Printable Version of Topic
Click here to view this topic in its original format
Newbury Today Forum _ Newbury News _ "Country Matters"
Posted by: Biker1 Aug 8 2011, 06:26 PM
I see in last weeks NWN that Andrew Davis is once again concentrating on the persecution of wild animals.
He talks of a "country fair" which was held at Benheim (about 40 miles from Newbury) the likes of which, from his description, seem to concentrate mainly on killing wildlife.
His enthusiasm for the gassing of badgers he finds hard to contain as he does that for "controlling" deer.
I am a lover of the countryside but I do not feel the need to blast away at wildlife to do so.
There is no counter argument to his column as the NWN would probably not allow this although there is a "nature notes" column on the same page which seems to concentrate on the more constructive side of enjoying the countryside.
If the NWN is willing I would be more than happy to provide an alternative "country matters" column with a counter viewpoint.
I find his 1/2 page column totally biased concentrating on bloodsports rather than that of country matters in general.
I particularly object to his term of "bunny huggers" for those who do not share his bloodthirsty views. In my opinion most offensive.
Any thoughts?
Do many of you read it? (Page 34 if you haven't.)
Posted by: On the edge Aug 8 2011, 07:16 PM
Must admit that whilst I can see there might be a need to manage wildlife populations for various reasons there is no need to be so enthusiastic. In my youth I spent a while with a pest control firm in London 'controlling rats'. Had to be done, but unpleasant - they are lovely creatures.
Posted by: Biker1 Aug 8 2011, 07:22 PM
Possibly so, but if there is a need then lets be discreet about it, not glorify it.
The main reason is probably that there are a lot of humans on this crowded isle needing more and more food, therefore not enough room to allow wildlife to live alongside.
Posted by: user23 Aug 8 2011, 07:45 PM
Posted by: Cognosco Aug 8 2011, 09:03 PM
Yes because of cheap foreign labour. Also a lot of our farming land is being concreted over. Just look at what is happening around Newbury, any green space and the council or the Newbury Few want to develop it for short gain profit.
Posted by: user23 Aug 8 2011, 09:05 PM
Posted by: Cognosco Aug 8 2011, 09:16 PM
Er - Sandleford? We have now infilled up to the Newbury bypass which we were insured would not happen! Come on User you can't really try to deflect the impossible surely?
Posted by: NWNREADER Aug 8 2011, 09:20 PM
Sandleford has not been farmland for several years - it has stood fallow for ages.
Infilled up to the by-pass? Where?
Posted by: user23 Aug 8 2011, 09:23 PM
http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?q=Newbury&hl=en&ll=51.403677,-1.339688&spn=0.016331,0.038581&sll=53.800651,-4.064941&sspn=15.87437,39.506836&t=h&z=15.
Posted by: Cognosco Aug 8 2011, 09:41 PM
Infilled up to the by-pass? Where?
Sandleford Farm? Now the recycling centre. Houses built right up to the bypass - Enborne - by the old Enborne Garage?
Posted by: On the edge Aug 8 2011, 09:42 PM
http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?q=Newbury&hl=en&ll=51.403677,-1.339688&spn=0.016331,0.038581&sll=53.800651,-4.064941&sspn=15.87437,39.506836&t=h&z=15.
Phew! Thank goodness LDs not in - or it would soon be covered with Astro turf, floodlights and medical centres - like the 'green gap' between Newbury and Thatcham!
Posted by: Cognosco Aug 8 2011, 09:42 PM
http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?q=Newbury&hl=en&ll=51.403677,-1.339688&spn=0.016331,0.038581&sll=53.800651,-4.064941&sspn=15.87437,39.506836&t=h&z=15.
Try a link for a map 25 years ago and.....
Posted by: user23 Aug 8 2011, 09:46 PM
Posted by: spartacus Aug 8 2011, 09:47 PM
Is that what the householders that called you in to get rid of them in your previous job called them? 'lovely'? I can't see our little friend Ben (Rattus rattus) being a lovely creature...
If not, you are Michael Jackson and I claim the £5 reward....
Posted by: Andy Capp Aug 8 2011, 10:07 PM
Rats make good pets apparently.
Posted by: spartacus Aug 8 2011, 11:04 PM
Posted by: Turin Machine Aug 8 2011, 11:26 PM
Siberian hamsters ??
Posted by: Dodgys smarter brother. Aug 9 2011, 06:02 AM
"I say to man in shop "Is rat." He say "No, no, no. Is a special kind of hamster. Is filigree Siberian hamster." Only one in shop. He make special price: only five pound"
Posted by: Darren Aug 9 2011, 06:09 AM
Basil!!!
Posted by: Biker1 Aug 9 2011, 08:07 AM
Can I draw this back on track to the original point which is - Is the Andrew Davis column biased and offensive?
Posted by: blackdog Aug 9 2011, 08:35 AM
Infilled up to the by-pass? Where?
Standard technique No 1 - if you have agricultural land that is ripe for development the first thing to do is to stop farmng it to give the impression that the best thing to do is to build on it. The best bit is that the EU will pay you to do so as 'set aside' land. Run out of your 'set aside' allowance? Lease the land to someone who hasn't.
The infill to the bypass hasn't happened yet but there isn't a lot of farming going on in any fields adjacent to Newbury, Speen, Shaw, Donnington etc.
Back to the OP's issue - one of the most profitable 'crops' on farms is pheasants. Supermarkets (driven by us) have driven down crop and livestock prices so hunting, shooting and fishing has become ever more important to farmers and estate owners. Is Andrew Davis a local farmer?
Posted by: Dodgys smarter brother. Aug 9 2011, 09:01 AM
I have to admit that I have read this chappies column from time to time and I had always assumed it was some kind of wind-up to make 'Country Folk' look stupid. His myopic view of country matters, obvious lack of rural knowledge and his theories which have more holes than a swiss cheese, led me to believe that 'Andrew Davis' was a nom-de-plume of some troll deliberately giving the impression that country folk have low I.Q's.
Now you're telling me he's real? Pull the other one. You'll be telling me he actually believes what he says next.
Posted by: Andy Capp Aug 9 2011, 10:20 AM
Well it has to be, otherwise you would not have started the thread. I don't think I have ever read Andrew Davis's column all the way through, so I can't comment. I've always regarded it as rather esoteric and about topics I am not currently interested in.
Posted by: On the edge Aug 9 2011, 12:34 PM
That's the one. Prior to the Hospital (which even now has expansion plans) and the sports feild, which at close up contains astro turf and flood lights it was a fairly clear and distinctive division. Was highlighted as such in strategic plans at the time. Have been at public meetings where former MPs and Councillors pledged to protect it. There was no need at all to develop the Hospital on this site or the sports park.
Posted by: On the edge Aug 9 2011, 12:39 PM
Is that what the householders that called you in to get rid of them in your previous job called them? 'lovely'? I can't see our little friend Ben (Rattus rattus) being a lovely creature...
If not, you are Michael Jackson and I claim the £5 reward....
Householders hate them - of course they do. Have a look at the animal itself. Some people think we are weird because we eat cows. Use the fiver for a Teach Yourself Natural History book!!!
Posted by: Dodgys smarter brother. Aug 9 2011, 12:56 PM
Here, have this for free..
http://www.veganpeace.com/animal_facts/Rats.htm
Posted by: Andy Capp Aug 9 2011, 01:27 PM
My understanding was that the field was 'given' to Newbury provided a hospital was built on it.
Posted by: spartacus Aug 9 2011, 04:26 PM
http://www.veganpeace.com/animal_facts/Rats.htm
WOW!! You're RIGHT!! Such cuddly creatures.... I want one....
(and within a couple of weeks I'll have hundreds.......)
Posted by: On the edge Aug 9 2011, 07:31 PM
Yes and in the same way, in Far East they used to give valuable elephants to certain people - pink ones...
Posted by: Andy Capp Aug 9 2011, 08:58 PM
What are you talking about; I'm serious? IIRC, the land was willed to the council for use as a hospital.
Posted by: On the edge Aug 9 2011, 09:24 PM
Didn't mean we had to accept it. Bargains aren't always what they seem. Don't think you'd get away with developing Regents Park simply because someone gave the land to rebuild the Royal Free do you?
Posted by: Andy Capp Aug 9 2011, 09:29 PM
You argued earlier that there was no need at all to develop the Hospital on this site. In my view, being given land to develop which sits between Newbury and Thatcham is a good reason to build there.
