Archive for Downsizer For an ethical approach to consumption
 


       Downsizer Forum Index -> Shooting and Trapping for the Pot
Rob R

We may need to shut this section of the site down...

The Green Party says NO

Quote:
Instead of proposing yet more cruelty to animals, why will she not look at extending the Act to grouse shooting and hare coursing, which also are cruel and hugely opposed in this country?


That would be the Hunting Act 2004, the one that banned hare coursing, no?
dpack

i recon it would be Laughing
dpack

Hare coursing and grouse shooting using dogs is already restricted in the United Kingdom.

im not giving either hound a gun Laughing
Tavascarow

Buggered both ways.
If we don't support the Greens there will be nothing left alive worth shooting bar rats & cockroaches.
dpack

i recon an rpg is minimum firepower for roaches
Rob R

If we don't support the Greens there will be nothing left alive worth shooting bar rats & cockroaches.


Rubbish. I'm not sitting around waiting for someone who has no idea to come to power. (And neither are my neighbours who do shoot).
oldish chris

are we not in danger of confusing hunting for fun, hunting for food and controlling vermin?

Hunting for fun, e.g. my local Waterloo Cup for hare coursing is an object lesson in cultivating unnecessary suffering. All decent farmers make meat harvesting as painfree and sanitised as possible, I take my hat off to them.

Pheasant and grouse are, in my opinion, are a borderline between the two approaches, kept as grey as possible by the Waterloo Cup brigade. Having witnessed a shoot on the land adjacent to my allotment they are a bunch noisy ignorant crap shots out for fun.

Pheasants are so thick that trapping and dispatching them for the pot is simplicity itself. I think its called "poaching".

IMHO
dpack

or sous vide for posh
vegplot

Those who think field sports is the preserve of the wealthy have a very narrow view and limited understanding of the sport.

Conversation relies, in part, on the activities of field sports which not only help enrichen biological diversity but also provide valuable revenues for many rural enterprises. By taking an emotional and onesided look at the whole debate serves no real purpose but I expect many who take a vitriolic stance against any form of field sport care not a jot about anything else except their own opinion.
Rob R

It is a grey area, I don't see what's 'fun' about shooting, but neither do I about golf, but the former creates a more 'natural' habitat and the latter could be said to both protect and destroy it, as with any development. I'm sure ignorant, noisy people exist in both 'sports', as do quiet, knowledgeable types.

I don't think removing the fun element of shooting is ever going to work though. You can ban an action, but it's difficult to ban emotions.
Falstaff

Bloody nutters ! Rolling Eyes

Good job they haven't a hope in hell of getting anywhere seat wise ! Smile
Ty Gwyn

Bloody Nutters is rather overboard,

More misinformed and out of touch with the countryside i would place it,

And that`s the worrying part.
Behemoth

I've alwAys found this a bit puzzling. People love to shoot thing and derive great pleasure from it. Even shooting each other. Very little of it involves maintains the countryside. Most is done digitally on sofas, Somw with paint balls. If you care so much about the countryside you would maintain it anyway or have to conclude that it's merely a byproduct of your fun shooting stuff not the main driver and it's the shooting you really like and if it was banned tomorrow you'd walk away and not give a stuff about biodiversity etc or wail that somebody somewhere must do something. For the record I've no issue with shooting game.
vegplot

I've alwAys found this a bit puzzling. People love to shoot thing and derive great pleasure from it. Even shooting each other. Very little of it involves maintains the countryside. Most is done digitally on sofas, Somw with paint balls. If you care so much about the countryside you would maintain it anyway or have to conclude that it's merely a byproduct of your fun shooting stuff not the main driver and it's the shooting you really like and if it was banned tomorrow you'd walk away and not give a stuff about biodiversity etc or wail that somebody somewhere must do something. For the record I've no issue with shooting game.


That's describes a very small group of shooters. Shooting in the country has everything to do with conservation/biodiversity as without it it has no future. I don't shoot animals as it doesn't interest me but I am a member of BASC whose web site is a wealth of information on this subject.
oldish chris

Those who think field sports is the preserve of the wealthy have a very narrow view and limited understanding of the sport.

