What if?

[Sportsman]

The hypocrisy is astounding. "My field sport is acceptable, because I want to do it, but lets ban anything that I don't understand and don't have an interest in"

"I don't believe that fish feel pain because it suits my agenda to believe that fish don't feel pain"

"The welfare of the fish is paramount but I still intend to fish for them and I am quite happy to risk their wellbeing for my own enjoyment"

 

The hunting ban, as previously pointed out, has done nothing for the welfare of the fox. They are trapped, snared shot and poisoned and with the removal of hunting interests have nobody interested in their welfare. The idiots who paraded and supported the ban are no longer interested and the politicians who voted for it never were.

 

Zedhead, how about the welfare of your beloved Zander if all zander fishermen were removed from the equation? With no-one interested in them maybe they would be poisoned, netted, gorge baited or in other ways removed from the waterways that they were introduced to.

 

Angling as such is unlikely to be banned outright in the foreseeable future but it will die the death of a thousand cuts. Livebaiting was banned recently in Scotland. Remember the outcry get a couple of antis on a local council and council owned waters will be closed to anglers because of the risk to the swans from anglers lead shot. Can't happen?

 

For the record I don't hunt and never have. I have shot foxes at the request of farmers and gamekeepers but I don't much like doing it as they are not always easy to shoot cleanly.

I do however support field sports in general regardless of whether I want to do them or not. I have never fished for Zander but I would support Zedhead's right to do so using any legal method he deems fit.

[Emma two]

Emma, you might find previous reactions to that quote interesting

http://www.anglersnet.co.uk/forums/nigh-li....html&st=30

 

Thank you Vagabond, I did find it interesting, and the whole thread surrounding it.

As someone did then, I should stress that using Niemoller, is not to compare government intereference with country sports in the same category as what happened in the third reich, however it does nicely illustrate the human potential to sit quietly and not act unless directly threatened.

 

Sections within angling chose to disassociate themselves from fieldsports, when ALL those sports are under threat. I can understand those who did not wish to actually engage in activities such as hunting, I rarley set out to follow hounds, but when operating they we often dificult to miss here in the fells and I wholly supported them. If for nothing else than the ban was an assault on liberty. It's introduction has done more to protect the notions of how things should be to a largley uninformed population, so that they may feel better about their society, while doing nothing for the fox who still gets killed but by less sure methods. It would have been morally, it not scientifically and economically preferable to designate the fox a protected species and make illegal ANY interference with it, provided that the ministery would have been prepared to come up with the cash for compensation to pay for 'matey's butcher bill'.

 

I don't believe that angling as we know it is wholly safe in a society which is so dissmissive of hard evedence that it permits battery farming yet forbids hunting. Distasteful as it appears to be to some here, it may prove to be disasterous to isolate angling specifically from the wider discourse on country sports.

[Guest tigger]

I am totally against fox hunting. But I realise they have to be culled. It seems that people use the culling as an excuse to jump on a hrse and chase the poor thing to death. Barbaric. Ok you've raised the issue that shooting is also not very efficient, but it has got to be a lot better than chasing the poor thing to death were it can be ripped apart by dogs in the name of fun disguised as a serious attempt to cull. If the problem with foxes mainly effects the farmers then they have the only right to do the culling. I find it so hard to believe that people can say the love the environment and wildlife but the main experience of it that they enjoy is the destruction of it.

 

And you were talking about shotguns...here's a thought, use a high powered air rifle with a sight, there would be no problem hitting the head then and they are easily powerful enough. I had no problem killing rabbits outright with mine

 

 

 

I've bumped foxes off with using various guns and methods but the best shot in the world can still blow a foxes face or a chunk of it's body away yet it may still run off and escape. However, if you're out with the dogs and they get hold of it it's dead for sure and very quickly.

 

I'm afraid the country is full of people like you SPSwallow who clearly have no idea about the countryside and it's wildlife.

Edited October 1, 2008 by tigger

[Emma two]

that shooting is also not very efficient, but it has got to be a lot better than chasing the poor thing to death were it can be ripped apart by dogs

 

And you were talking about shotguns...here's a thought, use a high powered air rifle with a sight, there would be no problem hitting the head then and they are easily powerful enough. I had no problem killing rabbits outright with mine

 

No shooting isn't 'alot better', as I pointed out earlier and all goes well then it can be effective, In the last 20 foxes you have shot how many dropped stone dead'?