Posted by: On the edge Aug 10 2011, 07:11 PM
Another one we'll have to differ on. We can't get back our environment once we've smashed it so the real price we've paid is far higher. A very blinkered decision.
Posted by: Andy Capp Aug 10 2011, 08:03 PM
If it was for any other purpose, I might agree, but green fields can be sacrificed for this particular development. My only disappointment is that it isn't a 'real' hospital.
Posted by: Simon Kirby Aug 10 2011, 08:18 PM
I don't see what the problem is, environmentally or anyhow. It's clean and smart, and infinitely more convenient than going into Reading, only its access roads are weird (and maybe I shouldn't even start on the charge for parking).
Posted by: user23 Aug 10 2011, 08:36 PM
Posted by: On the edge Aug 10 2011, 09:06 PM
Perfect spot for it? Same argument can apply to the Pavilion - why all the fuss over that? Its only going to cover some grass!
Posted by: Andy Capp Aug 10 2011, 09:16 PM
The big difference is that the hospital site was private land that was donated. In other words, we haven't lost any publicly accessible open space; where as, that isn't the case with the proposed pavilion.
Posted by: Turin Machine Aug 10 2011, 10:46 PM
its a good hospital in the right place. end of.
Posted by: dannyboy Aug 11 2011, 08:52 AM
Assuming you agree then Newbury/Thatcham needed such a facility, where should it have been built?
Posted by: On the edge Aug 11 2011, 11:19 AM
Nothing wrong with where it was before.
Posted by: Andy Capp Aug 11 2011, 11:37 AM
Many in Thatcham might disagree with you, but the space freed-up by the hospital enable more housing. They were also able to build a bigger hospital that was more suitable for current needs.
Building in green fields is inevitable, if regrettable, but for me a hospital is a suitable building to have been placed in one.
Posted by: On the edge Aug 11 2011, 11:53 AM
Building in green fields is inevitable, if regrettable, but for me a hospital is a suitable building to have been placed in one.
Like I say, we won't agree on this and I'm sure I'm in a majority. When the old hospital was going strong, didn't hear any complaints from Thatcham residents. One might ask why weren't the houses built in the green belt site? So putting a hospital there was a planners slight of hand anyway. I can go on for ages about good design and philistine UK planning and construction industry but I won't. Content to leave it there - welcome to Greater Slough!
Posted by: Andy Capp Aug 11 2011, 12:10 PM
If what I said is true, that would make your claim false. The private land was left to be used as a hospital - I believe it was willed.
It is win-win. We have a bigger better hospital for more people and we have more housing that is in close proximity of the town; possibly negating car movements. I suspect that a hospital is used less by people than their town. Building the hospital somewhere else meant we could build a hospital while the other one is being used, therefore less disruption to service.
I really can't see that your argument is reasonable on this topic, but I do agree that we should build on brown fields before green fields, subject to practical considerations.
Posted by: Biker1 Aug 11 2011, 12:17 PM
I presume by the fact that this thread has gone off track again that I am alone in reading and being offended by Mr. Davis' biased column.
By this (lack of) response I am surprised that the NWN gives it 1/2 page each week given it's poor readership.
I'll leave it there then! 
Posted by: Andy Capp Aug 11 2011, 12:31 PM
I'll leave it there then!
I suppose the argument might be that urban culture is catered for in other parts of the paper, but an 'anti hunting' column might be interesting feature.
Posted by: blackdog Aug 11 2011, 01:06 PM
By this (lack of) response I am surprised that the NWN gives it 1/2 page each week given it's poor readership.
I'll leave it there then!
I'm not sure that the fact that a couple of dozen forumistas (mostly, I suspect, urbanites) don't read the column necessarily means that it has poor readership.
In any case the NWN needs something to fill the space between the adverts. A reliable, no doubt cheap, 1/2 page must be a Godsend.
Posted by: On the edge Aug 11 2011, 04:45 PM
By this (lack of) response I am surprised that the NWN gives it 1/2 page each week given it's poor readership.
I'll leave it there then!
Sorry my fault.
The suggestion that an 'anti hunting'column would provide some balance is a good one. I must also admit, I didn't even know about the column until you mentioned it and I do read NWN each week! Shows how good my concentration is, or that column isn't presented well enough to catch attention.
(Note - Andy C - on hospital issue certainly agree with your last sentence ...!)
Posted by: JeffG Aug 12 2011, 08:50 AM
Close, but not quite. Miss Rooke's smallholding was in Wash Water (I think), and that was sold to buy the land on which the hospital is built, and presumably to fund the building as well.
http://www.getreading.co.uk/news/s/9379_rosemarys_legacy__a_hospital_for_you
Posted by: Andy Capp Aug 12 2011, 10:01 AM
So it needn't have been built there (as OTE said), but the principle still stands that the hospital is an appropriate development of green fields (in my view).
Posted by: blackdog Aug 12 2011, 12:23 PM
The hospital is probably the only development that would have got planning permission on that site - in effect it was the only way to get rid of the annoying green gap between Newbury and Thatcham.
Posted by: Biker1 Aug 20 2011, 06:15 AM
He's on about the pleasures to be had in blasting wild boar to death this week!
Posted by: On the edge Aug 20 2011, 03:01 PM
Nah - too much of a townie me. Ironically, 'closing the gap' is probably a good thing as far as I'm concerned - more development = more public services and so a more comfortable Newbury. I just get very irritated when local politicians aren't straight. More particularly when local 'administrators' feel free to bend and adjust the rules just to deliver their pet projects. Try doing that commercially and the self same will have you in Court in no time. Everyone must play by the rules except us! I suppose its more pronounced in Newbury because in reality its too little in Governance terms - so one can't expect much leadership or innovative thinking.
Posted by: blackdog Aug 20 2011, 07:38 PM
Whereas I see more development = more people sharing the same public services, more traffic clogging the same roads, more passengers on the same trains, etc.
Posted by: On the edge Aug 21 2011, 07:32 AM
Probably off thread, however, Ill pinch a few moments. This is exactly why its so important for planning strategies to be maintained and politicians to be straight. We are not all the same. West berkshire continues to complain about over development and the government 'forcing' it to take more homes. Some years ago, I was at a presentation by the then CEO of Reading Council. They had a futuristic view of Reading as a European City - would have involved substantially increasing the number of homes in Reading town centre - loft living and the like (I know, but many people don't want gardens and do like living in city centres if its done properly) Reading claimed it would be able to absorb most of the governments demand for house numbers in the Berkshire area. Guess who scuppered that by objecting and claiming it wanted to keep its own allocation - why our very dear WBC! So, to anyone objecting to the over development round here - you've simply got what you asked for!
Posted by: Simon Kirby Aug 18 2012, 06:07 PM
Just to note: it was a useful and informative article on ragwort in this week's edition. Anyone with livestock will be aware of the problem that ragwort poses: It's deadly poisonous but grazing animals tend to leave it alone. However, it loses little of its toxicity when it's cut and incorporated into hay and animals will eat it like this indiscriminantly and this makes it a real menace. Time was that farmers would control it, but you'll regularly find local fields full of it now, and it also grows very well on embankments and waste ground so there's always a bank for it's numerous mobile seeds.
The article covered those issues well, but the plant also makes a valuable contribution to biodiversity being the food plant of several species of moth, most conspicuously the cinabar moth caterpillar
So close is the association of moth and plant that the moth's latin name (Tyria jacobaeae) references the ragwort's (Jacobaea vulgaris). Ragwort's control is certainly an important country matter, but as with any pest control the issue is nuanced and not one-dimensional so I'd have liked to have seen a recognition of the biodiversity argument.
Posted by: Penelope Aug 18 2012, 06:33 PM
The article covered those issues well, but the plant also makes a valuable contribution to biodiversity being the food plant of several species of moth, most conspicuously the cinabar moth caterpillar
So close is the association of moth and plant that the moth's latin name (Tyria jacobaeae) references the ragwort's (Jacobaea vulgaris). Ragwort's control is certainly an important country matter, but as with any pest control the issue is nuanced and not one-dimensional so I'd have liked to have seen a recognition of the biodiversity argument.
Unfortunately it is rife in the pasture where we overwinter the horses, so out it comes.
Posted by: Andy Capp Aug 18 2012, 09:33 PM
I remember when I was a kid going 'ragworting' for the local farm owner. Henry Hall I think his name was.