Conversation relies, in part, on the activities of field sports which not only help enrichen biological diversity but also provide valuable revenues for many rural enterprises. By taking an emotional and onesided look at the whole debate serves no real purpose but I expect many who take a vitriolic stance against any form of field sport care not a jot about anything else except their own opinion.
OK! Add to "wealthy", nouveau riche, or anybody who isn't an actual creative type who has a cue about ecology. So, with 1,000s of acres of uplands, massive potential for productivity, or simply to create fresh air and water, some of us refer to charge over it in RangeRovers, run around in Barbour Jackets and shoot everything that moves. Gosh, that's delayed climate change by a 100 years!!!

Hey Nick, I've found where I'd left my chip - Its back in place.
Rob R

Variety is the spice of life - there's far too much reductionist thinking in the world today, trying to condense everything down to individualistic traits, likes and displikes. I don't like shooting, but I like having the foxes controlled and eating game, so I'm glad that some people do enjoy it.

The anti-s would like you to believe that people who do enjoy things have no control over their lust for doing something, but if that were true all drinkers would be drunks & there'd be just white spirit, no variety of products or regions.

I like conservation as a by-product of beef production, I'd like to do it anyway if I didn't have cattle but I wouldn't be able to (it's touch and go as it is!). The full-time conservationists rely on me and vice versa, equally they have an interdependance with game shooters who plant a lot of wild bird cover nd provide a lot of habitat as a consequence of providing interest & variety in their sport.

We all [species too] rely on eachother in the countryside (even if we choose to pretend that we don't), and a bit of mutual respect is required to maintain a healthy and happy balance.
Ty Gwyn

[quote="vegplot:1434058"]Those who think field sports is the preserve of the wealthy have a very narrow view and limited understanding of the sport.

That statement kind of fit`s in with Bennetts mention of Hare Coursing,a well known past time of Yorkshire Miner`s,lol.
Rob R

Dog walkers are another group - they walk where they like across private land, cutting fences, chasing sheep and leaving their disgusting piles of worm-ridden crap all over the place.

At the same time they will tell me when the cattle have escaped, an animal needs attention, or kids have been pushing bales into the river.

We're all people at the end of the day, some are inconsiderate eejits, some are the most considerate people you'll ever come across. You can't tell them apart from the colour of their jacket.
vegplot

Those who think field sports is the preserve of the wealthy have a very narrow view and limited understanding of the sport.

Conversation relies, in part, on the activities of field sports which not only help enrichen biological diversity but also provide valuable revenues for many rural enterprises. By taking an emotional and onesided look at the whole debate serves no real purpose but I expect many who take a vitriolic stance against any form of field sport care not a jot about anything else except their own opinion.
OK! Add to "wealthy", nouveau riche, or anybody who isn't an actual creative type who has a cue about ecology. So, with 1,000s of acres of uplands, massive potential for productivity, or simply to create fresh air and water, some of us refer to charge over it in RangeRovers, run around in Barbour Jackets and shoot everything that moves. Gosh, that's delayed climate change by a 100 years!!!

Hey Nick, I've found where I'd left my chip - Its back in place.

and you found your ignorance as well.
Rob R

Those who think field sports is the preserve of the wealthy have a very narrow view and limited understanding of the sport.

Conversation relies, in part, on the activities of field sports which not only help enrichen biological diversity but also provide valuable revenues for many rural enterprises. By taking an emotional and onesided look at the whole debate serves no real purpose but I expect many who take a vitriolic stance against any form of field sport care not a jot about anything else except their own opinion.
OK! Add to "wealthy", nouveau riche, or anybody who isn't an actual creative type who has a cue about ecology. So, with 1,000s of acres of uplands, massive potential for productivity, or simply to create fresh air and water, some of us refer to charge over it in RangeRovers, run around in Barbour Jackets and shoot everything that moves. Gosh, that's delayed climate change by a 100 years!!!

Hey Nick, I've found where I'd left my chip - Its back in place.

and you found your ignorance as well.

*smirk*
oldish chris

[quote="vegplot:1434101"]
Quote:


and you found your ignorance as well.


My dear fellow downsizer Vegplot, a bit of a personal problem, I'm currently bed-ridden due to a health issue. I know I can rely on you not to be even slightly sympathetic, for which i am grateful. However, as a result I have been able to give our latest run-in a lot of thought.

Our differences over OSes illustrate the problem nicely (IMHO).

I have observed over the years that you have a considerable in-depth knowledge of computing and software development. Similarly, over many years in IT, I too, have acquired such knowledge. However, when you compare the sub-set of human knowledge in your brain with that in mine, the lack of overlap is, lets be honest, frightening (IMHO).

