, driven or lamping bunnies, or even clays. I'm a shooter, and the only time I wouldn't take a gun is if there were nothing to shoot. 

You can dress it up anyway you like, but you aren't convincing me or the general public that you don't enjoy it when you do get the chance to pull that trigger. The buzz I get is pure adrenalin; highly addictive and pleasurable. Like the rest of us you're doing it for your own satisfaction. If you're not enjoying it then stop doing it; sell your guns and maybe take a camera instead. 

 

[panoma1]

2 minutes ago, Scully said:

Then why take a gun with you? Many thousands of people go out into and enjoy the countryside like we do,  but without guns. 

I'll agree that shooting in any form isn't just about killing stuff. I've many a time returned from a stalk and thoroughly enjoyed the magic of it all, not having fired a shot, but I have never failed to take a gun! What would be the point? I enjoy shooting in all it's forms, whether it be ferreting to guns, walking the hedgerows, driven or lamping bunnies, or even clays. I'm a shooter, and the only time I wouldn't take a gun is if there were nothing to shoot. 

You can dress it up anyway you like, but you aren't convincing me or the general public that you don't enjoy it when you do get the chance to pull that trigger. The buzz I get is pure adrenalin; highly addictive and pleasurable. Like the rest of us you're doing it for your own satisfaction. If you're not enjoying it then stop doing it; sell your guns and maybe take a camera instead. 

 

But wrongly highlighting/overemphasising the killing part of fieldsports is playing into the antis hands, as I said, if the killing was a major part of the pleasure I get from fieldsports......I might as well get a job in a slaughterhouse!....... And probably consult a psychiatrist! 
Killing the quarry by shooting is the aim, and sometimes the culmination of the act..........it is neither the whole act, nor the sole purpose of it!

[islandgun]

I like to take a bird or some rabbits for the pot, I also think this sustainable harvest is noble and its a pity more don't do it, instead of driving to tescos for some chicken. old romantic that i am..😄

[Scully]

37 minutes ago, panoma1 said:

But wrongly highlighting/overemphasising the killing part of fieldsports is playing into the antis hands, as I said, if the killing was a major part of the pleasure I get from fieldsports......I might as well get a job in a slaughterhouse!....... And probably consult a psychiatrist! 
Killing the quarry by shooting is the aim, and sometimes the culmination of the act..........it is neither the whole act, nor the sole purpose of it!

 

6 minutes ago, islandgun said:

I like to take a bird or some rabbits for the pot, I also think this sustainable harvest is noble and its a pity more don't do it, instead of driving to tescos for some chicken. old romantic that i am..😄

On the whole I agree. I'm not overemphasising the killing part to deliberately play into the hands of antis ( it doesn't need to be overemphasised... it is what it is ) I'm merely trying to emphasise to those shooters who tend to look down their noses at other types of shooting and the way other shooters go about it, that they have no moral right to do so. Killing isn't what it's all about, but we're all killing things unnecessarily for our own pleasure, so none of us are in any position to claim any moral high ground over others.

Ethics may play a part in huge bags of birds as a result of driven shooting, but it's a business, and if it weren't for that business and the huge amounts of money and revenue it attracts and distributes by various means, the rest of UK shooting would be stood alone with little or no backing from anywhere. Say goodbye to that and those who want to sustainably and nobly harvest one for the pot will be gone toot sweet; old romantics or not. 😉

All I'm trying to say, in a nutshell, is that while you're killing things which don't need to be killed, you're doing it for no other reason than personal satisfaction/gratification, and are therefore in no position to judge others. 

[Salmo]

I know for a fact there are guides out there making a grand a flight ...... and that’s a fact