Home Page
   Articles
       links
About Us    
Traders        
Recipes            
Latest Articles
Do you view shooting as sport?
Page 1, 2, 3  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Downsizer Forum Index -> Shooting and Trapping for the Pot
Author 
 Message
Treacodactyl
Downsizer Moderator


Joined: 28 Oct 2004
Posts: 25697
Location: Jumping on the bandwagon of opportunism
PostPosted: Sat Nov 13, 04 3:34 pm    Post subject: Do you view shooting as sport?  Reply with quote    

I'm definitely pro-shooting for pest control, bagging something for the pot or making a living if it's from a sustainable source etc...

However, I often read of people who say they like to be tested and like a bit of good sport. By this they often mean very high or very quick birds that they stand a fair chance of missing. I often feel that this will lead to more wounded birds and find it arrogant of the people concerned. It also seems a little indefensible if people start taking a closer look at shooting.

I was wondering what other people think?

jema
Downsizer Moderator


Joined: 28 Oct 2004
Posts: 26648
Location: escaped from Swindon
PostPosted: Sat Nov 13, 04 3:52 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote    

All my images of shooting are based on the worst kind of Monty Python upper class twit of the year stereotypes

Thus whilst intellectually I am forming a more mature view point, I find it hard to get away from the emotive response about it. So no I don't like people who view shooting as a sport.

jema

sean
Downsizer Moderator


Joined: 28 Oct 2004
Posts: 41977
Location: North Devon
PostPosted: Sat Nov 13, 04 5:22 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote    

I think that calling killing a sport trivialises it. I am not in any way anti shooting, but I think that you owe it to your quarry to kill it as cleanly and quickly as possible. I'm aware that 'field-sports' is a long-established term, but I don't like it as an expression. Trying for extreme range/difficulty shots strikes me as pretty much indefensible.

sean
Downsizer Moderator


Joined: 28 Oct 2004
Posts: 41977
Location: North Devon
PostPosted: Sat Nov 13, 04 5:24 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote    

The above wasn't meant to imply that people shouldn't enjoy shooting, or regard it as a challenge.

cab



Joined: 01 Nov 2004
Posts: 32429

PostPosted: Sat Nov 13, 04 8:22 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote    

The idea that an animal should be afforded a sporting chance, and that that is preferable to a clean killing shot, is a disturbing anthropomorphism. If people want a fast moving target on which a partial hit is good enough then live prey isn't the way forward.

deerstalker



Joined: 28 Oct 2004
Posts: 589

PostPosted: Sat Nov 13, 04 10:21 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote    

How do you define "sport" in this context? People don't need to shoot to satisfy hunger, so why do people want to do it?

There is an element of "enjoyment" involved. Whether this is satisfying a deep seated primeval need to hunt, I cannot be sure.

With regard to the clean kill concept, it is largly rubbish put forward by people who don't shoot.

Every time you look down that scope, your heart is beating quickly, your mouth is dry (some people call it "buck fever"). You know there is a risk of wounding - and you know it will happen, as it has happened in the past.

All you can do is use your knowledge, experience and the right tools to minimise this risk.

Treacodactyl
Downsizer Moderator


Joined: 28 Oct 2004
Posts: 25697
Location: Jumping on the bandwagon of opportunism
PostPosted: Sat Nov 13, 04 10:45 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote    

I define sport as people enjoying the challenge more than the fact that they've made a clean kill. I would also go as far as to say people do need to shoot as this seems to be the most ethical way to eat meat. I.e., look after nature and harvest what you need. The only people who could object are vegans. I accept that in this country I don't think we could all live this way as there is not enough room.

I would agree that shooting is enjoyable and primeval, but we should only try and shoot something that we think we can kill (I accept that some animals will be wounded and a quick follow up will be necessary). I certainly do not agree with adding things that make the kill more difficult such as breeding birds that will fly faster or designing shoots so that the birds are flushed at the maximum range for the guns.

Still, that's only my opinion.

sean
Downsizer Moderator


Joined: 28 Oct 2004
Posts: 41977
Location: North Devon
PostPosted: Sat Nov 13, 04 10:54 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote    

I have shot, and stopped because I wasn't good enough for my own satisfaction. I accept that there is always a risk of wounding your quarry, but I do feel that anyone shooting should minimise that risk: use an appropriate firearm, appropriate shot(in the case of shotguns), don't take shots at extreme range etc.. From my limited experience there is enough excitement and satisfaction to be gained from shooting on those terms, without trying to make it more thrilling by adding unnecessary, self-inflicted difficulties.

Guest






PostPosted: Sun Nov 14, 04 9:08 am    Post subject: Reply with quote    

Sport! Absolutely not. A running Pheasant is an easier shot than a flying one. Why give your dinner a sporting chance to get away Seems daft to me.

cab



Joined: 01 Nov 2004
Posts: 32429

PostPosted: Sun Nov 14, 04 11:44 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote    

Deerstalker wrote:
How do you define "sport" in this context? People don't need to shoot to satisfy hunger, so why do people want to do it?