It must be the same with hunting, shooting and field-sports.

I am not ignorant. I am not a "Townie". I am a City dweller. For the past 34 years I have lived on the outskirts of Liverpool. Ecology has long been of great interest to me, (since A levels) and I find Rob's tales of hill farming fascinating (but we'll never agree on beef portion size). My studies of the importance and management of upland areas will be directed by the importance of the Lake Vyrnwy Nature Reserve and Estate.

Field sports are a totally alien concept to me, (City Dweller - remember) and on the rare occasions that me and the shooters have bumped into each other, (three times so far) they did rather antagonise me.

So, yet again, we have two large sub-sets of human knowledge with a frightening lack of overlap.

I'm here to learn, I hang on because I have learnt quite a lot so far.

PS. it was wrong of me to be deliberately antagonistic. No promises but I will try to stop.
Rob R

I'm sorry to hear of your health problem's Chris.

However, my tales are the exactly opposite of hill farming, but why does any discussion involving the countryside and/or field sports seem to focus on the wealthy? I know a lot of people who shoot, but I know of very few, if any, who would be classed as wealthy (by modern standards) and a good proportion that would be described as 'poor'.
Graham Hyde

As an aside and somewhat off topic but does anyone remember the TV series where Jackie Charlton (Leeds and England centre half) hunted various animals?
I remember one episode where he and a spotter lay in wait for geese. A goose which had flown all the way from Canada or somewhere far away was almost straight above, not very high and was easily shot and killed by a cartridge which scatters/sprays lead shot.
Didn't seem much of a sport to me.
Shane

Some would say that it's not very sporting of the Canada goose to thank us for artificially introducing it to the UK by massively increasing in numbers (40-fold increase since the 50s) and becoming an agricultural pest.

I'd say an easy kill is the best way for a pest species (or, indeed, any species).
Graham Hyde

Still doesn't seem much of a sport. OtleyLad

I don't find it difficult to empathise with those who think killing animals is a grizzly, callous thing to do, especially if these same people have only ever seen meat in neat plastic wrapped portions on a supermarket shelf or perhaps cuddled a lamb in a rare breeds 'farm'. But that has come about through the disconnect between food production and most people's lives. It doesn't mean that killing animals for food is wrong nor that people who do it for a living are psychopaths.

I've a dog and walk him most days on Ilkley Moor where there are a fair number of grouse reared to be shot. Most of the dog walkers are considerate but some are complete f***wits and have no idea how to control their animals. So I can see how the sheep farmers and grouse shooters get fed up with them.
On the other hand I like grouse and pheasant to eat but find it hard to see how shooting them is a sport - they don't seem to fly in anything but straight lines (and quite slowly at that). It can't be much less of a challenge to shoot clay pigeons?
The Moor is quite a barren place really, its regularly burnt to keep the heather regenerating so the grouse can feed off the young shoots. The sheep grazing on it make sure that any tree saplings that appear are quickly nibbled to death. This regime means that a strange, unnatural habitat is maintained in which the ground nesting grouse can thrive. One or two other ground nesting birds make use of it too but this is coincidental (although the shooters sometimes use it an example of their good stewardship). So I don't buy the conservation argument in this instance.

Nearby we have Harewood House and they rear herds of deer for venison. I've never seen or heard of any protesters complaining of this - I suppose because itís not done in the name of 'sport'. I like to assume the animals are slaughtered humanely.
Graham Hyde

Otley Lad, do you go on the moor 'ba tat'? Rob R

Still doesn't seem much of a sport.

Have you tried it?

Moving targets, in the air are much harder to hit, and then you have range to consider. Shoots prefer high birds for good sport and employ beaters to get them up and flying. It's by no means a sure thing. Then you've got to find and retrieve the bird, a challenge in itself.
Cathryn

My version is similar to Robs and based on experience. I don't shoot but my partner does. He's a sheep farmer and shoots with a small group of local people. We don't have a range rover and he shoots in his wellies and a his cleaner farm coat. He does have some water repellent plus fours that I bought him for Christmas one year. It is quite an expensive hobby as it involves managing the land as well as raising birds. This is useful in the general armoury of, well I quite fancy a day out with the girls but it might be a bit expensive etc, etc

A part of our friends farm is managed for this - I can't imagine that parts of it could be managed for anything else as it covers some steep scrubby hillsides. Perfect for the high flying birds that they all prefer. They are not interested in the numbers they shoot. Everyone takes home and eats two or three pheasant and the occasional duck. A lot of time is spent eating lunch which they take it in turns to provide. Home made game pies and sausage rolls being the general theme.

