Ian33568
|
Sport?Donīt get me wrong I an not against hunting however, out walking I came across a group of hunters with shotguns/rifles, dogs, tracking systems, beaters.......the full works.
The wild boar were driven up the valley towards the hunters and then shot. This is something I have difficulty getting my head around. If hunting is for sport (and food), what and where is the sport in this method. The boar do not stand a chance - no contest.
Take away the guns, dogs, beaters and tracking systems....then call it sport?
Interested in hearing views on both sides of the debate....
|
Brownbear
|
I'd say they were trying to shoot a dangerous animal species and picked the most effective method. As for the sport aspect, it depends what you mean by sport. The quarry is not an equal participant, it's the quarry. The idea is to kill it, and more than likely eat it. You can't really equate that to a sport like football, say. The England team way get a bit bit of stick but at least they're not devoured when they lose.
|
boisdevie1
|
| Brownbear wrote: | | You can't really equate that to a sport like football, say. The England team way get a bit bit of stick but at least they're not devoured when they lose. |
I wonder if the threat of going in the pot would improve their performance? Bet it would concentrate their minds a bit.
As to sport. Who called it a sport. I suspect they hunt because it gets them out in the countryside and they get something to eat. And in terms of the moral compass I think that a wild boar has a much better quality of life than say a factory farmed pig.
|
lottie
|
I can't see much sport in shooting reared pheasants but I'd much rather buy one of those to eat than a farmed chicken----To be honest even if it's not everyones cup of tea I think hunting is a normal and natural thing for people to enjoy.
|
whitelegg1
|
Agrred hunting is normal and natural, and alot older than farming.
Can it be sport?? Good question.
Depends on your definition of sport.
Collins 'an individual or group activity pursued for excercise or pleasure, often taking a competetive form.'
In that case it ticks all the boxes.
I must add that the pleasure I get from hunting, is NOT derived from the act of killing, but from the challenge of the stalk, and pitting my witts against an animals, and also the pleasure I get from eating the quarry.
Excersie, it can be very good excercise.
Competetive, not me. But I can see how it could be, if you were in a group.
Just my take on it.
Pete
|
Shane
|
Of course, they might have been paid pest controllers, in which case the land owner would expect a rapid and thorough job - not a couple of guys stalking through the bush, shooting the biggest animal and leaving the rest...
|
fish (the other one)
|
if they were pest controllers i guess they were efective! if they were hunters i think that even though successfull in their hunt they had lost a lot of the 'sport' with all the technology and numbers.give one of them a bow and 12 arrows and he will enjoy it more and have to use real skill to make his kill!
mind you un-sporting methods are nothing new! did you know that ice age man used to herd mammoth,deer and all maner of meat on the hoof off the cliffs at cheddar in somerset! then go and finish them off!
|
Ian33568
|
| fish (the other one) wrote: | if they were pest controllers i guess they were efective! if they were hunters i think that even though successfull in their hunt they had lost a lot of the 'sport' with all the technology and numbers.give one of them a bow and 12 arrows and he will enjoy it more and have to use real skill to make his kill!
mind you un-sporting methods are nothing new! did you know that ice age man used to herd mammoth,deer and all maner of meat on the hoof off the cliffs at cheddar in somerset! then go and finish them off!
|
a bow and arrow........that sounds more of a challenge....otherwise nip to the butcher.
|
Treacodactyl
|
To me any animal should be killed as quickly and humanely as possible with minimal risk of wounding. So I don't agree with taking shots at the maximum possible range to increase the 'sport' of the shooter for example. Doesn't the idea of giving an animal a chance also mean it's more likely to be wounded? If I go to the dentist I don't fancy increasing his sport by tying one hand behind his back, I want the job done as well as possible!
|
Brownbear
|
| Treacodactyl wrote: | | To me any animal should be killed as quickly and humanely as possible with minimal risk of wounding. So I don't agree with taking shots at the maximum possible range to increase the 'sport' of the shooter for example. Doesn't the idea of giving an animal a chance also mean it's more likely to be wounded? If I go to the dentist I don't fancy increasing his sport by tying one hand behind his back, I want the job done as well as possible! |
Absolutely agree. Given that your purpose is to kill, there is a duty to do so as efficiently and quickly as possible. There's a lot of bloody nonsense talked about shooting by people who want to play at being the Marquis of Queensbury, giving it a sporting chance and all. A 'hunter' is performing the same function as a butcher. Because he uses a rifle instead of an axe, some people seem to feel there is a sort of aristocratic glamour to be had, and that it might rub off on them with a bit of effort and by affecting certain viewpoints.
|
Northern_Lad
|
Re: Sport? | Ian33568 wrote: | | This is something I have difficulty getting my head around. If hunting is for sport .... |
There's the problem: hunting should never be sport.
|
bodger
|
It depends on how you term what a sport is.