Posted by: Simon Kirby Aug 19 2012, 09:01 AM
I did just the same as a kid on a dairy farm.
Posted by: gel Aug 19 2012, 01:29 PM
By this (lack of) response I am surprised that the NWN gives it 1/2 page each week given it's poor readership.
I'll leave it there then!
I for one am in total agreement with you; when I come across these hunting/ shooting advocates on country
tracks, I feel real anomisity as they walk along laughing with various dead creatures hung round their necks.
I was pleased to read the story of the Etonian Chairman of Sothebys who got blasted recently whilst shooting.
Now he'll know the some of the pain he inflicts every time he fires his shotgun.
Posted by: gardeb Aug 19 2012, 06:17 PM
tracks, I feel real anomisity as they walk along laughing with various dead creatures hung round their necks.
I was pleased to read the story of the Etonian Chairman of Sothebys who got blasted recently whilst shooting.
Now he'll know the some of the pain he inflicts every time he fires his shotgun.
A great pity that someone can be this evil towards fellow humans.
Posted by: Simon Kirby Aug 24 2012, 05:16 PM
This week's article was a reflection on the Olympics and the nation's problem with obesity, and considered what the countryside had to offer - that's right, killing animals! It's been running, walking, and cycling that has got me into the countryside for the last thrity years so in the context of health and fitness in the country I think those sports and pastimes deserved a mention.
Posted by: dannyboy Aug 24 2012, 05:25 PM
LOL, really?
I can't imaging going on a modern shoot makes the calories fall off - unless one is a beater.
Posted by: Newbelly Aug 24 2012, 06:23 PM
Well, I am glad you enjoy "the countryside". But, I feel, food production is more important than your choice of recreation.
Posted by: Simon Kirby Aug 24 2012, 06:25 PM
I'm not with you. Is my enjoyment of the countryside in any way in opposition to the production of food?
Posted by: Newbelly Aug 24 2012, 06:51 PM
Confused too. Your post (#62) suggests you are against killing all animals in that this is what the countryside (as reported) has to offer?
Posted by: Simon Kirby Aug 24 2012, 07:14 PM
Right, I'm with you now. "Country Matters" this week is promoting "hunting, shooting, and fishing" as the sports of the countryside but ignored the popular countryside sports and passtimes of running, walking, and cycling which goes quite some way to supporting the proposition of the OP that the article isn't actually concerned with matters of the country but is simply a vehicle for the promotion of bloodsports.
I'd forgot that the function of a substantial part of the countryside is the rearing of animals to eat and I wasn't making a comment on that, though I see how it would look like I was.
Posted by: Andy Capp Aug 24 2012, 10:25 PM
Agreed.
Posted by: Nothing Much Aug 30 2012, 01:22 PM
I know it is an old topic but I was interested because on Saturday morning
there was about 3 hours of continuous shotgun firing.Well it is not exactly a shooting area, the rabbits were still asleep and the pigeons seem to have gone elsewhere. If you have an event in a suitable space. Birthday treat.
There was the answer in an advert for mobile clay pigeon shoots.
They bring the guns, the insurance,the temporary documents. It seems like a good idea.
Waste of time on me.
ce
Posted by: Biker1 Nov 26 2012, 05:09 PM
Hit rock bottom this week with a blatant diatribe on the pleasures to be had from blasting wild birds to death (or some to near death if you read it fully). Does the NWN not realise that many will find this sort of thing most offensive together with no balanced argument against?
Strange that there is one large column on the page extolling shooting birds and another smaller one taking of the pleasures of observing them at peace in the countryside.
Posted by: On the edge Nov 26 2012, 07:32 PM
Strange that there is one large column on the page extolling shooting birds and another smaller one taking of the pleasures of observing them at peace in the countryside.
Wholly agree - well spotted.
Posted by: Andy Capp Nov 26 2012, 08:12 PM
Perhaps a letter to the editor about one's abhorrence of game shooting? Or indeed, amazement at how anyone could enjoy performing such acts for recreational purposes.
Posted by: dannyboy Nov 26 2012, 08:36 PM
A brace of birds for the oven.....
Posted by: blackdog Nov 27 2012, 11:57 AM
Strange that there is one large column on the page extolling shooting birds and another smaller one taking of the pleasures of observing them at peace in the countryside.
Wild birds? Pheasants are a crop, raised in their thousands in order to be shot. Like lambs, cattle and pigs they provide an income for farmers through their deaths.
Posted by: On the edge Nov 27 2012, 12:06 PM
Umm - by the same argument, why can't us 'townies' still have rat pits in pubs where we could get rid of vermin whilst watching our dogs have a bit of fun. This would also create a much needed income stream for publicans, who aren't even subsidised by EU.
Posted by: blackdog Nov 27 2012, 12:14 PM
Because the government decided to enact a law making such activities illegal. If and when the government decides to ban game shooting then the practise will cease - and pheasant numbers will dwindle. In the meantime pheasants will be bred and cropped.
Posted by: Biker1 Nov 27 2012, 12:37 PM
You miss the point.
It is the gaining of pleasure from the killing (or maiming) and calling it a "sport" that does not, in my opinion, fit in with today's society.
You do not find folks reveling in killing lambs, cattle, pigs etc., calling it a "sport" and devoting a newspaper column to it.
We've made killing foxes for fun illegal so why birds?
If pheasants or other birds are required for food then why not farm them in the same way as other types of farmed bird?
Yes I know............. country "sports" make money.
Posted by: Adrian Hollister Nov 27 2012, 02:42 PM
It is the gaining of pleasure from the killing (or maiming) and calling it a "sport" that does not, in my opinion, fit in with today's society.
You do not find folks reveling in killing lambs, cattle, pigs etc., calling it a "sport" and devoting a newspaper column to it.
We've made killing foxes for fun illegal so why birds?
If pheasants or other birds are required for food then why not farm them in the same way as other types of farmed bird?
Yes I know............. country "sports" make money.
The number of half dead birds we see around here is sickening. I wonder perhaps if killing baby seals would give these people as much pleasure? after all the birds are bred to fly low they are overfed to ensure they fly slow. There is no sport in it at all. Killing things for fun is just sick.
Posted by: On the edge Nov 27 2012, 03:16 PM
Spot on
Posted by: Penelope Nov 27 2012, 03:34 PM
I agree, so, here's your chance, get into power and do something to stop it.
Posted by: Biker1 Nov 28 2012, 09:27 AM
http://www.bbc.co.uk/nature/19822198
Posted by: Biker1 Nov 28 2012, 10:31 AM
Probably!
Posted by: Berkshirelad Nov 28 2012, 09:28 PM
Up until 2010 is what this survey says.
Most shot is no longer lead but steel or other alloy.
Posted by: On the edge Nov 28 2012, 10:08 PM
Most shot is no longer lead but steel or other alloy.
Phew! That's all right then!
Posted by: spartacus Nov 28 2012, 10:56 PM
I prefer shooting clay pigeons over real pigeon, but they don't half make a mess of your teeth if you try to bite 'em.
This subject though is just something for a few part-time tree-huggers to get their hemp knickers in a unnecessary twist over. Yes pheasant and grouse and other game is shot and it's done for fun, but it's also done for the pot. The dead beasts aren't just chucked in the bin after a shoot... (though the innards are) But because the meat, or full bird, is a bit more expensive if bought from a butcher it appeals to a <ahem> different socio-economic group....
If you've been on a shoot and bagged a brace you keep them (if you want) and eat them (after they've rotted in the garage for a bit) and there's a bit of Neanderthal 'hunter-gatherer' about the process that makes you feel good and helps takes your mind off the pain when you try to bite through some shot you've missed.... But it's good wholesome meat with nothing added and nothing taken away....
Meanwhile the tree-huggers that wail over the death of poor old Mr Pheasant and make such a song and dance over birds being shot are probably season ticket holders at the local McD's or KFC and think nothing about the processes involved in gathering the <retch> 'meat' that makes up a hearty chicken twisler.....
nom-nom-nom..... A nod to the 'humane killing' process and chuck the scabby birds in a giant mincer. As for the 'meat recovery process' for your average 1/4 pounder, that involves steam cleaning carcasses and collecting the gloop and squeegying it down the drain to be collected and formed into 'patties' of 100% beef (pass me the sick bag)
The hypocrisy of people that get worked up over a bit of game shooting can be quite staggering......