The next nearest shoot is on incredibly hilly land. Helicopters bring in many of the guns and thousands of birds are released every year.

It's a bit like watching Aberystwyth Town or Manchester United play football. A loose definition of sport. Both enjoyable in their own ways. Another thread perhaps.

Another point, our farm was once managed as a shoot as well and partly as a result has a very diverse range of birds, animals and habitats compared to many other sheep farms.
Graham Hyde

Hi Cathryn, I appreciate that the activity you describe is a sport of kind with a days enjoyment with fellow minded people.
I was describing a long ago TV series where one man went out killing things, no pleasant company, not involved with managing land, just killing things.
If I remember right, one week was a stag, one week a salmon and that goose I mentioned. It wasn't a Canadian Goose, I remember it being all white.
Anyway, well off topic....sorry.
vegplot

[quote="oldish chris:1434449"]
Quote:


and you found your ignorance as well.


My dear fellow downsizer Vegplot, a bit of a personal problem, I'm currently bed-ridden due to a health issue. I know I can rely on you not to be even slightly sympathetic, for which i am grateful. However, as a result I have been able to give our latest run-in a lot of thought.

Our differences over OSes illustrate the problem nicely (IMHO).

I have observed over the years that you have a considerable in-depth knowledge of computing and software development. Similarly, over many years in IT, I too, have acquired such knowledge. However, when you compare the sub-set of human knowledge in your brain with that in mine, the lack of overlap is, lets be honest, frightening (IMHO).

It must be the same with hunting, shooting and field-sports.

I am not ignorant. I am not a "Townie". I am a City dweller. For the past 34 years I have lived on the outskirts of Liverpool. Ecology has long been of great interest to me, (since A levels) and I find Rob's tales of hill farming fascinating (but we'll never agree on beef portion size). My studies of the importance and management of upland areas will be directed by the importance of the Lake Vyrnwy Nature Reserve and Estate.

Field sports are a totally alien concept to me, (City Dweller - remember) and on the rare occasions that me and the shooters have bumped into each other, (three times so far) they did rather antagonise me.

So, yet again, we have two large sub-sets of human knowledge with a frightening lack of overlap.

I'm here to learn, I hang on because I have learnt quite a lot so far.

PS. it was wrong of me to be deliberately antagonistic. No promises but I will try to stop.

No harm done and thank you. I made a personal comment in public which I shouldn't have done. My apologies. I should have been more polite about it.
vegplot


I was describing a long ago TV series where one man went out killing things, no pleasant company, not involved with managing land, just killing things.

We have one of those in our rifle and pistol club. A most distasteful man. He has no idea of the concept of conservation just like to kill animals foxes mainly.
Tavascarow

Those who think field sports is the preserve of the wealthy have a very narrow view and limited understanding of the sport.

Conversation relies, in part, on the activities of field sports which not only help enrichen biological diversity but also provide valuable revenues for many rural enterprises. By taking an emotional and onesided look at the whole debate serves no real purpose but I expect many who take a vitriolic stance against any form of field sport care not a jot about anything else except their own opinion.
OK! Add to "wealthy", nouveau riche, or anybody who isn't an actual creative type who has a cue about ecology. So, with 1,000s of acres of uplands, massive potential for productivity, or simply to create fresh air and water, some of us refer to charge over it in RangeRovers, run around in Barbour Jackets and shoot everything that moves. Gosh, that's delayed climate change by a 100 years!!!

