Hunting, shooting and fishing poll

[Guest tigger]

  corydoras said:

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).

 

 

Hunting was also a day out and a social occassion besides bumping off a few Foxes.............what's up with that ?

[chesters1]

  tigger said:

Hunting was also a day out and a social occassion besides bumping off a few Foxes.............what's up with that ?

its country folk enjoyment ,labour doesnt like the country side its full of conservatives

[Dick Dastardly]

  tigger said:

Hunting was also a day out and a social occassion besides bumping off a few Foxes.............what's up with that ?

 

 

Absolutely nothing mate........................unless your only 18" tall,red and have a large bushy tail!

[chesters1]

  corydoras said:

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).

actually our mr jack hargreaves mentions in one of his books after ww1? as most of the gentry were away winning wars farmers had to resort to extreme measures to remove foxes .in the end they were so thin on the ground foxes were imported from scotland to hunt after the war

the scottish fox is longer legged than the english one due to the different lifestyles hence our foxes are now longer legged than they would be.

foxes are tolerated in land used by hunts now the hunting has been restricted foxes no longer have any value so more die.a strange way of helping foxes just as releasing mink helped them but ignored the wildlife they ate

hunting going by this actually protected the fox and ofcourse the rabbit too because once fox numbers drop extreme measures are taken on the now rampant rabbits.etc etc etc

hunting has never controlled foxes bar catching the old sick and thick ones ,instead it provides havens where apart from the odd chase across the countryside the clever ones pass on their genes in relative safety.most foxes escape once they get clever and foxes are clever little beggers by nature.

Edited October 14, 2008 by chesters1

[Emma two]

  BUDGIE said:

Absolutely nothing mate........................unless your only 18" tall,red and have a large bushy tail!

 

'Boom, Boom'

 

[Angly]

  corydoras said:

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

 

I would hope so! One famous hunter took all his African Elephants with the .303 back in the day!

 

Seriously, I would think a .303 (or indeed any full power military cartridge) is a bit overkill on UK sized deer (unless shooting sabots of course). Possibly too much meat destruction (presuming one is shooting hollow/soft points)?

[corydoras]

  tigger said:

Hunting was also a day out and a social occassion besides bumping off a few Foxes.............what's up with that ?

Nothing as long as you admit it, but I didn't see much of this side made of the argument with the pro-hunting types at the time.

 

 

  Angly said:

I would hope so! One famous hunter took all his African Elephants with the .303 back in the day!

 

Seriously, I would think a .303 (or indeed any full power military cartridge) is a bit overkill on UK sized deer (unless shooting sabots of course). Possibly too much meat destruction (presuming one is shooting hollow/soft points)?

Have you any idea how big a full grown Red Deer stag is? Where I come from a .303 is the ONLY thing you'll be allowed to shoot red deer with.

[Guest tigger]

  Angly said:

I would hope so! One famous hunter took all his African Elephants with the .303 back in the day!

 

Seriously, I would think a .303 (or indeed any full power military cartridge) is a bit overkill on UK sized deer (unless shooting sabots of course). Possibly too much meat destruction (presuming one is shooting hollow/soft points)?

 

 

 

A 303 for Elephants, It would be useless. Have you never seen an elephant gun ?

 

A 303 isn't at all overkill for UK deer, have you ever shot a Stag ? People use 243's /30 06's etc for foxes.

[Emma two]

  Angly said:

I would hope so! One famous hunter took all his African Elephants with the .303 back in the day!

 

Seriously, I would think a .303 (or indeed any full power military cartridge) is a bit overkill on UK sized deer (unless shooting sabots of course). Possibly too much meat destruction (presuming one is shooting hollow/soft points)?

 

the effect of high veocity rounds on a body is unpredictable. by defintion they travel very quickly and so the trajectory can be straight through soft tissue and out of the other side. The injury caused may be a fatal one but as the energy passes straight through the body, it may not stop it in it's tracks, indeed it may run away to die of its wound later. Alternativley if hits something hard, the thighbone of a human for example then it mat behave erraticly, it may go into ricochet and exit through the top of the head. Low velocity ammunition is far more effective in 'dropping' the target. it hits with more 'shock' the energy following the bullet in and often staying inside as there causing massive trauma, and often without an exit hole. We need to use high velocity ammunition to get the range, its speed and shape make if far more stable in flight and therefore much more accurate than the slower typically blunter low velocity. It's true that one of the battle drills taught to soldiers is to check themselves for bullet wounds after a fire fight, this may appear crazy, as one might imagine that they would surley know if they had been shot! often they do, but not 'always' it is possible for a HV round to pass through the bodywithout hitting anything hard, and the soldier may well be so hyped up on fear, excitement and adrenalin that the pain is masked, and there is a danger for quietly bleeding to death.

 

If we transfer this sitation to the subject under discussion, shooting animals, then it explains why some foxes will be hit like that and possibly run off to die. Two shots will ensure a clean kill, head (brain) and heart and lungs. To hit the brain isnt easy, one needs to be good and have a properly zeroed weapon ans sight, it's a bit like trying to hit a golf ball (fox brain size) suspended by elastic, sometimes 200yards away one dark windy night by artificial light. The pack reduces the 'almost' variable to 'always', either the fox get away free or is killed in seconds.

[corydoras]

  Emma two said:

We need to use high velocity ammunition to get the range, its speed and shape make if far more stable in flight and therefore much more accurate than the slower typically blunter low velocity. It's true that one of the battle drills taught to soldiers is to check themselves for bullet wounds after a fire fight, this may appear crazy, as one might imagine that they would surley know if they had been shot! often they do, but not 'always' it is possible for a HV round to pass through the bodywithout hitting anything hard, and the soldier may well be so hyped up on fear, excitement and adrenalin that the pain is masked, and there is a danger for quietly bleeding to death.

 

If we transfer this sitation to the subject under discussion, shooting animals, then it explains why some foxes will be hit like that and possibly run off to die. Two shots will ensure a clean kill, head (brain) and heart and lungs. To hit the brain isnt easy, one needs to be good and have a properly zeroed weapon ans sight, it's a bit like trying to hit a golf ball (fox brain size) suspended by elastic, sometimes 200yards away one dark windy night by artificial light. The pack reduces the 'almost' variable to 'always', either the fox get away free or is killed in seconds.

I remember once an uncle of mine put three or four high velocity .22 rounds into a big hairy pyrenean type dog that was worrying some of his sheep. Despite hitting it three or four times the dog did not go down at all. He followed it to get a bit closer and brought it down with a head shot. The reason the other shots did not kill the dog was because the shells were spinning so fast that they were getting caught and tangled up in the dogs fur. To be honest Emma I don't think my grandparents gave a hoot whether the foxes suffered or not, just as long as it was a dead fox that couldn't take any more lambs.