Wombat
|
I don't remember there being a season for rabbits, thats why there are so many of the damn things around.
Went out on Monday night with lamp on my two acre field, shot 2 out of 8 that were grazing around. So, so many, making such a mess 
Wombat
|
Jonnyboy
|
Very strange, I always follow the old adage that you only shoot them when there's an 'R'in the month.
Although over here it's been a quiet year for them, very wet and cold
|
tahir
|
| Deerstalker wrote: | When I said "season", I meant better eating!  |
So you're after some spices for them?
|
anneka
|
I always understood that the month with an R in it, was more to do with the quality of the rabbits than to fit in with a reproductive system. I thought that they reproduced all year round anyway - probably ignorance on my part. Quality of the rabbit is probably something to do with condition in the females?
Did see the first mixy rabbit I have seen for months though yesterday, by way of conversation.
Anneka
|
Gervase
|
I've found them at their fattest from May through to October, when the food's most plentiful. As vermin, like pigeons, there's no official 'season', and these days they do seem to breed all year round.
|
judyofthewoods
|
Vermin or not, no animal should ever suffer unnecessarily, referring to young left starving. But if they do breed all year round, it seems a difficult dilemma, and would seem to leave only live trapping with frequent inspection as the only humane-ish way, making sure one is only killing non-lactating females or male animals, at least in the milder south, if global warming should be responsible. Has anyone in the north found the same as deerstalker?
|
judyofthewoods
|
In your situation I think what you are doing is the best solution, as you say, others would do it, possibly less humanly. I think shooting is the most humane for the animal about to die, and if eaten saves another farmed animal from being eaten. At least the rabbit enjoyed freedom, for what its worth, and had an unsuspcting quick end.
|
judyofthewoods
|
All but a vegan would be in a position to criticise anyone for shooting for food. Trouble is the way meat is marketed, its so sanetised, a chunk of something in a plastic container, far removed from the factory farmed animal, the lorry ride, the abatoir. If all meat was sold the way one local butcher does, who hangs whole carcasses on the wall outside, then people would have a more realistic view on meat and where it comes from.
|
Lloyd
|
|
cab
|
| judyofthewoods wrote: | | All but a vegan would be in a position to criticise anyone for shooting for food. |
A vegan has to eat food that takes up farming space, which necessitates that less land is available for other wild species of plant and animal. In effect, a vegan is as indirectly responsible for animal death as anyone else.
|
judyofthewoods
|
| Cab wrote: | | judyofthewoods wrote: | | All but a vegan would be in a position to criticise anyone for shooting for food. |
A vegan has to eat food that takes up farming space, which necessitates that less land is available for other wild species of plant and animal. In effect, a vegan is as indirectly responsible for animal death as anyone else. |
The vegan argument goes that less land is necessary to feed people on vegetable protein than is needed for livestock farming, but you are right, whatever we eat, we are responsible for death, its the way of nature. The bottom line is not to eat and consume* excessively, do it as ethically as we can, keep our own numbers down, and there will be enough to go around for everyone and everything, i.e. not just humans.
*by consume I mean as in use of resources, which all destroys habitat through direct depleteon (mining, quarrying, logging, farming, distribution network) and poisoning.
|
Jonnyboy
|
| Cab wrote: | | judyofthewoods wrote: | | All but a vegan would be in a position to criticise anyone for shooting for food. |
A vegan has to eat food that takes up farming space, which necessitates that less land is available for other wild species of plant and animal. In effect, a vegan is as indirectly responsible for animal death as anyone else. |
That seems to be pushing the hypothetical argument a bit far if you ask me. The only people who could question meat eaters would be those who only ate fallen fruit after asking all the wildlife around if they aren't hungry.
|
McLay455
|
Season for rabbitsAs my old poacher pal used to say
You should only shoot rabbits if the day ends in a Y!!
|
DarrenG
|
well gassing cant be done anymore, some people prefer milky does, and if you kill a lactating rat take the babies if you find them to Judy to hand rear, and surely a dog caught rabbit is the most ethical way to control the rabbit population that you want to eat, as it doesnt use any of the earths sources such as lead(shooting), and its either dead or away
|
cab
|
| Jonnyboy wrote: |
That seems to be pushing the hypothetical argument a bit far if you ask me. The only people who could question meat eaters would be those who only ate fallen fruit after asking all the wildlife around if they aren't hungry. |
You mean fruitarians? You do get them.