Hey Nick, I've found where I'd left my chip - Its back in place.
I can see both sides of the argument.
I used to shoot with a shotgun, mainly rabbits & pigeons over my dads farm & neighbours. Occasional duck & woodcock in the winter months. I don't have a problem if anyone else want to continue doing that as long as they respect the countryside & the welfare of their quarry.
Likewise at the 'richer' end of the sport. Shooting pheasant, grouse, hare or deer isn't cruel if done properly.
A lot less cruel, if the truth be known than the majority of animals that go through our more industrial abartoirs, but we (as a nation) turn a blind eye to that.
Maintenance of habitat for say grouse also creates & protects habitat for rarer species like ptarmigan & mountain hares.
Like wise control of deer populations. Because we as a species removed red deer only natural predator centuries ago, left uncontrolled their populations can become so large they cause large amounts of habitat destruction. If they are stalked & shot humanely I see no problem.
I do take issue with coursing & fox hunting because with coursing IMHO catching a wild animal only to release it later to be killed by dogs isn't that far from bull, bear & badger baiting, which have all been illegal for decades.
Likewise fox hunting. Running a wild animal to ground, turning in terriers & eventually shooting or as sometimes happens the hounds getting there first is both cruel & not effective as a control method IMHO.
A man with a lamp, a squeak & a high velocity rifle can kill a lot more foxes in a night than a hunt will in a season.
Is it any crueller for me to work my terriers on rats over say traps or poison? Even if you use live traps you have to destroy the rats by law , how are we going to achieve that? Poisons are a fairly painless way of killing vermin but I'm hearing reports of owls being poisoned after eating rats & mice. I don't want to poison the local owl population, there aren't many of them. But as I said earlier despite being a country boy who sees both sides I will still back the Greens because they are the only party addressing the real issues as I see them.
Hope you make a speedy recovery. Smile
OtleyLad

Otley Lad, do you go on the moor 'ba tat'?
Only a sunny day Wink
vegplot

There's good and bad in all classes who participate in field sports. Fields sports has traditionally been seen as the rich man's preserve and in some cases it remains so. But there are so many more involved and participating and is nowhere as exclusive as it perhaps once was.

Estates, which once used field sports as an exclusive pastime, have been forced to diversify their client base to be more inclusive. The elitism and snobbery is largely gone and once you're involved the class differences are largely ignored.
Graham Hyde

Hey, I'm sorry I started this.
I believe shooting is a sport. The subject of my original post was about a long ago TV series which showed one man hunting various animals/fish/birds over several weeks. This programme was made well before P.C. was ever heard of and at the time it struck me as killing animals in a not very sporting way.
It was not like the programme of Hugh of River Cottage joining a shoot for a day or a cull of pigeons, it was no nonsense, non sporting killing.
It made such an impression I can remember it now and I was just asking ....does anyone else remember it.
However, I will say again, it didn't seem very sporting to me.
Hairyloon

Otley Lad, do you go on the moor 'ba tat'?
Only a sunny day Wink
Apparentlyit is not a moor. Moors are classified by the species living thereon and Ilkley moor has lost too much of its moorland species to qualify... It is officially a hill.
dpack

clifton moor is about 15 m above sea level and covered in close build modern housing ,a business park and shopping mall but it is still a moor .

Laughing sorry ,na im not Laughing Laughing Laughing
crofter

one week was a stag, one week a salmon and that goose I mentioned. It wasn't a Canadian Goose, I remember it being all white.

Possibly a swan.
Bebo

The Greens policy on gun licensing concerns me:

Licensing
A single rigorous licensing process will be put in place based on considerations of public safety rather than the convenience of shooters. Subject to relevant criteria, licenses will be issued for permitted shotguns and rifles, all lethal airguns and permitted deactivated guns.
Users of firearms for sporting or agricultural purposes will be required to demonstrate their competence in handling firearms and satisfy the authorities of their mental and emotional stability:
Applicants should also be required to obtain the signature of, say, ten citizens (just as a prospective electoral candidate) who will vouch for the good character of the licence holder. This will discourage the 'loners' and socially isolated individuals who are most at risk of committing the horror that occurred at Dunblane and Hungerford.
The cost of medical and psychological tests must be borne by the applicant, together with a new annual fee which is sufficient to repay the economic damage - to police, court and NHS - inflicted on it by the abuse of guns generally. When licences are awarded the onus will be on the applicant to demonstrate his or her suitability to handle firearms rather than on the authorities to prove the applicant's unsuitability. Licence holders will be required to renew their applications on an annual basis individuals whose licence application is rejected will be required to wait at least two years before re-applying.

Why should it be down to legal, responsible gun owners to pay for the costs of gun abuse? Almost all gun related crime is by those that hold guns illegally. Penalising those of us the happen to enjoy clay pigeon shooting for the costs associated with nutters with illegal handguns carrying out drive-by shootings is like making everyone on prescription drugs pay a penalty to cover the cost of drug related crime.
dpack

they wont get elected so dont worry Falstaff

They really do seem to want to damage those who actually involve themselves in teh countryside as much as possible don't they ?

