Jump to content


Photo
* * * - - 2 votes

Hunting, shooting and fishing poll


  • Please log in to reply
459 replies to this topic

Poll: Hunting, shooting and fishing (151 member(s) have cast votes)

Do you actively:

  1. Just fish (91 votes [59.48%])

    Percentage of vote: 59.48%

  2. Fish and shoot (24 votes [15.69%])

    Percentage of vote: 15.69%

  3. Fish and hunt (5 votes [3.27%])

    Percentage of vote: 3.27%

  4. Fish, shoot and hunt (33 votes [21.57%])

    Percentage of vote: 21.57%

Vote Guests cannot vote

#21 lutra

lutra

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,251 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:lancashire
  • Interests:fishing

Posted 14 October 2008 - 05:00 PM


Said John, "I am a splendid shot"

and Sandy said, "I've fished a lot"

While Pat said, "I'm a sporting man,

and I catch anything I can"

From "Sportsmen Three"

:) :) :)

Get to bed if your off early and enjoy your tiger hunting.
A tiger does not lose sleep over the opinion of sheep

#22 Vagabond

Vagabond

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,008 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:East Sussex
  • Interests:Angling, Ichthyology

Posted 14 October 2008 - 05:13 PM

Get to bed if your off early and enjoy your tiger hunting.

We fly tomorrow evening, flying overnight, so I can annoy everyone just a bit longer.


RNLI Governor

World species 471 : UK species 105 : English species 95 .
Certhia's world species - 215
Eclectic "husband and wife combined" world species 501

 

"Nothing matters very much, few things matter at all" - Plato
...only things like fresh bait and cold beer...


#23 Dick Dastardly

Dick Dastardly

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,060 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Ashford,Kent
  • Interests:Fishing,Photography,Internet

Posted 14 October 2008 - 05:13 PM

Never liked the idea of hunting and I stoped shooting many years ago.Now I only fish.
And thats my "non indicative opinion"!

#24 Guest_tigger_*

Guest_tigger_*
  • Guests

Posted 14 October 2008 - 05:21 PM

It's not efficient in terms of man hours per fox. Where I was brought up the rule was, "thou shalt not suffer a fox to live", we didn't want any getting away "for another day" and we didn't have daft gamekeepers breeding the bloody things so that the hunt had enough to hunt.




When I used to do a lot on Charlie I used nets, shotguns Terries and Lurchers. If we where after clearing Charlie out then we would use nets, lurchers and shot guns and we took no prisoners. Wev'e had seven adult foxes out of one small set ......I'd say that was pretty efficient.
By the way we never set out to make Charlie extinct but to keep his numbers down.

#25 Emma two

Emma two

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,900 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Cumbria
  • Interests:Fishin', cooking, painting, history, making drums.

Posted 14 October 2008 - 05:40 PM

It's not efficient in terms of man hours per fox.


Perhaps not, but then nor is angling an especially efficient way of catching fish. On sunday I saw 10 men fishing a match on a well stocked small commercial, the total result of their efforts would not have filled 2 decent fish pies, wheras 2 men with a net could have emptied the place, but then we all know thats not the point, 'angling' for 'em is much more fun.

Hunting while costly in 'man hours' is the only method of taking foxes which ensures a quick kill.

Edited by Emma two, 14 October 2008 - 05:41 PM.

"Some people hear their inner voices with such clarity that they live by what they hear, such people go crazy, but they become legends"

#26 JV44

JV44

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,121 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Reading berkshire
  • Interests:Fishing ,boating and drinking

Posted 14 October 2008 - 06:04 PM

Used to shoot a bit but now its only Pigeons of the clay type and Rats really hate Rats,Never been hunting but family and friends do so have often been to Hunt balls for the entertainment value.
Dont like the ban it because i dont do it mentality that seems to be part of today i have no interest in going Hunting so i dont but think that some of the fishing styles could be and do take stick for being cruel but again if you are not happy then dont do it use that method.
My tuppence worth anyway good subject Anderoo stand back and light the blue touchpaper ;) Steve.