Most sport contains eliments of enjoyment, uncertainty and then a feeling of achievement.
Enjoyment.
I am a pro hunter and have no problems in admtting that I enjoy hunting.
Uncertainty.
The uncertainty eliment involved in hunting is not so much concerned with simply pulling the trigger but is to do with whether or not the hunter has the skills to first locate his prey, and is then able to put him or herself in a position to kill the bird or animal efficiently. Its not a forgone conclusion and is very different to simply sticking a gun to an animals head and pulling the trigger.
The feeling of achievement comes with the completion of a task well done. The same feeling also comes with having to admit failure as well. IMO hunting is a sport.
|
Northern_Lad
|
But sports are things that have no real effect at the end. Most were created as a way to wage war without killing people.
At the end of a hunt, the objective is to have something dead. That should never be sport. I'm not saying it can't be enjoyable, but the enjoyment should not be the prime factor.
|
bodger
|
Hunting fulfills the same ends that you say sport does The aims of hunting have nothing to do with killing people either.
|
Treacodactyl
|
You can call it whatever you like just as long as the main priority is respect for the quarry and not your enjoyment. So a humane quick kills as possible of something that's sustainable.
|
Northern_Lad
|
| bodger wrote: | | Hunting fulfills the same ends that you say sport does The aims of hunting have nothing to do with killing people either. |
Hopefully so, unless you're out with Dick. However, you do come back with deer, birds, frogs, leaches, etc which were happily froliking about.
|
bodger
|
Totally lost me there I'm afraid.
Yesterday I took a cow that I'd cared for for two years on a stressfull journey to a large concrete building that was full of death and had it turned into meat.
Two weeks ago I sat in a tree stand in the middle of woods. A deer pased infront of me and I shot it in as humane a way as is possible to take any creatures life . The deer had no idea what was about to happen, I refuse to believe that my cow didn't have an idea what was a foot.
I know which meat I'm the happiest with.
|
Northern_Lad
|
You're confusing yourself.
Would you call animal husbandry sport? It can be enjoyable and rewarding, but I think few would call it sport.
I agree, the wild animals will almost certainly have a more enjoyable life, and given a good shot, a quicker, less stressful death.
|
bodger
|
I call hunting sport, along with many other people, nor do I feel the need to go around with a glum face just incase people might think that I'm enjoying myself.
I don't consider myself to be confused at all. Thank goodness, hunting has very little to do with animal husbandry.
|
Treacodactyl
|
| bodger wrote: | | Thank goodness, hunting has very little to do with animal husbandry. |
Apart from most game that's released or good deer management where the surplus is taken etc?
|
bodger
|
Your assumption is incorect TD. The majority of game in the UK is not released into the wild but has actually been in the wild for centuries.
The majority of pheasant are reared from chicks through to the poult stage before release, but you fail to take into account just about all, Deer, hares, geese, ducks rabbits,wood pigeons, grouse and a fair proportion of partridges.
|
KILLITnGRILLIT
|
Re: Sport? | Ian33568 wrote: |
The wild boar were driven up the valley towards the hunters and then shot. This is something I have difficulty getting my head around. If hunting is for sport (and food), what and where is the sport in this method. The boar do not stand a chance - no contest.
Take away the guns, dogs, beaters and tracking systems....then call it sport?
|
I imagine some of the boar were missed too? or managed to backtrack or avoid flushing as most areas that hold them are very thick cover? Dogs aren`t infallable and may find gave hard to scent in some conditions, indeed my dogs have missed both live and dead animals in clear sight on occaisions. I also think you had the sport/food the wrong way round, as all hunting/shooting people I know don`t shoot food animals for sport only or even primarily.
Taking away the guns, dogs, beaters and tracking systems and you are left with an unarmed soft animal against an animal that is tough and ferociously armed and no animal will take on a quarry the danger of getting killed is a near certainty. There are however some hunters who use dogs and a dagger and that is all to kill boar.
