Hunting, shooting and fishing poll

[gozzer]

Thanks Andrew, I can see 'where you're coming from' (as they say).

 

Most of the things you list as wrong in angling, are now common practise (and accepted by the majority of anglers it seems).

 

We have an annual trout stocking policy on the rivers up here. Clubs get an annual supply of trout from the EA if they apply, and their water is designated a 'trout water'. This used to be a free service, not sure now. They are put in to replace the fish taken by anglers. It also applies to 'put and take' fisheries around the country.

Surely by your reasoning this should be stopped, and all fisheries should be 'catch and release'. If any trout are wanted for eating, they could be selected from holding tanks, netted, dispatched and taken home.

How does this stand with your belief that we should retain the right to fish for the pot?

 

As for "deliberately" stocking rivers with carp and catfish, they do, but don't have to.

An obvious outcome from overstocking a still water is that escapees are indirectly introduced into river systems. Regardless of intent, the action has the same result. (with the blessing of many anglers)

 

So it all boils down to whether you agree with killing for 'sport' or not, and that's a personal choice.

Some agree with it as far as fish are concerned, but not if it involves 'furry' or 'feathery' creatures, unless it's to control numbers or reduce pests, others don't see a difference.

 

Like all things that boil down to personal choice, (as in the different methods of angling), we should be free to allow our own conscience to dictate where we draw the line, (so long as it's legal).

I'll also add that I feel it's only valid if that personal choice, involves actually thinking about what you are doing and it's effect on the environment you're in. (Something I feel is lacking when it comes to many anglers).

 

Those of you who are in a position to decide the source of all your meat, count yourselves lucky to have the option. Many of us through either finances or geography are not able to have that luxury.

 

John.

Edited October 15, 2008 by gozzer

[Anderoo]

Those of you who are in a position to decide the source of all your meat, count yourselves lucky to have the option. Many of us through either finances or geography are not able to have that luxury.

 

Sorry John, I have to disagree with that. Everyone has that luxury. It just depends on how important you see it.

 

I still haven't read anything that makes me think fishing should be grouped with bloodsports.

[corydoras]

Those of you who are in a position to decide the source of all your meat, count yourselves lucky to have the option. Many of us through either finances or geography are not able to have that luxury.

 

John.

Indeed, there are many who never see meat of any kind.

[corydoras]

When the hunt disappeared then so did the reason for the farmer and keeper not to kill the foxes so they did, with anything they had to hand.

They poisoned them (along with anything else that took the bait)

They shot them (sometimes wounding them and leaving them to die in agony, or maybe just starve to death).

They snared and trapped them, leaving them sometimes for longer than they should in the snare or trap.

They also gas them, in their dens with Cymag (up until the end of 2004, Cymag is now illegal) or just get out the terriers and a spade and dig them out of there den. This is especially fruitful in the spring when you can dig out a whole family,dog fox, vixen, cubs, the lot. Edited October 15, 2008 by corydoras

[gozzer]

Sorry John, I have to disagree with that. Everyone has that luxury. It just depends on how important you see it.

 

That's a very sweeping statement Andrew.

True, in some cases the 'either/or' is an easy choice to make, but to others it's a very difficult one.

It's not always a case of the few quid difference means cigs or beer for the week. It can also mean a choice between adequate heating or not, especially to those on a fixed income in the present economic climate.

To some it is just that, "a luxury", and the money doesn't run to "luxuries".

 

John.

[Anderoo]

That's a very sweeping statement Andrew.

True, in some cases the 'either/or' is an easy choice to make, but to others it's a very difficult one.

It's not always a case of the few quid difference means cigs or beer for the week. It can also mean a choice between adequate heating or not, especially to those on a fixed income in the present economic climate.

To some it is just that, "a luxury", and the money doesn't run to "luxuries".

 

John.

 

Yes, it would mean eating an awful lot less meat! That's within everyone's capability. As I said, it depends on how important it is to people.

[chesters1]

Prince Harry comes across as being a bit young and foolish to me. There dose seem to be an element of anti bird of prey thing going on in the game shooting world, a bit like the anti otter one in the fishing world. Cant see any justification for either myself.

 

 

One of the problems with large caliber guns is they are just not safe in a lot of the heavily populated UK.

have you considered down the barrel of a shotgun a bird of prey and a pheasent would be little more than a blob! an attacking bird of prey swooping would draw in its wings just as a pheasant glides after x wingbeats ,if you watch a pheasent it cannot fly continually but rests for a few wingbeat intervals.i'm am sure a person in the limelight wouldnt kill anything they shouldnt in "public" but accidentally can be done by anyone who-ever they are.birds of prey are shot deliberately ,yes without doupt but you aint employing the royal family to do it are you

in some areas large caliber guns are not feasible ,farms around here are on the main small so small bores are used you dont want to have large lumps of metal going a couple of miles not all shootings done on the army ranges where this happens frightingly often

and squeaking then lamping a fox is a very good way of calling a fox to you so you don't need a heavy bullet in some cases they will come right up to a landy.the lamp merely dazzles them showing the glow of the eyes the colour defines if they are shot or not! in scrub a fox rabbit and deer all look the same in the corner of your eye !the lamp shows the eye colour and also between those glowing eyes is a good target face on.

 

and organised game shoots are not all "fun"for rich people in tweeds it serves other purposes besides paying for the privilege of shooting the game it is a good way of getting some of the money spent on raising them back and paying the beaters,the shooters will get a brace or two the rest go to posh restaurants in exchange for money ,this crop is killed in a far better way than if pheasants were kept in cages ,up to the last second of life they have been totally wild ,pampered and protected ,a large amount live on and get their legs over ,a nice life and all because they are "game" ,its also a way of catching up with friends just as fox hunting is ,in the case of fox hunting no-ones paid bar the houndsmen in the case of organised shoots the shooters pay for everyone else!

Edited October 15, 2008 by chesters1

[kleinboet]

Sorry Cory, the hunt themselves told us that they were only responsible for less than 3% of fatalities in fox populations. So the absence of the hunt can't make that difference!

Edited October 15, 2008 by kleinboet

[chesters1]

cars kill the most ban them

[corydoras]

Sorry Cory, the hunt themselves told us that they were only responsible for less than 3% of fatalities in fox populations. So the absence of the hunt can't make that difference!

Sorry KB you've lost me, what difference? I have nothing against fox hunting other than in terms of foxes killed per £ spent.