(And yes, I eat burgers and other unhealthy stuff and enjoy it in moderation. But I try not to think too deeply about how it got from 'moo-ing' to 'sizzling'. I also try to buy at the 'quality' end of the meat counter and so limit the hoof and snout content of my 100% meat delight..... I worked in a butchers for a bit when I was younger and we occasionally visited the abattoir and it was a real eye-opener, stomach-churner for a bit) nom-nom-nom...
Posted by: Andy Capp Nov 28 2012, 11:09 PM
It is a dilemma that I have fought with for some time. Although I couldn't go game shooting, unless it was to survive, I am also 'guilty' of eating processed meat realising that perhaps a lot more goes on in the 'den of death' from where it comes from than I would like to know. I would like to become a vegetarian, but I don't have the will-power.
If that makes me a hypocrite then ... shoot me!
Posted by: spartacus Nov 28 2012, 11:12 PM
I'm sure some city types would pay a premium for that.... Could you make sure you fly 'low and slow'?
Posted by: Andy Capp Nov 28 2012, 11:13 PM
It couldn't be at any other altitude or velocity, so yes!
Posted by: On the edge Nov 29 2012, 08:32 AM
This subject though is just something for a few part-time tree-huggers to get their hemp knickers in a unnecessary twist over. Yes pheasant and grouse and other game is shot and it's done for fun, but it's also done for the pot. The dead beasts aren't just chucked in the bin after a shoot... (though the innards are) But because the meat, or full bird, is a bit more expensive if bought from a butcher it appeals to a <ahem> different socio-economic group....
If you've been on a shoot and bagged a brace you keep them (if you want) and eat them (after they've rotted in the garage for a bit) and there's a bit of Neanderthal 'hunter-gatherer' about the process that makes you feel good and helps takes your mind off the pain when you try to bite through some shot you've missed.... But it's good wholesome meat with nothing added and nothing taken away....
Meanwhile the tree-huggers that wail over the death of poor old Mr Pheasant and make such a song and dance over birds being shot are probably season ticket holders at the local McD's or KFC and think nothing about the processes involved in gathering the <retch> 'meat' that makes up a hearty chicken twisler.....
nom-nom-nom..... A nod to the 'humane killing' process and chuck the scabby birds in a giant mincer. As for the 'meat recovery process' for your average 1/4 pounder, that involves steam cleaning carcasses and collecting the gloop and squeegying it down the drain to be collected and formed into 'patties' of 100% beef (pass me the sick bag)
The hypocrisy of people that get worked up over a bit of game shooting can be quite staggering......
(And yes, I eat burgers and other unhealthy stuff and enjoy it in moderation. But I try not to think too deeply about how it got from 'moo-ing' to 'sizzling'. I also try to buy at the 'quality' end of the meat counter and so limit the hoof and snout content of my 100% meat delight..... I worked in a butchers for a bit when I was younger and we occasionally visited the abattoir and it was a real eye-opener, stomach-churner for a bit) nom-nom-nom...
Funniest essay I've seen for ages - you ought to write for Punch!
Posted by: NORTHENDER Nov 29 2012, 09:22 AM
Could you please tell me where you see these large numbers of half dead game birds please? It would make it a lot easier for me to club them, pluck and draw them, and stick um in my freezer along with the duck I also shoot and the fish I catch to eat. Have you informed the RSPCA when coming across these large numbers of wounded birds so they can come out and deal with them. I have no compunction whatsoever about going out and doing what man has done for millennia, hunt and gather.
Posted by: On the edge Nov 29 2012, 01:54 PM
aye, an' drag women folk round by their hair, 'n send nippers up chimneys when they gets blocked, bless you Sir (Doffs cap) trust the auge doesn't take you too soon.
What is this thing called civilisation?
Posted by: dannyboy Nov 29 2012, 01:59 PM
What about all the other things other than pheasants that get shot to bits at a shoot? ( If it flies, it dies ).
Posted by: Rusty Bullet Nov 29 2012, 03:52 PM
You've certainly got your finger on contemporary Britain, Punch closed down 10 years ago.
Posted by: Jonno Nov 29 2012, 04:45 PM
'Vegetarian' - from the Anglo-Saxon meaning 'Village idiot who can't hunt or fish' :-)
Posted by: On the edge Nov 29 2012, 05:22 PM
Irony - a response to an excuse for hunting just as whiskered.
Blood sports went the same way as Empire, Cholera, Slums etc. not part of a civilised society.
Posted by: Darren Nov 29 2012, 05:45 PM
Ahh, so the truth is finally revealed. So all the anglers that were demonised 25 years ago were right when we all said "What about shotgun shot. Nothing to do with angling being viewed a 'working class' pastime unlike shooting.
Posted by: spartacus Nov 29 2012, 07:18 PM
You make a rather large assumption that everyone on the trigger end of a shotgun knows what they're doing, or is some sort of marksman. For some it's just a rather expensive day out with bangs. Some that take part are known as 'bird scarers', as whatever they do and however many cartidges they blast off, nothing falls out of the sky. Could quite easily be sponsored by RSPB....
So I'd like to just reassure any pheasants out there that might be reading this post - you're far more likely to meet a gruesome end from running out in front of a car than you are from the aimless pot-shotting of half the people that participate in this 'blood-sport'. Certainly around this way anyway. (Cue homage to American Werewolf in London) "Beware the road.... stick t' moors"
But if you find yourself pecking around in one of the Royal Estates however, the marksmanship ratio raises considerably. It's not a bad life for a bird really. Fed well, habitat looked after and if their Escape & Evasion skills are up to scratch they're quite able to live a long-ish life in the countryside. Far better outlook than most farmed chickens anyway....
Posted by: Weavers Walk Nov 29 2012, 07:32 PM
No it's not.
Posted by: On the edge Nov 29 2012, 09:37 PM
Your carer has let you stay up late this evening?
Posted by: Amelie Nov 29 2012, 10:29 PM
He, or she, was, quite correctly, pointing out that what you said was 'irony' wasn't. Why do you get so spiteful when those better educated than you help you by showing you where you've gone wrong? Try not to feel so threatened.
Posted by: On the edge Nov 29 2012, 10:34 PM
'No its not' isn't exactly a helpful explanation. You criticise my lack of education. So I'm the spiteful one?
Posted by: Andy Capp Nov 29 2012, 11:21 PM
I disagree. If OTE didn't truly think the article was funny, then he was being ironic.
One type of irony is that you (sarcastically) suggest something but truly mean the opposite.
For example: TDAH is currently running an irony campaign regards the UKIP foster story.
Posted by: Penelope Nov 29 2012, 11:56 PM
One type of irony is that you (sarcastically) suggest something but truly mean the opposite.
Well I think 'on the edge' is a good bloke.
Posted by: NORTHENDER Dec 1 2012, 09:52 AM
I asked a question of AH three days ago re half dead game birds. He has been lurking at the bottom of the page in the list of who is online all that time and has had plenty of time to answer. I need to fill my freezer and will not be going on a shoot till Jan so knowing the location would be a great help.
PS. once again, did you get the RSPA out to tend the birds?
Posted by: Adrian Hollister Dec 2 2012, 10:29 AM
PS. once again, did you get the RSPA out to tend the birds?
If you knew anything about it, you would know that they don't last long - I'm guessing that winged they would last a day at most in this cold. There are enough things out here ready to eat them - not least our 'super rat' problem. Of course, they can also snack on all the starving birds that will soon stop being fed.
Posted by: Adrian Hollister Dec 2 2012, 10:29 AM
PS. once again, did you get the RSPA out to tend the birds?
Do you actually enjoy killing things for fun?
Posted by: Andy Capp Dec 2 2012, 10:38 AM
It is difficult not to, isn't it, but I think 'he' said 'he' kills things to eat.
Posted by: blackdog Dec 2 2012, 05:16 PM
? Not sure where you are coming from here?
Who is stopping bird feeding (certainly not Mrs B!). Are you referring to the newly unemployed gamekeepers following a ban on game shooting?
Posted by: Biker1 Dec 2 2012, 06:17 PM
Spartacus you miss the point as do all in favour if bloodsports.
It is the fact that the killing (or maiming) is the pleasurable part for you folks not the eating.
I don't "wail over the death of Mr. Pheasant". I have eaten pheasant and enjoyed it but I did not get any pleasure from killing it and excusing it as a "sport" as extolled in a full page in "Country Matters."
