Is it inevitable?

[Fellside]

4 hours ago, oowee said:

I am not sure that makes sense. It's surely better to be shot than ripped apart?

I see no evidence that the number of foxes are lower as a result of the efficiency of shooting. Where foxes are shot and as a result the numbers in an area were to decline, then surely others are likely to take their place. I suspect that the number of foxes are more likely to be determined by the availability of food source than mans intervention. 

Yes, they are drawn in from outside the patch as it where, but they are shot too. The net result is less foxes across a larger area than ‘the patch’ in question. The main benefit however, is a much higher success rate for ground nesting birds - and not just game birds. There is a particular shooting estate where I know 6 keepers shoot foxes and they are very good at their job. The spring curlew and lapwings chicks are a heart warming sight on the estate. They are easy to spot on the open ground. Yet if you drive a couple of miles beyond the boundary to some National Trust land, you literally will not see a single chick. That’s how much of a difference fox control makes. 

[Scully]

4 hours ago, oowee said:

I am not sure that makes sense. It's surely better to be shot than ripped apart?

I see no evidence that the number of foxes are lower as a result of the efficiency of shooting. Where foxes are shot and as a result the numbers in an area were to decline, then surely others are likely to take their place. I suspect that the number of foxes are more likely to be determined by the availability of food source than mans intervention. 

I have no evidence to the statement I made either, but we once shot 16 fox cubs in the space of two hours. I can’t see any hunt being as effective as that. 🤷‍♂️

[Genghis]

On 23/05/2023 at 09:44, GHE said:

We're wandering well off-topic here, but it has to be a good thing that air rifle shooting is now becoming more available to the public. There is, I think, a danger that it does (up to a point) support the anti view that there's no need for people to actually own guns and take them home though.

I think that a lot of the general public have a hard time understanding why someone who primarily shoots clays/paper targets needs to own a gun. In the past when I’ve explained to non-shooters that I shoot at many different shooting grounds and participate in competitions then for most of them that’s been good enough reason. There are still some that don’t care though.

 

One of my friends is fairly anti-gun, but a big dog-lover. I suggested to him once that we would statistically save more lives each year by banning dog ownership than we would banning gun ownership. He didn’t see the funny side.

[GHE]

4 minutes ago, Genghis said:

I think that a lot of the general public have a hard time understanding why someone who primarily shoots clays/paper targets needs to own a gun. In the past when I’ve explained to non-shooters that I shoot at many different shooting grounds and participate in competitions then for most of them that’s been good enough reason. There are still some that don’t care though.

 

One of my friends is fairly anti-gun, but a big dog-lover. I suggested to him once that we would statistically save more lives each year by banning dog ownership than we would banning gun ownership. He didn’t see the funny side.

Yes, and it also needs to be explained that, from a security point of view, it would be a bad idea for a large number of shotguns to be stored in remote locations . . .

Most people do get it though when I explain that I need to have my own guns because they need to fit me. The problem though, as I see it, is that the antis have loud voices and our shooting organisations don't, so the public never hears things from the shooter's perspective.

[simcgunner]

I believe our generation will be the last look at the trends in Scotland and recently Australia. first the banning of hunting followed by the banning of firearms. Soon the rest of Europe then Canada followed by the USA . The time when most people in the rural areas shot game and pests are now in the minority The Anti Country_ Sports are gaining power.

[Fellside]

3 minutes ago, simcgunner said:

I believe our generation will be the last look at the trends in Scotland and recently Australia. first the banning of hunting followed by the banning of firearms. Soon the rest of Europe then Canada followed by the USA . The time when most people in the rural areas shot game and pests are now in the minority The Anti Country_ Sports are gaining power.

I don’t think it’s quite as drastic as that…!

[Gas seal]

All these discussions are relevant to the question of a firearm ban. I watched a spokesperson interviewed on tv supporting fox hunting, he said shooting foxes will result in them being wounded, (another reason to ban firearms). I would have asked him how many horses were wounded or killed following the dogs. A councillor was on tv asked why people are allowed to keep firearms at home and drive around with them in vehicles, l would have told him ten people were killed by dogs in the last 12months a lot more badly wounded. I would ask him why government allow this after private member’s bills and hundreds of hours in parliament to stop dogs killing foxes. I’ve had meetings with my local council and conservation groups about shooting, l will explain to them what we do but I will never defend what we do. I tell them we are the ones who are legal and regulated and what would you like to know. Shooting is under attack and a lot more to come. We will have to be positive and will have to compromise, a lot has been took for granted in all types of shooting.

[Genghis]

1 hour ago, simcgunner said:

I believe our generation will be the last look at the trends in Scotland and recently Australia. first the banning of hunting followed by the banning of firearms. Soon the rest of Europe then Canada followed by the USA . The time when most people in the rural areas shot game and pests are now in the minority The Anti Country_ Sports are gaining power.

Western Europe maybe, but shooting is growing in popularity in Eastern Europe. In most Eastern European countries, gun laws are actually more lenient than they were 10 years ago. The Czech Republic also have gun laws similar to the U.S.