My idea of sporting is to use fieldcraft and some degree of technology to out-wit my quarry and provide myself with a meal .......or not. I watch for geese and pigeon using fields regularly I note the wind direction and how they enter the area and then I set up as I feel fits the situation. With deer I like to either watch for signs that they are in a certain area or to ambush them as they enter or leave a certain place, the deer geese etc are all better tuned to spotting/hearing/smelling trouble than I am or ever will be so what I lack in those senses I feel I can make up for with reasoned thinking and technology. Getting to within 100m of grazing deer(better still 40m) or having 500+ geese answer your call and whiffle into your decoys is the sporting element that gives the buzz and is rounded off by a well placed shot.
If it were just for meat then I would pen up some tasty quadrapeds and go out and kill one when I needed the food.
|
Treacodactyl
|
| bodger wrote: | | Your assumption is incorect TD. |
Nope, you've misread me. Most game that is released requires some animal husbandry. Many of the real wild game actually requires some work that you could describe as husbandry such as habitat management predator control etc, etc. If we're splitting hairs then some of the things in your list aren't game.
|
bodger
|
The ' Most' game that you refer to is infact represents very much a minority when it comes to the target species here in the UK.
Please don't refer to 'We' when mentioning splitting hairs, in the context of this discussion, thats simply bringing in semantics.
To many thousands of people in the UK hunting is an enjoyable sport, thats why its classed as a field sport.
Billions of words have been expounded on the rights and wrongs of hunting and neither side will ever be convinced but to get this thread back on track. The original question was should hunting be considered a sport ? IMO I think that I've answered this question.
|
Northern_Lad
|
| bodger wrote: | | Billions of words have been expounded on the rights and wrongs of hunting and neither side will ever be convinced but to get this thread back on track. The original question was should hunting be considered a sport ? IMO I think that I've answered this question. |
Billions of words have been said and written on the rights and wrongs of hunting, but that's not what we're discussing.
Most people here believe that hunting has a valid part in food supply, myself included, so long as it's done in the right way.
My only problem with hunting is that it's classed as a sport when I don't believe it should be for the reasons given before. I can understand why some might call it so as the feelings are similar, but the objectives aren't.
|
Treacodactyl
|
| bodger wrote: | | The ' Most' game that you refer to is infact represents very much a minority when it comes to the target species here in the UK. |
Again you're misreading me! I said that the much of the game that **is** raised requires animal husbandry. Do you disagree? I also said many true wild game also requires some work, do you disagree?
So, what are the numbers of released game vs true wild game (which doesn't include rabbits, pigeon etc)?
|
Behemoth
|
If target/clay pidgeon shooting is classed as a sport then I think hunting should be.
Perhaps though we're all missing a trick and should just call hunting what it is, hunting. Classifying it as a sport, past-time, entertainment, job seems to me to be a diversionary waste of time.
You can apply a moral code and ethics to the activity but second guessing the motivation of the individual is difficult and it's what they do that counts.
|
Jonnyboy
|
| Brownbear wrote: | | Treacodactyl wrote: | | To me any animal should be killed as quickly and humanely as possible with minimal risk of wounding. So I don't agree with taking shots at the maximum possible range to increase the 'sport' of the shooter for example. Doesn't the idea of giving an animal a chance also mean it's more likely to be wounded? If I go to the dentist I don't fancy increasing his sport by tying one hand behind his back, I want the job done as well as possible! |
Absolutely agree. Given that your purpose is to kill, there is a duty to do so as efficiently and quickly as possible. There's a lot of bloody nonsense talked about shooting by people who want to play at being the Marquis of Queensbury, giving it a sporting chance and all. A 'hunter' is performing the same function as a butcher. Because he uses a rifle instead of an axe, some people seem to feel there is a sort of aristocratic glamour to be had, and that it might rub off on them with a bit of effort and by affecting certain viewpoints. |
Agree, agree.
|
bodger
|
I hunt for the sporting element. At the risk of being repetitive I enjoy using the skills that are required in obtaining a good clean kill.
The killing part is important , but if I was only interested in killing animals for killings sake, then I'd get myself a job in a slaughterhouse.
Hunting is a sport.
|
Northern_Lad
|
The tracking and stalking I could agree to being a sport, just not the final act.
Would you class cricket as a sport if when a batsman was out he got killed?
|
bodger
|
I'm talking animal and you are talking human. Thats the bit you have got to come to terms with. Its totally different.
Its like getting infront of goal and then not to take the shot.