And it's not just pheasant that you folks get pleasure from blasting either is it?
Yes I agree that many animals are farmed in poor conditions but no-one gains pleasure from that and yes it should be stopped.
By the way your reference to those who oppose bloodsports are "tree huggers" I find biased and offensive but then the pro-bloodsport fraternity always resort to those measures.
Posted by: NORTHENDER Dec 2 2012, 07:16 PM
Yes I do. I have held a shotgun licence since I was ten years old and that is sixty years ago. I do not think you know anything at all about about real country living. My guns have put many meals on mine and friends plates over the years. Why do you think we have gun-dogs with us on shoots. These dogs are trained to hunt down any winged (runners) that drop and then the birds are dispatched as quickly as possible. If you see the odd game-bird laying about how do you know how it met its end?
There is at least one other member on here who knows that I come from a fishing family that goes back to at least the 1670s and I have fished as an inshore and deep-sea fisherman in all of the worlds oceans. Hundreds of thousands of tons of fish that found its way onto peoples plates that gave them the protein that they needed cheaply, I suppose that is wrong also in your petty little mind? One of my daughters is a vet and cares for sick and wounded animals on a day to day basis both farmed and wild, and at the same time, been on many many shoots with me since she was a kid. She and I both know what country life is all about, you never will as long as you have a hole in ya @rse.
Posted by: dannyboy Dec 2 2012, 07:20 PM
There is at least one other member on here who knows that I come from a fishing family that goes back to at least the 1670s and I have fished as an inshore and deep-sea fisherman in all of the worlds oceans. Hundreds of thousands of tons of fish that found its way onto peoples plates that gave them the protein that they needed cheaply, I suppose that is wrong also in your petty little mind? One of my daughters is a vet and cares for sick and wounded animals on a day to day basis both farmed and wild, and at the same time, been on many many shoots with me since she was a kid. She and I both know what country life is all about, you never will as long as you have a hole in ya @rse.
If I shot a lamb with a gun - to eat - I'd be arrested.
Posted by: NORTHENDER Dec 2 2012, 07:34 PM
Do you have any idea about the meat industry at all? Many thousands of lambs, beef cattle and Pigs are shot daily with a gun. If I was you I would find out a bit more of how meat ends up on peoples plates before you spout such tosh.
Posted by: dannyboy Dec 2 2012, 07:44 PM
I know all about the meat industry thanks.
It still does not alter that fact that if I shot a lamb with a gun I'd be arrested. Or if I drowned a cat.
Posted by: On the edge Dec 2 2012, 07:51 PM
I suspect must people here have absolutely no objection to anyone with the capability and capacity taking food for themselves and family. The biggest objection is to those who do this simply for sport - that, just as much as bull baiting, or **** fighting is now unacceptable.
Posted by: NORTHENDER Dec 2 2012, 08:11 PM
Methinks not.
It still does not alter that fact that if I shot a lamb with a gun I'd be arrested. Or if I drowned a cat.
And so you should be. But you would not be if you shot one in the correct manner, with the correct accreditation, and the right sort of gun.
The sort of shooting I do, I have all three.
Posted by: Andy Capp Dec 2 2012, 08:22 PM
I quite agree in that meat eaters who complain of people who hunt, kill and eat their food are hypocrites. I'm one.
Posted by: NORTHENDER Dec 2 2012, 08:25 PM
Lets say that post apocalypse some of you ended up thrust together out of necessity for protection (safer in a herd) Who would you rather be with, someone like me who can live of the land, knows how to make traps to trap any sort of creature for food. That can make fish traps both for salt and fresh with no tools just hands. Or would you rather be with someone who could paint your face. Myself I would rather be with Bear Grylls than a make up artist.
Posted by: FactFile Dec 2 2012, 08:58 PM
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-470155/How-Bear-Grylls-Born-Survivor-roughed--hotels.html
Posted by: NORTHENDER Dec 2 2012, 09:09 PM
The link is crap just like the paper it was supposed to link to.
They are making a show. He is accompanied by a whole crew of people. Do you think they all live on snakes and the like. He even shows you how the scenes are put together in some shows. I suppose you thought he went out with a camcorder and actually lived like it.
Posted by: NORTHENDER Dec 2 2012, 09:12 PM
Well done factfile, neat bit of editing to the Daily Wail.
Posted by: FactFile Dec 2 2012, 09:25 PM
There are countless other links, but judging by some of your posts I thought you'd rather the Daily Hate one.
http://www.realityblurred.com/realitytv/archives/man_vs_wild/2007_Jul_27_veracity
Dunno, never knowingly seen him or one of his programs to be honest.
All this wild back-woods survivalist stuff seems overtly macho to me. Over compensating perhaps?
Posted by: NORTHENDER Dec 2 2012, 09:41 PM
Which posts would they be then factfile?
Posted by: NORTHENDER Dec 2 2012, 09:58 PM
Not macho at all just fact. Over compensating for what?
Posted by: Amelie Dec 2 2012, 11:54 PM
Really?
Posted by: motormad Dec 3 2012, 12:14 AM
A small post.
Posted by: dannyboy Dec 3 2012, 09:25 AM
The sort of shooting I do, I have all three.
No sport in shooting one in the correct manner is there.
Posted by: Biker1 Dec 3 2012, 09:41 AM
I'll make my point one final time..............
It is the shooting and killing or maiming animals for fun, calling it a "sport" and extolling it's virtues in an almost full page spread in a local rag without any counter view that I and many find abhorrent and offensive.
Nothing to do with the rearing or killing of animals for food.
Posted by: Penelope Dec 3 2012, 09:50 AM
So, where does the panel stand on pigeon shooting then?
Posted by: Jo Pepper Dec 3 2012, 09:52 AM
It is the shooting and killing or maiming animals for fun, calling it a "sport" and extolling it's virtues in an almost full page spread in a local rag without any counter view that I and many find abhorrent and offensive.
Nothing to do with the rearing or killing of animals for food.
Totally agree. It's the 'fun' or 'sport' element that makes it repulsive. Seen similar arguments used by bull fighters - a slow and painful death for the bulls - is this OK with the killing for fun brigade?
Posted by: JeffG Dec 3 2012, 11:28 AM
Never actually eaten one, so can't comment.
Posted by: Biker1 Dec 3 2012, 11:51 AM
For me - same if done for "sport".
There should be no pleasure gained from the killing or suffering of any animal.
Posted by: NORTHENDER Dec 3 2012, 12:10 PM
Shot 1000s in my time and paid to do it in a way because the farms supply the cartridges free of charge to us. Farms lose millions of pounds worth of crops to pigeons every year, crops that were destined for our consumption. I have shot on farms that have had acre upon acre of brassicas totally striped by the vermin pigeon and collard dove. Just look at them the same way you look upon rats. I'm sure if you had an infestation of rats on your property you would not care two hoots how they were go rid of. I started out at about the age of 9 or 10 with a 3 bore garden gun doing exactly that, killing rats. As long as wild-fowling is legal I will carry on doing it.
Posted by: Biker1 Dec 3 2012, 12:23 PM
Why?
Do you gain pleasure from the killing or is it just a means to an end? (i.e. pigeons are a problem.)
Do you see it as a "sport"?
Posted by: Andy Capp Dec 3 2012, 01:21 PM
There should be no pleasure gained from the killing or suffering of any animal.
Does that mean a butcher or slaughterman shouldn't 'enjoy' his job?
Posted by: blackdog Dec 3 2012, 01:27 PM
I shot a few in my youth, can't say it was massively enjoyable once the novelty of shooting wore off - but I certainly enjoyed eating them and the farmer whose land I was on appreciated the downsizing of his vermin problem.
Posted by: NORTHENDER Dec 3 2012, 06:31 PM
Do you gain pleasure from the killing or is it just a means to an end? (i.e. pigeons are a problem.)
Do you see it as a "sport"?
I view it in exactly the same way as a gamekeeper. He does not see it as a sport, but a way of life. When I build a hide out in the field and set up decoys to lure in the game and outwit them, not as easy as it seems, and I call them in and dispatch them as cleanly as I can I am carrying out what man has done for millennia. And I know that at the end of the day if t was the only way you could feed you and yours you would do the same.
Posted by: spartacus Dec 3 2012, 08:07 PM
In my experience pigeon is only generally shot for vermin clearance purposes and mostly on farmland. As Northender says, they're a pest and whilst they are a few bars down from the 'plague of locusts' category as far as the devastation they can wreak, they are not welcome on arable land.