 

No way we see a firearms ban in the US in our lifetimes btw.
 

17 minutes ago, Gas seal said:

All these discussions are relevant to the question of a firearm ban. I watched a spokesperson interviewed on tv supporting fox hunting, he said shooting foxes will result in them being wounded, (another reason to ban firearms). I would have asked him how many horses were wounded or killed following the dogs. A councillor was on tv asked why people are allowed to keep firearms at home and drive around with them in vehicles, l would have told him ten people were killed by dogs in the last 12months a lot more badly wounded. I would ask him why government allow this after private member’s bills and hundreds of hours in parliament to stop dogs killing foxes. I’ve had meetings with my local council and conservation groups about shooting, l will explain to them what we do but I will never defend what we do. I tell them we are the ones who are legal and regulated and what would you like to know. Shooting is under attack and a lot more to come. We will have to be positive and will have to compromise, a lot has been took for granted in all types of shooting.

This actually reminded me of something. I don’t know how many remember this, but the day after the Keyham incident was when Biden pulled out of Afghanistan. It was bumped off the front pages very quickly. I suspect if that hadn’t have happened then there would have been much more backlash against shooters.

[ehb102]

We live in a country that is almost entirely governed by market forces. The rich now have no sense of noblesse oblige. Shooting will change in relation to the market. When laser shooting becomes as exciting as shooting a shell at a clay most people won't mind the difference. As for live shooting, there will be a bottom line of tolerance because unchecked deer/boar/foxes/rabbits/pigeon/pests will cause a danger to human health. When people keep dying because deer run out in front of their cars causing crashes, there will be a cry of "something must be done". And when enough people have been gored by wild boar public opinion will shift. The price of food will suffer if pests remain unchecked - and if it doesn't because pigeons and rabbits  are now eating out of dustbins instead of fields then the need has changed anyway. Some people might mourn being able to shoot what they like when they like but at least two if not three generations have never experienced that. 

[Fargo]

9 hours ago, ehb102 said:

We live in a country that is almost entirely governed by market forces. The rich now have no sense of noblesse oblige. Shooting will change in relation to the market. When laser shooting becomes as exciting as shooting a shell at a clay most people won't mind the difference. As for live shooting, there will be a bottom line of tolerance because unchecked deer/boar/foxes/rabbits/pigeon/pests will cause a danger to human health. When people keep dying because deer run out in front of their cars causing crashes, there will be a cry of "something must be done". And when enough people have been gored by wild boar public opinion will shift. The price of food will suffer if pests remain unchecked - and if it doesn't because pigeons and rabbits  are now eating out of dustbins instead of fields then the need has changed anyway. Some people might mourn being able to shoot what they like when they like but at least two if not three generations have never experienced that. 

I think they want food prices to soar so one day the genetically modified or lab grown food is what all the people eat

[Fellside]

11 hours ago, Genghis said:

Western Europe maybe, but shooting is growing in popularity in Eastern Europe. In most Eastern European countries, gun laws are actually more lenient than they were 10 years ago. The Czech Republic also have gun laws similar to the U.S.

There are several pro hunting European countries. Portugal is a good example. I would say hunting is even bigger than it is here in the UK. Gun laws aren’t so stringent either - e.g you only need a gun cabinet if you have more than one gun and you can hunt anywhere you like providing you’re not closer than 250 metres from a house. Also there is a legal bias towards hunting access, whereby some landowners can apply for special hunting exclusion rights  - and may not get their exclusion if the reasons aren’t good enough. Amazing! Imagine if we had such a system here. 

[Poor Shot]

25 minutes ago, Fellside said:

There are several pro hunting European countries. Portugal is a good example. I would say hunting is even bigger than it is here in the UK. Gun laws aren’t so stringent either - e.g you only need a gun cabinet if you have more than one gun and you can hunt anywhere you like providing you’re not closer than 250 metres from a house. Also there is a legal bias towards hunting access, whereby some landowners can apply for special hunting exclusion rights  - and may not get their exclusion if the reasons aren’t good enough. Amazing! Imagine if we had such a system here. 

Can just imagine it now. As a DIY game shooting syndicate you've spent the best part of the summer raising birds and managing your shooting carefully in the first half of the season just to have a group of lads walk up your best drives on a midweek and take 120 birds in a day. 

Can do what the **** we like mate, it's the law.. 

The system we have now isn't perfect (far from it) and I'm sure there are more nuances to it but that sounds like a free for all. 

[Fellside]

17 minutes ago, Poor Shot said:

Can just imagine it now. As a DIY game shooting syndicate you've spent the best part of the summer raising birds and managing your shooting carefully in the first half of the season just to have a group of lads walk up your best drives on a midweek and take 120 birds in a day. 

Can do what the **** we like mate, it's the law.. 

The system we have now isn't perfect (far from it) and I'm sure there are more nuances to it but that sounds like a free for all. 