There is an element of "enjoyment" involved. Whether this is satisfying a deep seated primeval need to hunt, I cannot be sure.


If people didn't enjoy shooting they wouldn't do it; I have no problem with people enjoying what they do. I also have no problem with people shooting to control vermin or for the pot. It isn't to satify hunger as such, but if it supples meat for the pot then there's no obvious moral problem with it.

Quote:

With regard to the clean kill concept, it is largly rubbish put forward by people who don't shoot.


I beg to differ. I know that an animal can be shot and survive, and I think it's important to reduce the likelyhood of that happening by shooting at a target that might realistically be killed with a single shot. To do otherwise seems rather irresponsible to me.

Quote:

Every time you look down that scope, your heart is beating quickly, your mouth is dry (some people call it "buck fever"). You know there is a risk of wounding - and you know it will happen, as it has happened in the past.

All you can do is use your knowledge, experience and the right tools to minimise this risk.


You mean, do your best to ensure a clean kill?

Jonnyboy



Joined: 29 Oct 2004
Posts: 23924
Location: under some rain.
PostPosted: Tue Nov 16, 04 5:13 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote    

DS wrote;

Quote:
With regard to the clean kill concept, it is largly rubbish put forward by people who don't shoot.


No, I think cab has a valid point there. Many sporting shoots go out of their way to provide a challenging environment, sighting guns at the bottom of a valley to get high birds springs to mind.

I can just about support it if the birds are raised well, shot sensibly and the carcasses not wasted.

However, I'd much rather wander round the hedgrows and shoot rabbits and pigeons, knowing that I only take a shot when I'm pretty confident.

Of course I miss, and sometimes I wound the animal, if that happens 99 times out of 100 it will get a quick despatch without escaping.

tahir



Joined: 28 Oct 2004
Posts: 44282
Location: Essex
PostPosted: Tue Nov 16, 04 5:16 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote    

Jonnyboy wrote:
However, I'd much rather wander round the hedgrows and shoot rabbits and pigeons, knowing that I only take a shot when I'm pretty confident.


To my mind that's how shooting should be

cab



Joined: 01 Nov 2004
Posts: 32429

PostPosted: Tue Nov 16, 04 6:25 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote    

Yes, I'm far happier with the concept of shooting something that isn't running and making itselsf a more difficult target. The idea that it's somehow sporting to increase the risk of injuring the animal, because that also gives it a greater chance of survival, rather misses the point.

Guest






PostPosted: Tue Nov 16, 04 11:29 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote    

I'm trying to be realistic about what shooting is like for those who, perhaps don't take part.

Walking the hedgerows or "rough shooting" as it's know is done with a shotgun.

A shotgun, by the nature of its design, is designed for shooting at moving targets. A lot of people think the shotgun is a humane weapon because you cannot miss. BIG mistake! The shotgun accounts for more wounded "runners" than any other firearm (other than perhaps the air rifle in the wrong hands).

The real problem with shotguns is the lack of exact ballistics. You don't know the exact range, to do not know the speed of your target, you cannot guarantee the spread or pattern of your shot and you don't know if any pellets will cause fatal damage.

This is not a criticism of shotguns (I use them myself), but every shot is a gamble, hit, miss or wound is in the lap of the gods - no guarantees.

With a rifle and scope, you know the ballistics. You zero the weapon at a given range, you know how your projectile will perform above and below your zeroed range. I know the exact range of the target (with the help of a lazer range finder). You even know how the bullet will deform on impact!

You still cannot guarantee a clean kill. You cannot control the variables - your quarry may move as you are pulling tha trigger, there may be a few blades of grass between you and the target (unseen through the scope) or you make shake a little at the last moment (rested, I can put three rounds in a one inch circle at a 100m - no problem. Firing from the the shoulder in the field at that range is a completely different ball game)!

To illustrate this point, I will use deer as an example.

Fallow deer are big heavy targets. I use a .270 rifle and 130g bullets to shoot them. This is a very fast, hard hitting round which deforms on impact to twice its size.

Bullet energy (E) is a function of both its mass (M) and velocity (V) thus (E=1/2 M. V squared). As no shots are taken at more than 100m, consider this:

Mass=130grains (8.4g), muzzle velocity 954m/s(3140f/s), energy=?

Or to put this in context, you have a fallow deer standing broadside on at 100m. Using the above weapon and round, where on the deer would you shoot to ensure an instant kill?

deerstalker



Joined: 28 Oct 2004
Posts: 589

PostPosted: Tue Nov 16, 04 11:35 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote    

Sorry folks, that was me - logged out through time

Post new topic   Reply to topic    Downsizer Forum Index -> Shooting and Trapping for the Pot All times are GMT
Page 1, 2, 3  Next
Page 1 of 3
View Latest Posts View Latest Posts

 

Archive
Powered by php-BB © 2001, 2005 php-BB Group
Style by marsjupiter.com, released under GNU (GNU/GPL) license.
Copyright 2004 marsjupiter.com