I think it's important that just like we omnivores have to be aware of how our food is produced and what the environmental and ethical issues are, a vegan or vegetarian must have the same considerations. If you're a vegan because you believe that harming animals is unethical, you must face the reality that growing plants for food hurts animals. It's unavoidably true. That doesn't mean that a vegetarian or vegan can't question an omnivore, but it does mean that there are some pointed questions that can be asked back.
|
leebu
|
Most vegans and vegetarians don't argue that their existence doesn't impact on animals, only that it is minimised and free of cruelty (and that includes slaughtering animals for food when we don't need to). Food needs to be produced and arable farming is a more efficient use of land than that used to rear cattle, especially if it is to be done ethically. They would argue therefore that a vegetarian lifestyle has the least impact...short of shooting themselves in the head to save oxygen! Mind you if they argue that in leather shoes then I agree, they deserve to have their bubble burst.
|
cab
|
| leebu wrote: | | Most vegans and vegetarians don't argue that their existence doesn't impact on animals, only that it is minimised and free of cruelty (and that includes slaughtering animals for food when we don't need to). Food needs to be produced and arable farming is a more efficient use of land than that used to rear cattle, especially if it is to be done ethically. They would argue therefore that a vegetarian lifestyle has the least impact...short of shooting themselves in the head to save oxygen! Mind you if they argue that in leather shoes then I agree, they deserve to have their bubble burst. |
That's a perfectly rational argument that they can use... But there are gaping holes in it best left for another discussion
My point isn't that vegetarianism and veganism aren't moral lifestyles, it is that the moral issues here are way more complex than often they appear.
|
dornadair
|
After 15 years of Vegetarianism I am now guided along the principles that if I would be prepared to kill it myself I will eat it. Besides fresh rabbit just tastes so damn good!!!
|
KILLITnGRILLIT
|
Ahem........Oxford english dictionary definition
**vegetarian Show phonetics
noun [C] (UK INFORMAL veggie)
a person who does not eat meat for health or religious reasons or because they want to avoid cruelty to animals:**
This word comes from an American Native word meaning **Lousy hunter **
|
pricey
|
| KILLITnGRILLIT wrote: | | This word comes from an American Native word meaning **Lousy hunter ** |
 I will have to tell my mate Olly that, he might turn veggie
|
Rob R
|
| leebu wrote: | | Food needs to be produced and arable farming is a more efficient use of land than that used to rear cattle, especially if it is to be done ethically. |
Agree with cab, the above is not necessarily true though- by 'more efficient' I assume you mean more weight of food can be produced (not taking into account any ethical/environmental considerations on either side).
|
Old-Chads-Orchard
|
| Wombat wrote: | I don't remember there being a season for rabbits, thats why there are so many of the damn things around.
Went out on Monday night with lamp on my two acre field, shot 2 out of 8 that were grazing around. So, so many, making such a mess
Wombat |
If you need a hand just let me know
|
Bodger
|
I see that deerstalker is down as being the originator of this post but that his post has vanished. 
Two things.
There' nothing sweeter than a half or three quarter grown rabbit and secondly, in some areas the rabbit population has exploded. Rabbits can cause terrible damage to crops in May June and July, so if you are going to control them you might as ell eat them.
|
Old-Chads-Orchard
|
The little gits have broken through the wire around my blackcurrants, sod all left except twigs
The air rifle is getting a trip out tomorrow
|
Brownbear
|
Rabbita are like American corporations - a good thing when rigorously controlled, but a nightmare when operating without constraint. Load up your subsonics, imagine each coney is wearing a Ronald McDonald cap and chanting 'would-you-like-a-pie-with-that', and open fire.
|
willding2007
|
no closed season for rabbits , but you will control the numbers more effectivlyby culling late winter early spring
|