Yes it is basically a free for all - but the system is far different from ours. The game management in Portugal is more about having the right kind of habitat for wild birds, managing predators etc. They are basically hunting for a couple of birds with good dogs - not big numbers. We would call it ‘walked up’ shooting. The partridge estates which specialise in driven packages do usually have exclusion criteria. Equally, they are much more interested in bore than we are. That’s a very big thing over there. 

[Fellside]

** Meant ‘boar’ not bore - blumin’ predictive typing..! **

[Gerry78]

On 24/05/2023 at 12:18, Penelope said:

The hunting with dogs ban was the worse thing for foxes as a species. More are killed now via lamping,NV, etc. It's so efficient.

Agree and disagree don’t think the hunting ban with dogs was the worse thing for foxes as it give the antis more voice to call it a cruel sport with men on horses and packs of dogs tearing a fox apart I agree Lamping NV IS more effective and humane one shot one kill but what I’ve seen fox numbers are still up Land I hunt every time a fox is shot couple of days later a new fox arrives in its territory 

[Shadowchaser]

The number of licence holders doesn't seem to have increased much in the 18 years I've been shooting.  In fact the number may have decreased. 

I have a friend who has been shooting with me a few times (clays) and once showed an interest in getting a SGC, but last time I mentioned it he'd dropped the idea on grounds of security. I think it's his wife that doesn't want a gun in the house, despite not being an anti.  

If I can't persuade someone who has shown a reasonable interest in shooting to get a SGC what chance is there for others to get into it? 

I really wish we had a more pro shooting mentality in the UK - not to the extent of the US but just be a bit more relaxed about it. 

[London Best]

12 hours ago, Shadowchaser said:

I think it's his wife that doesn't want a gun in the house, 

He’s married to the wrong woman. If she cared anything for him she would be pleased to encourage him in whatever he wanted to do.

[ehb102]

31 minutes ago, London Best said:

He’s married to the wrong woman. If she cared anything for him she would be pleased to encourage him in whatever he wanted to do.

Speaking as a woman who owns guns - what rot! 

Mutual respect is way more important than a leisure pursuit. 

[Rewulf]

7 minutes ago, ehb102 said:

Mutual respect is way more important than a leisure pursuit.

Does that not work both ways? 

[udderlyoffroad]

1 minute ago, Rewulf said:

Does that not work both ways? 

Umm, isn't that what mutual means, in this context?  Genuine question

 

13 hours ago, Shadowchaser said:

I have a friend who has been shooting with me a few times (clays) and once showed an interest in getting a SGC, but last time I mentioned it he'd dropped the idea on grounds of security. I think it's his wife that doesn't want a gun in the house, despite not being an anti.  

I've found you can usually solve this problem by bringing his wife and/or kids to clays too...some get into into it, some don't, but in my experience once people figure out guns are essentially inert lumps of metal and wood, the 'no guns in the house' resistance drops off.

[London Best]

1 hour ago, ehb102 said:

Speaking as a woman who owns guns - what rot! 

Mutual respect is way more important than a leisure pursuit. 

It might be a leisure pursuit to you Missus, but to some of us it is a way of life.

[Rewulf]

1 hour ago, udderlyoffroad said:

Umm, isn't that what mutual means, in this context?  Genuine question

 

2 hours ago, ehb102 said:

Mutual respect is way more important than a leisure pursuit. 

The mutual part of it (in my mind) goes something like this.
She mutually respects his wishes to participate in a leisure pursuit, that may well be something he enjoys greatly, its not something  (again in my mind) that impacts  on his good lady in any detrimental way.
He might not like something his wife does, but for the sake of harmony , lets her get on with it, ergo , 'It works both ways'

Now, there are certain caveats , if the 'There'll be no guns in this house !' statement has some good reason, ie , 'He' has a violent temper/is prone to abuse of good lady , then yes , perfectly reasonable, but then , if he is such a person , hes liable to ignore her wishes anyway ?

There are a myriad of 'reasons' why she might feel this way , but without more context.... The statement of 'She doesnt want guns in the house' is likely more down to her perception of guns in general, garnered from media and film, which is not the best source of reliable information on firearms.
Just my opinion of course.

[Shadowchaser]

I don't really know the full context to be honest.  It just seemed to go from him showing a keen interest in getting a licence (he was even looking on gun trader at one point to see what gun he might get!) to it being a total no no.

It seemed to me that they didn't even want the neighbours to know they'd have a gun in the house despite living in a fairly nice part of town.   

I don't like pressing them for a full answer as it may discourage him/them from saying yes in the future. 

 

[Rewulf]

27 minutes ago, Shadowchaser said:

It seemed to me that they didn't even want the neighbours to know they'd have a gun in the house

You should never broadcast it to the neighbours you have guns, it opens you up to all kinds of vulnerabilities.

[Krico woodcock]

3 hours ago, London Best said:

It might be a leisure pursuit to you Missus, but to some of us it is a way of life.

 ☝️☝️☝️☝️☝️☝️ this 💯