On e would have thought that a party calling itself "green" would have at least Some regard for nature and the management of balances.

Rolling Eyes
Rob R

The Greens policy on gun licensing concerns me:

Most of their policies concern me, even the ones I support. The mistake I made was to read the policies.
dpack

my "green manfesto"would start

reduce the human population to pre agriculture numbers within a century.
that isnt going to be popular but with some one child per very extended family policies and some genocidal murder i recon it could be done

"king"david attenborough was on telly yesterday and he was correct when he said the number of humans had increased by 300%in his life time(tis over 200% in mine)

he also said that living like the average rwandan the planet could manage another 50%

green would be far more unpopular than try to take the weapon from my cold dead hand:lol:
Rob R

To be fair to the Greens, that is in their policies, only without so much detail as to the 'how' Laughing dpack

perhaps they have not thought through the implications of getting what they wish for . Treacodactyl

they wont get elected so dont worry

It doesn't work like that. There's likely to be a Labour/SNP and possibly green supported government. So, for Labour to pass some laws they will have to allow the greens to implement some of their policies. It wouldn't surprise me if shooting was curtailed in the next parliament as it's often, wrongly, regarded as a rich persons sport.
Behemoth


I was describing a long ago TV series where one man went out killing things, no pleasant company, not involved with managing land, just killing things.

We have one of those in our rifle and pistol club. A most distasteful man. He has no idea of the concept of conservation just like to kill animals foxes mainly.

Devils advocate - perhaps he's just being honest about why he does it.

In several discussions about fox hunting I've seen advocates describe foxes as vermin that need to be controlled in one paragraph and in the next using the maintenance of cover for the fox and the benefit to the environment as a justification in the next.

People shoot thing because they enjoy shooting or it's a distasteful necessity to manage populations and vermin. how many shooters drag theselves out of bed with a weary moan that they have shoot some animals to provide the economic returns to maintain the cover and the consequential bio diversity of a bit of land that cant be turned over to more profitable productivity.

I'm not saying that commercial shoots, as Cathryn described above, makes people bad. I thinks it's ok and so do the 1000s involved. I think some need to be a bit more honest with themselves and have a more honest debate with those who believe the countryside can be managed in different ways. Though they'd be hard pressed to find one that didn't involve some shooting. E.g. Canada geese where your gun club member might come in handy.
vegplot


Devils advocate - perhaps he's just being honest about why he does it.

In part this is true. Shooting has to be enjoyable as people wouldn't do it and I don't have a problem with that.

But this person is in a league of his own.
Treacodactyl

It should also be pointed out many people who don't shoot kill things. I knew a 'nature lover' who'd beat to death slowworms as they looked like snakes; nature lovers who take great pride in their cats bringing in all sorts of dead wildlife; people who kill spiders because they're soooo scary :roll, etc, etc.

So obviously you'll get some people who shoot who enjoy killing things because there's plenty of people, non shooters and shooters, who do.

I don't mind an honest debate about shooting but the greens seem very narrow minded and don't seem to have taken into account simple facts when writing their shooting policy.
Graham Hyde

So I take it after all these posts no one does remember the TV series of about thirty years ago featuring Jack Charlton? sean

No, sorry. Now you mention it I have a vague recollection of its existence but I'm pretty sure that I never watched it. Rob R

So I take it after all these posts no one does remember the TV series of about thirty years ago featuring Jack Charlton?

There seems to be some video clips on YouTube from it, but I can't watch them at the moment, as I get an error message when I start watching.
Behemoth

I do remember it as it was the time he was supposed to be manager of nufc. About 1984 iirc, "jack' game" it was called. oldish chris

[quote="Bebo:1434645"]
Why should it be down to legal, responsible gun owners to pay for the costs of gun abuse? quote]
Couldn't agree more.!
oldish chris

BTW, had a bit of a health set-back, and then a set-back within the set-back, so only just got back to be able to read through the thread.

I've enjoyed reading it. (Couple of home truths gave me something to think about when the morphine had put me on another planet - but it was good. I'll tell you all about it in an appropriate thread turns up!)
       Downsizer Forum Index -> Shooting and Trapping for the Pot
Page 1 of 1
Home Home Home Home Home