I must point out here that hunters don't kill everything that moves either. I could no more than pull the trigger on a hare sitting at my feet in its form than fly. Hunters have more interest in preserving the UKs wildlife than most. Its just that we shoot and eat some of them. 
|
Treacodactyl
|
| bodger wrote: | | I hunt for the sporting element. At the risk of being repetitive I enjoy using the skills that are required in obtaining a good clean kill. |
I assume you agree that you shouldn't make things harder in the name of sport though, for example taking a longer range shot than you should and you should aim for the most humane kill? After all in your cow example you expect the slaughter man to be as swift and humane as possible.
|
Andy B
|
Hunting is hunting, sport is sport, two different things. Why confuse them?
|
bodger
|
Hunting is a sport, a field sport. I really can't see why you people can't accept it? Ask any fieldsportsman or woman.
|
Andy B
|
| bodger wrote: | | Hunting is a sport, a field sport. I really can't see why you people can't accept it? Ask any fieldsportsman or woman. |
Nah, footballs a sport, rugby is a sport, F1 is a commercial exersise, darts is a game and hunting is hunting. Its not a sport because only the people doing the killing are willing participants. Whats wrong with it being hunting? Why so desperate for it to be listed as a sport? The people with the guns refer to themselves as hunters not sportsmen.
|
bodger
|
Are you a hunter Andy B ?If you are what experience have you got ?
I'm not desperate for it to be listed as a sport, because it already is.
|
KILLITnGRILLIT
|
If I were a troll, and I`m not, I`d be very happy with this thread 
|
Treacodactyl
|
| KILLITnGRILLIT wrote: | | If I were a troll, and I`m not, I`d be very happy with this thread |
Is troll patrol hunting or a sport? Or an indie band?
|
Andy B
|
| bodger wrote: | Are you a hunter Andy B ?If you are what experience have you got ?
I'm not desperate for it to be listed as a sport, because it already is. |
Not that old response again, i am not an immigrant or an ethnic minority either but i have a view! Why are you so desperate not to be called a hunter even though you hunt, you make it sound as though being labeled a hunter is a bad thing!
|
bodger
|
Is troll hunting a sport ?
Discuss. 
|
Behemoth
|
Can we succesfully argue that consumer shopping is a sport?
|
bodger
|
Yes as long as you have some experience of what you are talking about.
|
Behemoth
|
The search for the items, identification, comparison of attributes, selection of the quarry, skilfull haggling, the quick efficient exchange (Select your weapon, Cash, Plastic or barter) and the sense of achievement of the bargain.
|
bodger
|
| Andy B wrote: | | bodger wrote: | Are you a hunter Andy B ?If you are what experience have you got ?
I'm not desperate for it to be listed as a sport, because it already is. |
Not that old response again, i am not an immigrant or an ethnic minority either but i have a view! Why are you so desperate not to be called a hunter even though you hunt, you make it sound as though being labeled a hunter is a bad thing! |
I'm a hunter I'm a hunter, when in all of this discussion have I shown any desperation in trying to say what I quite clearly am ?
I'm a hunter, I'm proud of the fact and will be until the day I die.
|
Andy B
|
| Behemoth wrote: | | Can we succesfully argue that consumer shopping is a sport? |
No, but sado masochism is a possiblity. And as many a husband dragged around the shops to buy lady clothes will testify, not all participants are willing.
|
SheepShed
|
| Andy B wrote: | | No, but sado masochism is a possiblity. And as many a husband dragged around the shops to buy lady clothes will testify, not all participants are willing. |
It's my birthday on Saturday so we're going to Cardiff as a treat. To go shopping. For a new watch for Mrs. SheepShed apparently. No, men really haven't got the hang of this shopping lark 
|
Behemoth
|
Linger in the lingerie.
|
Andy B
|
| SheepShed wrote: | | Andy B wrote: | | No, but sado masochism is a possiblity. And as many a husband dragged around the shops to buy lady clothes will testify, not all participants are willing. |
It's my birthday on Saturday so we're going to Cardiff as a treat. To go shopping. For a new watch for Mrs. SheepShed apparently. No, men really haven't got the hang of this shopping lark |
The depths of mental cruelty that some people are put through is just beyond belief.
|
KILLITnGRILLIT
|
.....and back on track.......
........Ian has still to reply fully to the posts, we`ll leave any handbags outside too.