We are not putting it back it is a lump now put that curry down and go and get the scales

have I told you abouit the cruise control on my Volvo ,,,,,,,bla bla bla Barder rod has it come yet?? and don`t even start me on Chris Lythe :bleh:  :icecream:


#27 corydoras

corydoras

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,243 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Southampton, Hampshire

Posted 14 October 2008 - 06:34 PM

Perhaps not, but then nor is angling an especially efficient way of catching fish. On sunday I saw 10 men fishing a match on a well stocked small commercial, the total result of their efforts would not have filled 2 decent fish pies, wheras 2 men with a net could have emptied the place, but then we all know thats not the point, 'angling' for 'em is much more fun.

Hunting while costly in 'man hours' is the only method of taking foxes which ensures a quick kill.

Emma
I was born and brought up on Scottish hill farms, farms that were not 'tenant' farms so we did not have to let any hunt on our land. Foxes were vermin, like mice, rats, cockroaches. We didn't kill foxes or any other wildlife for 'fun', we killed them so that they would not take new born lambs. A high velocity .22 or a .303 round usually results in a pretty quick kill. Ten bores and sparrow hail were not used.

The problem isn't what people don't know, it's what they know that just ain't so.
Vaut mieux ne rien dire et passer pour un con que de parler et prouver que t'en est un!
Mi, ch’fais toudis à m’mote


#28 Emma two

Emma two

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,900 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Cumbria
  • Interests:Fishin', cooking, painting, history, making drums.

Posted 14 October 2008 - 06:53 PM

A high velocity .22 or a .303 round usually results in a pretty quick kill.


We used 243s whenever possible, however high velocity rifles present thier own problems, your land may have been remote enough to use them freely, the land we controlled is infested with people, many of them camping off site and wandering around even at night. One had to be especially sure about the backdrop. The key word you used is 'usually' and it's true those weapons often result in quick kills, but in no way it that always the case. With the pack, or lurchers there is no 'usually', either the fox gets away clean or is killed quickly.
"Some people hear their inner voices with such clarity that they live by what they hear, such people go crazy, but they become legends"

#29 corydoras

corydoras

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,243 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Southampton, Hampshire

Posted 14 October 2008 - 07:17 PM

We used 243s whenever possible, however high velocity rifles present thier own problems, your land may have been remote enough to use them freely, the land we controlled is infested with people, many of them camping off site and wandering around even at night. One had to be especially sure about the backdrop. The key word you used is 'usually' and it's true those weapons often result in quick kills, but in no way it that always the case. With the pack, or lurchers there is no 'usually', either the fox gets away clean or is killed quickly.

Yes but we had dogs too. Not lurchers, usually border cairn crosses. If we knew where a vixen was bringing up cubs we would do the lot with terriers. My point is that whilst I did not support the banning of fox hunting, the pro hunting lobby earned nothing but scorn from me because of the claim that it was 'efficient', 20 dogs, as many horses, maybe more and god knows how many hangers on and followers does not seem very efficient of to me. When I was young I heard tales that some estates in Fife actually used to bring on young foxes if there were not enough 'wild' ones that year. I have no proof of this of course, it's just anecdotal, but it would not surprise me if it were true (nor would it surprise me if it were not true).

Edited by corydoras, 14 October 2008 - 07:18 PM.

The problem isn't what people don't know, it's what they know that just ain't so.
Vaut mieux ne rien dire et passer pour un con que de parler et prouver que t'en est un!
Mi, ch’fais toudis à m’mote


#30 poledark

poledark

    Member

  • Anglers' Net Contributor
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,682 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Canterbury Kent
  • Interests:Fishing, Photography,computing,making Steam Loco's

Posted 14 October 2008 - 07:22 PM

Never hunted in the accepted sense, but used to shoot (rough and stalking). I have owned and shot with an FAC rated air rifle, and at 26ft/lbs it was more than adequate for rabbits.

I went "on the march" to support the hunters, 240,000 of us wasted our time there.................

But now the thought of killing anything, even rats is abhorrant to me, but I will kill rats around my home, and mice, and even spiders to keep the wife happy.

I still fish though.

Den

"When through the woods and forest glades I wanderAnd hear the birds sing sweetly in the trees;When I look down from lofty mountain grandeur,And hear the brook, and feel the breeze;and see the waves crash on the shore,Then sings my soul.................. 

for all you Spodders.       https://youtu.be/XYxsY-FbSic