What's the option? In some European countries the farmers will just string out a length of fishing net to protect their crop but that's 'kind of indiscriminate' and quite rightly illegal. Poison? The danger is the poisoned bird dies in mid-flight and lands on the bonnet of a passing motorist, so that's a no. Trapping? Can be indiscriminate and catch other birds that are positively encouraged on a farm.
We're not talking full-bore banging away anyway. .22 will deal with most of the pigeon problems around farms and it's all very low numbers involved. Like the other vermin, there are too many of these flying rats to keep on top of.
Posted by: spartacus Dec 3 2012, 08:23 PM
I accept it's a sweeping comment but it helps to generalise sometimes on these forums. And it's a two way thing. You lump all pro-shooting people under one banner and I lump all anti-shooting under another. But you seem to think anyone taking part in a shoot is daubed in blood and there has to be some sort of 'Lord of the Flies' re-enactment as our blood-lust is sated... It's a pastime but it's also a means to an end as far as getting something to eat.
Vegetarians are at least committed, but it just amazes me that the meat-eating anti-shooting fraternity are so overly sensitive and easily offended on this subject when you question them on the food that comes nicely packaged in trays in Tesco (other supermarkets are available)
Posted by: spartacus Dec 3 2012, 08:25 PM
Fixed that for you....
Posted by: Adrian Hollister Dec 3 2012, 08:43 PM
The big problem that the pro-killing-things-for-fun group is that they can't answer that basic question: is it acceptable to kill things for fun?
Posted by: spartacus Dec 3 2012, 08:45 PM
Bear Grylls. Born survivor. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kTlsqZ214Mw
It's a point of view. And it depends on the type of person you are and what you like to do in your spare time. The 'post-apocalyptic' scenario is difficult to take seriously (until it happens) but if you like to travel extensively to far flung outposts it can be handy to know how to take care of yourself and it can be a handy skill to have.
But if your idea of a good time is sitting down in front of the TV with a knitting pattern I doubt that you'll be persuaded... (Just don't come running to Northender for some pheasant for the family when the Apocalypse DOES happen....)
Different strokes for different folks....
Where do you stand on coarse fishing biker1? It's kind of a MAJOR participatory sport in this country. Hooking, landing, photographing and returning a dirty great Carp specimen in your eyes I imagine is illogical but for a sport fisherman it's a pleasurable way to spend many hours of your life. From the carp's perspective with a hook in his bottom lip he might I suspect be 'anti-fishing'
It's better than darts...
Posted by: spartacus Dec 3 2012, 09:06 PM
Meanwhile the anti-shooting group think it's some sort of 'fox-in-a-chicken-house' frenzy of killing every time a shoot takes place....
But your question needs clarification and caveats. Define 'things'.
Different answers to different 'things'.
Rats, foxes, badgers, pigeons, crows? (Vermin or problem-causers so yes)
Deer, pheasant, game (Left to rot? No... Into the pot? Yes....)
Dogs walking with their owners? No.... Dogs attacking herd of prize cows? Yes (My father shot and killed one and wounded another and got into a bit of bother with some townies years ago until sense was restored by the local police up in Scotland...)
Posted by: Penelope Dec 3 2012, 09:16 PM
The truth is that some people shoot and enjoy the skill of bringing off a good clean kill whilst the people who don't fall into that camp find it simply incomprehensible and now amount of explanation will change that. To me it's like Eastenders or football, both of them a complete mystery.
Posted by: dannyboy Dec 3 2012, 09:53 PM
Did you.
Posted by: Adrian Hollister Dec 3 2012, 10:28 PM
But your question needs clarification and caveats. Define 'things'.
Different answers to different 'things'.
Rats, foxes, badgers, pigeons, crows? (Vermin or problem-causers so yes)
Deer, pheasant, game (Left to rot? No... Into the pot? Yes....)
Dogs walking with their owners? No.... Dogs attacking herd of prize cows? Yes (My father shot and killed one and wounded another and got into a bit of bother with some townies years ago until sense was restored by the local police up in Scotland...)
Key here is "for fun", not the thing itself. Why would you need to kill anything for fun?
Perhaps the definition of townie should also be reconsidered, I know many townies that go on shoots, and many country folk, like me, who just can't see the fun in it. I would imagine that pro-shooting-things-for-fun brigade are in a considerable minority.
NWN to be supporting it is perhaps is just a sign of where their funding comes from rather than the community they should represent.
Posted by: Biker1 Dec 4 2012, 09:12 AM
Hate it!
In context, one of the weirdest comments I've heard on this forum!
Posted by: Biker1 Dec 4 2012, 09:12 AM
But they don't do they as confirmed by Andrew Davis's column?
Posted by: JeffG Dec 4 2012, 10:26 AM
What's the option?
What's wrong with bird scarers? I used to hear them quite a lot, but I can't say I have recently. Is that because it's more fun to shoot them, than just frighten them away?
Posted by: blackdog Dec 4 2012, 11:08 AM
Bird scarers everywhere, irritating those living nearby and preventing pigeons, and other birds, from feeding. Every field must have one - to scare away the birds scared away from the field next door. So pigeons etc starve to death. Great idea - though I suspect a starving bird would have to ignore them and hence would soon learn that they aren't a threat.
PS I don't want them scared into my garden, we get too many of the pests already. Nor do I want a bird scarer in the garden - most other species are welcome.
Posted by: Penelope Dec 4 2012, 01:18 PM
I guess that some times you just gotta thin the little buggers out a bit.
Posted by: NORTHENDER Dec 4 2012, 06:48 PM
Well a few more were thinned out today. 2 guns = 63 pigeons. Just another few million to go.
Posted by: Penelope Dec 4 2012, 08:07 PM
Over decoys?
Posted by: NORTHENDER Dec 4 2012, 08:12 PM
Yes.
Posted by: Andy Capp Dec 4 2012, 11:55 PM
I like real pigeons. They are one of the most intelligent birds I understand. The problem with shooting is that it is indiscriminate, so 'good' stock will be killed off as well as the weak.
Posted by: x2lls Dec 5 2012, 12:18 AM
I don't thnk that argument holds, considering how many there are.
Posted by: Andy Capp Dec 5 2012, 12:28 AM
What do you mean? The argument about shooting holds regardless of the prey.
Posted by: x2lls Dec 5 2012, 01:35 AM
so 'good' stock will be killed off as well as the weak.
Posted by: On the edge Dec 5 2012, 09:09 AM
Given they are vermin, the farmer isn't being particularly efficient in not keeping numbers under control in the first place? After all, most towns would be over run with rats unless active steps are taken to keep numbers down.
Posted by: Biker1 Dec 5 2012, 09:14 AM
I am genuinely interested to hear how this activity gives you pleasure.
Can you elaborate please and I am not interested in the argument that they need controlling, I accept that, just the pleasure gained from killing animals.
Thanks.
Posted by: Squelchy Dec 5 2012, 09:37 AM
http://www.basc.org.uk/en/codes-of-p...n-shooting.cfm
Currently the shooting of woodpigeon is controlled by general licences issued by Natural England for England, Welsh Assembly Government for Wales, Scottish Government for Scotland and in Northern Ireland by the NI Environment Agency (NIEA). No individual application is required for any licence; however in Scotland you are legally obliged to have read and understood the licence relevant to your shooting.
The general licences authorise shooting for specific purposes such as: preventing serious damage to crops, vegetables, fruit and foodstuffs for livestock, and for the purpose of preserving public health or public safety. It is important that any shooting complies fully with the terms and conditions of each general licence.
In Britain the shooting of collared dove (Streptopelia decaocto) and the feral pigeon (descended from Columba livia) is also permitted all year round. The stock dove (Columba oenas), rock dove (Columba livia) and turtle dove (Streptopelia turtur) are all protected species and may not be shot at any time. In Northern Ireland all doves are protected at all times and woodpigeon and feral pigeon are listed on the general licences but these cannot be shot at night or on Sundays. On the Isle of Man the woodpigeon can be shot under the terms and conditions of their general licence for the prevention of damage and disease only, the feral pigeon for public health and public safety and the turtle dove is fully protected.
The stock dove is often mistakenly called the ‘blue rock’ and great care must be taken as these birds often fly with woodpigeons and feral pigeons and come readily to decoys.