BTW - if you haven`t guessed I`m a hunter too
.
|
dpack
|
sounds like a hunt
they are not supposed to stand a chance
mmm boar sausage
ps if you mess with these critters they will kill and eat you
|
sparky
|
my favret sport is
HUNTING
also if phesants wernt bread how many peeps think thay would beable to live in the wild (without the hunter) and not becomb extinkt
after all thay aint the cleverest of creatures
hunting is a sport even if the end is murder (said in a scotich accent)
happy hunting all
|
Ian33568
|
| KILLITnGRILLIT wrote: |
........Ian has still to reply fully to the posts, we`ll leave any handbags outside too.
BTW - if you haven`t guessed I`m a hunter too |
I am following this thread with great interest and find the differing views on hunting v sport thought provoking.
I am not sure I am qualified to pass judgement - being a lifelong vegetarian (47 years without meat or fish), I doubt if I could kill an animal for any reason other than a life or death situation. If I were pushed to comment....well Bodgerīs posts seem more in tune with what I would call the true spirit of hunting......
|
king rat
|
I agree Bodger does have a more rational view on this topic. I would also add that a sportsmen should give his quarry a fair chance and maximum respect..
A fox pursued by hounds (Although now illegal to a certain degree)
has a good chance of escape. I class that as sporting. A fox in an enclosed space with no escape -not sporting !! Again not legal either and most likely not practiced, just an example statement.
I don't believe hunters and followers cannot be called sportsmen or women. The thrill off the chase is a sport irrespective of whether the end result is a dead animal. I went hunting to see a pack off hounds working and following a scent in full cry. The killing of the fox was not high on my agenda so I considered my day one of good sport. My ambition was not to catch the fox and so I would not term myself as merely a hunter.
I do shoot and I fish. If I coarse fish then I return my catch to the water. Is that not a sport as the end result is not to kill the creature for the pot but to be sporting and release my catch???
I shoot merely for the pot and as Bodger stated to think off shooting a hare from the seat or something equally as unsporting would never be considered. I enjoy my fieldsports and am happy to term them as such.
|
gil
|
I wouldn't describe what I do as sport though I can see what those hunters who do mean by it.
I'm basically a 'shoot it for the pot' person, as easily as possible so I get an instant clean kill, and only as many as I need for myself (so not that many).
|
king rat
|
But are you not being sporting by only taking what you need ???
If you were under a flight of geese for example and you selected a couple of good birds for the pot and then deciding that you were extremely happy that you had enough, and what you had taken were killed cleanly is that not being Sporting ???
If we set out with the intent to pursue a quarry then we are all hunters, if we enjoy what we do and can say we do it with maximum consideration for what we hunt then we are sporting.
That makes me a hunter and a sportsman who enjoys the sport of hunting.
|
Treacodactyl
|
| king rat wrote: | | I would also add that a sportsmen should give his quarry a fair chance and maximum respect.. |
Those can be contradictory though. I don't care what it's called but if giving something a chance increases the risk of just wounding an animal then it's certainly not sporting in any sense.
|
king rat
|
I could not agree more, thus having maximum respect for the quarry would not allow your ego to chance the long shot etc. Maximum respect is doing ones best to ensure a clean kill. Being sporting is not wanting to kill for the sake off it. Providing a quarry with a fair chance of safe escape is acceptable. If I find myself under a flight of pigeons do I stay there and hammer them or do I say I have enough for myself and put my gun away. I still want to kill the birds I shoot at as cleanly as possible which comes down to selection of target in a sporting fashion. I am however pitting my wits against a wild bird that has great opportunity of escape.
|
bodger
|
TD
You are presuming that by giving the quarry a chance, that you are increasing its chance of being wounded. This is not the case.
By 'the chance' we mean that theres a chance that you might not find the quarry or get yourself in a position where you can take a clean shot. Thats the sporting bit.
|
Treacodactyl
|
| bodger wrote: | TD
You are presuming that by giving the quarry a chance, that you are increasing its chance of being wounded. This is not the case.
By 'the chance' we mean that theres a chance that you might not find the quarry or get yourself in a position where you can take a clean shot. Thats the sporting bit. |
That might apply to you and others, but there are people who think that taking a harder shot than many would seem acceptable as more sporting and that's what I'm not happy about.
|
bodger
|
I don't know any of those sort of people in field sports, if you do, then you have been unlucky in making the aquaintance of an absolute minority.
|
king rat
|
| Treacodactyl wrote: | | bodger wrote: | TD
You are presuming that by giving the quarry a chance, that you are increasing its chance of being wounded. This is not the case.