 

Your airgun suggestion sadly reflects a lack of experience and understanding, and to argue popping at foxes with a slug gun over hunting as a humane option is woeful madness. It's true that there are some very good and powerful air guns around these days and thay are useful tools for a type of rabbit control. However a weapon with a 50 yard absolute maximum effective range is no way going to ensure a quick clean kill on an animal the size of a fox. Standing 30 yards away one might kill a fox outright with a very well placed head shot. however to go out on a windy night to squeak in a fox one needs something effective to at least 200 yards. The airgun option is not anly laughable, but would also be illegal!

Edited October 1, 2008 by Emma two

[Guest tigger]

The airgun option is not anly laughable, but would also be illegal!

 

 

 

I've used airguns up to 45 ft pounds and you just can't even begin to compare one to even to a .22 rimfire. I used to go out lamping foxes at night with various friends but we used the correct tools for the job....my choice was a 243 rifle wich if everything went to plan would knock charie off his peggs instantly but as Emma says SPSwallow you just proved your total lack of knowlage and ignorance suggesting using a slug gun to cull foxes...........shockin man

[Vagabond]

Morley snarled that if he had his way I would go to jail after admitting I was a 'rabbiter', and followed up with his wish to see the whole lot of us stopped, including anglers.

...and if you could have read his thoughts, you might find your analogy re Niemoller too apt for comfort.

 

The mind-set that says, "I'll stop you hunting, I'll stop you fishing", given the opportunity and power, might well say "I'll stop you existing"

[lutra]

whenever I see angling mentioned in the same context as hunting or shooting, it really makes me cringe. They couldn't be more different in my opinion. They are completely separate, let's keep it that way.

I agree, I'm certainly not to keen on hunting and shooting being mentioned in the same context as matching fishing, pike fishing with them dirt big gut hooking trebles and the fishing on over stocked over fished carp puddles.

[SPSwallow]

I've bumped foxes off with using various guns and methods but the best shot in the world can still blow a foxes face or a chunk of it's body away yet it may still run off and escape. However, if you're out with the dogs and they get hold of it it's dead for sure and very quickly.

 

I'm afraid the country is full of people like you SPSwallow who clearly have no idea about the countryside and it's wildlife.

 

Ok, I accept that. But why draw out the process by chasing it first? That is not quick. That isn't humane, that is cruel. Why make a huge song and party out of it, it is pathetic. And I can't see why people would gain enjoyment out of killing the beautiful creatures. To me it would be a horrible chore i'd have to put up with and would only do it if extremely neccessary. I would'nt relish the idea of setting dogs on them.

Edited October 1, 2008 by SPSwallow

[Anderoo]

This is now a topic about anything other than fishing.

 

Budgie, your topic needs you!

[Emma two]

Ok, I accept that. But why draw out the process by chasing it first? That is not quick. That isn't humane, that is cruel. Why make a huge song and party out of it, it is pathetic. And I can't see why people would gain enjoyment out of killing the beautiful creatures. To me it would be a horrible chore i'd have to put up with and would only do it if extremely neccessary. I would'nt relish the idea of setting dogs on them.

 

I will concede that, in my opinion at least the most efficient fox control method is a rifle of suitable calibre, (as Tigger points out a 243 is pretty standard) but AlWAYS back up with dogs, ideally a couple of lurchers who are capable of running down the beam and finishing the job off if the bullet doesn't. However that method isn't always practicable. For example one needs the space to be able to fire a high velocity weapon safely at night, and in a small crowded country like ours that can be difficult. Even here in the fells we seento have an almost year round population of tourists who dont always stick to putting up thier tents on approved sites. A few years ago I was watching a fox coming nicely to the 'squeak' along the edge of Derwentwater, first pressure taken up on the trigger waiting for it to stop, when I noticed something unsual in the hedge behind it, it turned out to be a German tourist in a sleeping bag! I have enough conversational Deutch to be able to strogly advise him to stick to where he was supposed to camp. Even our labour MP campaigned for a special exemption to allow the fells packs to contiunue after any ban.

 

Whether the hunt is 'cruel' and 'inhumane' is a subjective opinion, the independant Burns report which was an exhaustive study, and supported by the RCVS concluded it wasn't, have you conducted your own research?

 

Bringing this notion of unawarness about the counrtyside and its sports back into an angling context, this summer I was doing a bit of lure fishing on the lake, a woman with her two kids watched me land a jack of about 3 lbs, as I unhooked it she took it upon herself to loudly point out what a barbarian I was, she must have been convinced that I was about to kill it. This 'mad cow' asked me if I were a parent, and invited me to consider the feelings of the pike's parents when their offspring were to fail to return home! it would have been a waste of time to point out that if 'jack' ever got close to his mother when she was hungry that she would simply scoff him. I felt sorry for her kids, and silently cursed Disney.

 

Does it boil down to the notion that you don't like hunting because you fail to understand why others enjoyed doing it?