The feral pigeon is descended from the rock dove (which is usually only found on western coasts), and is often seen close to urban areas and feeding in flocks close to farm buildings.
Note: wild-living, former racing and homing pigeons often fly with feral pigeons but these birds are strictly protected as they are still regarded as the property of their original owner. While they normally have leg rings to show their ownership, identification in the field can be difficult so, if in doubt, do not shoot.
I'm sure Northender will have no difficulty in telling us how he is able to tell these birds apart.
Posted by: blackdog Dec 5 2012, 10:02 AM
By knowing what they look like?
Posted by: Squelchy Dec 5 2012, 10:13 AM
Yeah, and I'm sure when a group of birds fly up suddenly he looks at each one down the gunsight in order to assertain whether or not he should pull the trigger. The psychology of phallocentric weaponary is well known. I doubt it gives time to look for rings on legs.
Posted by: Biker1 Dec 5 2012, 10:16 AM
It's not just pigeons though is it?
http://www.basc.org.uk//en/departments/game-and-gamekeeping/game-shooting/shooting-seasons.cfm is a list of the various types of bird you can have fun blasting to death or maiming in the name of "sport" in this country and the times of year you can enjoy doing it.
Posted by: NORTHENDER Dec 5 2012, 10:20 AM
Squelchy. After 60 years of experiance of doing such things its quite easy. If you saw an Indian man in a Dhoti, a Zulu and a Chinese man in a red army uniform coming towards you and you wanted to have a crack at the Indian, would you be able to pick him out? Feral racing pigeons are necked as soon as they are returned to the owner if trapped. I see no reason why they should not be shot at all as they do not want them back. I will NOT be explaining yet again why I do it.
Posted by: Biker1 Dec 5 2012, 10:29 AM
Nobody asked you to explain WHY you do as you have already explained, it is to control what is seen as a pest.
The question was "I am genuinely interested to hear how this activity gives you pleasure." Which is entirely different.
Please describe the pleasure to be had from shooting, killing or maiming an animal because I don't understand it.
Thanks.
Posted by: Squelchy Dec 5 2012, 11:35 AM
Because it's illegal? Or maybe, when you've got that gun in your hand, certain laws don't apply to you?
Posted by: Andy Capp Dec 5 2012, 11:46 AM
I'm sorry, but I know what I wrote, it is your comment I don't 'get'.
Posted by: NORTHENDER Dec 5 2012, 03:11 PM
Where do I say that I shoot them? I said I see no reason why they should not be shot.
I used to shoot seals though. Now I know that will please you no end.
Posted by: JeffG Dec 5 2012, 03:21 PM
I think Northender is on one glorious wind-up.
Posted by: Squelchy Dec 5 2012, 03:27 PM
Posted by: Penelope Dec 5 2012, 03:33 PM
I used to shoot seals though. Now I know that will please you no end.
I can't believe you would shoot seals! Not when a club gives more splatter and is so much more fun!
Posted by: NORTHENDER Dec 5 2012, 05:12 PM
QUOTE (NORTHENDER @ Dec 5 2012, 03:11 PM)
Where do I say that I shoot them?
QUOTE (NORTHENDER @ Dec 3 2012, 12:10 PM)
Shot 1000s in my time
QUOTE (NORTHENDER @ Dec 5 2012, 03:11 PM)
.... if you shot one in the correct manner, with the correct accreditation, and the right sort of gun. The sort of shooting I do, I have all three.
QUOTE (NORTHENDER @ Dec 5 2012, 03:11 PM)
I have shot on farms that have had acre upon acre of brassicas totally striped by the vermin pigeon and collard dove
You really are a prawn squelchy. I was talking about protected species not the 1000s of legitimate pigeons and doves that I have shot.
Posted by: Squelchy Dec 5 2012, 05:14 PM
'course you were...
Posted by: NORTHENDER Dec 5 2012, 05:15 PM
Did you not read the bit where I said I was (and still am at times) a fisherman? We were paid a bounty for every seal we shot. When the ban came in I have never shot one since.
Posted by: NORTHENDER Dec 5 2012, 05:17 PM
I do not think he is. Just defending my way of life.
Posted by: Andy Capp Dec 5 2012, 06:20 PM
By and large I see the hunting of one's own food to be a more wholesome pursuit and an ecologically better system when compared to intensive meat farming. Mind you, should intensive meat farming cease, then that would change things as we all would be competing for the same creatures every Sunday morning.
Posted by: Penelope Dec 5 2012, 06:28 PM
Hey! Not criticizing! If I found a seal in my fish pond I'd stick a 12bore in it's ear as well.
Posted by: spartacus Dec 5 2012, 06:58 PM
and asking to borrow Northender's gun no doubt.....
Posted by: Penelope Dec 5 2012, 07:13 PM
Probably just use one of my own.
Posted by: Weavers Walk Dec 5 2012, 09:05 PM
He don't need guns though do 'ee?
Aye, country ways for country folk.
Posted by: Nothing Much Dec 6 2012, 03:14 PM
There is at least one other member on here who knows that I come from a fishing family that goes back to at least the 1670s.
(Post 110.)
Oh shucks I guess that's me...
Despite being almost 100 years older than I am, NORTHENDER is an amiable multi talented chap."He stoppeth one of three"
What is more, stills from my youtubes appear every so often,which shows me up, as I am too lazy to find out how to post my own!
How annoying is that!.
Back to country matters.
Outside our Norfolk Village pub we were enjoying a rare glimpse of the sun a few years back listening to the next table of 3 young men. All drinking . At least Al Murray wasn't the landlord. A short time later an old Land Rover turned up and they swapped from mother tongue to perfect English.... They all then went to a campervan and produced reams of paperwork. Then a safe was opened in the floor and the farmer inspected a set of guns. "Good, see you at 08.30 then".
Publican was happy. 3 days B&B +pigeon pie for the menu. Farmer was happy. Lads were happy.
It seems that pigeons don't fly over their part of northern Europe.
I don't really get cross about the estate shooting by knobs,you can't always solve all problems. I do get cross about the pointless shooting of migrating birds. I had four different broods of Swallows this year... I would like them back.
ce
Posted by: Biker1 Dec 6 2012, 04:07 PM
Charming fellow eh?
But typical of the hunting shooting fishing brigade.
No defensive argument so resort to aggressiveness and insult.
Seen it so many times before.
Posted by: The Doctor Dec 6 2012, 08:56 PM
But typical of the hunting shooting fishing brigade.
No defensive argument so resort to aggressiveness and insult.
Seen it so many times before.
Whenever I read one of Northenders posts, why is it that I seem to hear "Dueling Banjo's" in the distance?
Posted by: NORTHENDER Dec 6 2012, 09:03 PM
Yep that me.
Posted by: dannyboy Dec 6 2012, 09:45 PM
you mean.......
I bet you can squeal like a pig.................
Posted by: Andy Capp Dec 7 2012, 03:47 PM
Another problem with shootists, is if they have their tools nicked!
http://www.newburytoday.co.uk/2012/firearms-and-ammunition-stolen-in-north-end-burglary
Posted by: Penelope Dec 7 2012, 05:25 PM
http://www.newburytoday.co.uk/2012/firearms-and-ammunition-stolen-in-north-end-burglary
http://skimthat.com/2586/the-local-swiss-army-loses-track-of-10-000-firearms
Posted by: Biker1 Dec 29 2012, 08:45 AM
The usual annual Boxing Day biased pro-bloodsports report by "NWN" this week.
http://www.newburytoday.co.uk/2012/boxing-day-hunt-still-draws-crowds
Posted by: spartacus Dec 29 2012, 10:24 AM
I wish you'd stop frothing at the mouth over this issue.... It's a group ride in the country chasing smells with lots of barking dogs, big deal.
I quite like to see it (Although I wouldn't want them jumping my back garden fence as part of the fun). I wish we still had some of the traditions that have been banned over the years. .......Like village stocks instead of ASBOs..... and dunking witches...
Posted by: Biker1 Dec 29 2012, 12:42 PM
I quite like to see it (Although I wouldn't want them jumping my back garden fence as part of the fun). I wish we still had some of the traditions that have been banned over the years. .......Like village stocks instead of ASBOs..... and dunking witches...
I'm not "frothing at the mouth" but I do feel strongly about this issue so why should I not be able to express my opinion.