By 'the chance' we mean that theres a chance that you might not find the quarry or get yourself in a position where you can take a clean shot. Thats the sporting bit. |
That might apply to you and others, but there are people who think that taking a harder shot than many would seem acceptable as more sporting and that's what I'm not happy about. |
Such people should then not be termed sportsmen or hunters TD.
They have no place in the shooting field and should press their egos at clay pigeon shooting.
|
bodger
|
You don't think that field sportsmen are being confused with poachers and thieves do you ? 
|
Jamanda
|
Is it not possible to be both a sportsman and a poacher?
|
king rat
|
If it suits you then why not
|
bodger
|
If you go poaching you are going out simply just to steal game from someones property and to fill your bag as quickly as you can. You will gauge your success solely by numbers taken. Thats not sport.
I suppose the sporting element could be in avoiding the gamekeeper or police.
|
Behemoth
|
I can't agree that deciding not to kill something that you could is being sporting. I could go up the allotments, turn over some compost heaps and batter a few rats. That I choose not to is not me being sporting, it's me being lazy.
I can understand 'sport' being a combination of the skills the hunter requires and the unpredicatability of the environment but as I've said before I just consider that to be what hunting is. The personal motivation of the person involved is harder to fathom, the challenge, developing andpractising field skills, satisfaction of a good shoot/clean kill or just a desire to shoot at things and kill them. The end result is the same, the actions are the same. It's hunting.
|
bodger
|
. If after reading this thread you can't see where some of us are coming from, then we'll just have to agree to disagree.
|
king rat
|
So if i decide not too shoot more pigeons than I need for my own use I am being lazy and not sporting then. Point taken, I think I must be a lazy sportsman then.
|
Behemoth
|
| bodger wrote: | | . If after reading this thread you can't see where some of us are coming from, then we'll just have to agree to disagree. |
I don't mean in terms of deciding not to take a risky/macho shot. I mean in terms of King Rat's comment that deciding to stop shooting animals that you could kill was somehow sporting.
If my motivation for hunting, using all the skills it requires, was purely the thrill of the kill, the pleasure it brought me, would I be a 'good sport'?
|
gil
|
I think that was in response to my comment that I didn't view my own shooting as a sport as it was pragmatic : for just as much game as I want to eat, and then I stop.
KR suggested that was a sporting kind of attitude (different kind of 'sporting', perhaps ?)
|
sparky
|
foxy 200 yrd away
me laid down 243 on bypod crosshair clearly on target
do i take the shot or do i attempt to squeek the fox in to 30 yrd
and exterminate it ?
|
Brownbear
|
| sparky wrote: | foxy 200 yrd away
me laid down 243 on bypod crosshair clearly on target
do i take the shot or do i attempt to squeek the fox in to 30 yrd
and exterminate it ? |
Given that you have about a three-by-six lethal spot in the chest area of the fox, if you are using the correct ammunition, you ought to be able to get a clean kill at 200 yards. If not, tune your ammo a bit. I use a .22 centrefire for fox, with frangible rounds - it inflicts a massive and invariably fatal wound anywhere in the chest area. IMO, soft-point bullets as used for deer aren't ideal for fox as the animal isn't large and solid enough to initiate full expansion of the projectile.
As I shoot animals for a fee, I suppose I can't be said to be taking no more than I require, but I do do my best to make sure all the shot animals are eaten. There have been occasions where rabbits have had to go to landfill. I would say I respect my quarry, even rabbits - they are tough little blighters and anything but a head shot often leaves them mortally wounded but alive. I have got in the habit of 'double-tapping' them with the .22 to ensure that their suffering is minimised, even though this can often result in a loss of meat. Even so, my objective is to kill as many as possible in as short a time as possible.
The same with pigeon. Deer are rather a different story, as once you have bagged one the sound of the shot sends the others running for cover; I've only got three 'doubles' in years of stalking. I still see it as butchery, though, just humane butchery which I take pleasure from doing well, and out in the open air which I love.
|
KILLITnGRILLIT
|
It`s a strange one but under the terms of the general licence I cannot shoot woodpigeon for sport, however as everyone who shoots them will tell you, they are extremely sporting birds.
In the future will the men from DEFRA or a secret police squad come out and find me and attach me to a machine to find out if I got any sport from shooting them ?
Better one volunteer than 10 pressed men.
.
|