If all it was was about "a group ride in the country chasing smells with lots of barking dogs" the fair enough.
But every year the NWN reports on the campaign to bring back hunting animals with dogs.
The issue I have raised here is not about the hunting, it is about the blatant biased reporting by the "NWN".
Posted by: spartacus Dec 30 2012, 06:16 PM
If the NWN was just to provide articles based on your narrow interests Biker1 we'd just have a list of train timetables and I guess the circulation would plummet even further than it already has.
It's a semi-rural area we live in and rather than being 'biased reporting' I'd say it's more reflecting what is going on in the area. (Not that the hunting set riding the 'orses in red jackets read anything other than Horse & Hound magazine I s'pose) "NWN is for the staff"
Posted by: Andy Capp Dec 30 2012, 06:48 PM
It's hunting pink, not red jackets!
Posted by: Biker1 Dec 31 2012, 10:08 AM
It's a semi-rural area we live in and rather than being 'biased reporting' I'd say it's more reflecting what is going on in the area. (Not that the hunting set riding the 'orses in red jackets read anything other than Horse & Hound magazine I s'pose) "NWN is for the staff"
You have no idea what my interests are so are unable to comment.
If you think that the reporting is "reflective" then I am not sure how you are reading it.
Lets see what comes up on the reporting of the Boxing Day hunting events on Thursday in the "NWN".
Posted by: NORTHENDER Jan 2 2013, 10:05 AM
Far better in the days when we could gas the horrible things. With gas we could get the cubs at the same time and wipe a whole family out in one go if we were lucky enough to get them all home at the same time. Cymag was our favoured method of gassing. Funny old state of affairs here though, you can still gas them as gassing is not illegal, but there are no legal gases. Once someone comes up with a legal one I will be at it as often as I can.
Posted by: Biker1 Jan 2 2013, 10:16 AM
Now I know you're on a wind up here but I will respond anyway..............
Thank God the whole human race is not made up of such unpleasant characters yourself!
Posted by: JeffG Jan 2 2013, 10:50 AM
Ditto. While we're at it, let's wipe out all wild animals then we won't have to bother any more.
Posted by: NORTHENDER Jan 2 2013, 11:04 AM
No wind up from me. I believe its far better for me and others to go out and gas them than have a pack of dogs rip them to pieces. I am not against fox hunting by horse though. Doubt if you have ever seen a poultry farm that has been visited by Mr fox have you.
Wild animals will be here long after humans have shuffled of this world.
Posted by: JeffG Jan 2 2013, 12:08 PM
There will always be predators. It's called nature. It's up to the poultry farmer to protect his birds effectively. Not wipe out the predator.
Posted by: NORTHENDER Jan 2 2013, 12:35 PM
And its mans nature to hunt them.
Posted by: On the edge Jan 2 2013, 02:50 PM
Think I might have evolved then!
Posted by: Amelie Jan 2 2013, 03:08 PM
No, I haven't seen one either, but I do know of one that got a visit from Brer Fox, and apparently it was a real nasty mess after he'd been through it.
Cousin of mine, smallholding (inc. Rabbits and Chickens) near Freshwater, Isle of Wight. Cost him a fortune.
Of course, the Fox is not indigenous to the Island, so fox cubs were imported there some years ago to give the Medina based hunt something to do. If the Hunt were truly concerned about damage to peoples property, pets and livelihoods, they wouldn't have bred the fox cubs in the first place would they? But once that red mist of blood-lust covers the eyes....
So, please, no more about "we only do it to keep Foxes down" or "Foxes are a pest which need to be controlled". The actions of the hunting brigade (importing Foxes where there are none) gives the lie to those statements doesn't it?
Posted by: NORTHENDER Jan 2 2013, 03:49 PM
Yes and when lovely cuddly mister fox leaves he leave dozens and sometime hundreds dead. There are many breeds that should have never been allowed into the country in the first place, the damage they do is horrific. Most people only see the the little old grey squirrel as a sweet little creature that does no harm. In truth he does millions of pounds worth of damage each year. Cull the lot I say. Thankfully we eradicated the Coypu, another import many years ago, but we still have plenty more to go at. Here are just a very few. Mink, Wallabies, Ruddy ducks, Night Herons, Sika Deer, the Edible dormouse, Gerbils, Muntjacs, Polecat Ferrets, Pheasant, Budgerigars, Zander, Flatworms, Signal crayfish and on and on and on. It is people like me that go out and try and keep these things down so they do not completely overrun our native species, for that is what they would do if we did not.
Posted by: blackdog Jan 2 2013, 03:59 PM
Have to agree about the grey squirrel - red squirrels are much nicer chaps.
Where do we have wild wallabies?
Any good budgie hunting round here?
Posted by: Amelie Jan 2 2013, 04:06 PM
No-one said he was "lovely, cuddly," I'm just curious as to why the Hunt imported him to somewhere that he wasn't. If the Fox is a pest, and that's the reason for hunting him, then why breed cubs and release them to do more damage and harm?
Simple question.
Posted by: Dodgys smarter brother. Jan 2 2013, 04:18 PM
You absolutely sure about that?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_polecat
The oldest polecat fossils occur in Germany, Britain and France, and date back to the Middle Pleistocene era.
Posted by: NORTHENDER Jan 2 2013, 05:11 PM
I think you should read my post correctly DSB I said the "polecat ferret".
Amelie I have already said I agree with you, it should never happen. I also said I did not like hounds tearing Mr fox to pieces but that I still think the fox can be hunted from a horse.
Posted by: NORTHENDER Jan 2 2013, 05:18 PM
Lots of them in the Bath area, Kent and Cambridgeshire also quite few.
Posted by: spartacus Jan 2 2013, 08:22 PM
Unless you're some sort of veganist then you've not evolved, you just get others to do the 'hunter/gatherer' thing for you instead...
Are you sure there were never foxes on IOW? Is it some sort of Galapagos outpost of the British Isles with it's very own endemic species - which didn't include vulpes? Perhaps it was hunted to extinction in previous centuries and THEN imported to keep the hunts from a few centuries of boredom.....? Are they still 'bred as cubs and released'?
If they were imported I don't imagine it was a recent thing and more probably took place in an era when 'ecololgy', 'bio-diversity', 'habitat' or 'sustainability' were not part of our language in relatively common usage like they are these days.
Just like 'we' took rabbits and rats around the world as our ancestors conquered the globe and destroyed large tracts of Australia and other paradises...
Law of Unintended Consequences comes to mind
Posted by: spartacus Jan 2 2013, 08:29 PM
...and not forgetting the http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-essex-19388301 and the http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1282333/Leopards-big-cats-ARE-loose-Britain--just-dont-tell-soul.html
....and the http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/6478911.stm
Posted by: x2lls Jan 2 2013, 08:44 PM
One particular article I would love to see eradicated is the domestic cat. Filthy animals.
They **** on freshly dug flower beds , piss all over the place and kill untold wildlife.
The only good cat is a dead cat.
And the owners general view is out of sight, out of mind.
Posted by: NORTHENDER Jan 2 2013, 08:44 PM
I once helped to win a round of a top of the town quiz knowing what a Glis was/is. The edible Dormouse or Glis Glis is a right pain to the people living in the Chiltern area. They invade roof spaces and eat their way through plastic pipes and wiring at an alarming rate. I would like to try one deep fried in a nice tempura batter though
Posted by: Amelie Jan 2 2013, 08:49 PM
Indeedy. Because of the currents in the Solent little can swim across and survive. There are no Grey Squirrels there either. (They never made it across). Hence a large population of Red ones. (unless the Foxes get them of course)
Posted by: spartacus Jan 2 2013, 08:57 PM
A 3 mile stretch of sea (which may have been far less in previous centuries) has forever thwarted an animal as cunning as a fox yet animals have supposedly crossed vast oceans to populate Pacific Islands and suchlike? How odd........
Posted by: Dodgys smarter brother. Jan 2 2013, 08:57 PM
I did read it. You said "Polecat Ferrets" capitalising BOTH words. Thus two different things. What you meant to call them was "Polecat-ferrets" one capitalisation and one hypen. One species.
Less time strangling fish with your bare hands and more time on education perhaps?
Posted by: x2lls Jan 2 2013, 08:58 PM
Simple question.
Well this probably isn't the place to ask.
Posted by: x2lls Jan 2 2013, 08:59 PM
Do foxes climb trees as well as squirrels?
Posted by: Amelie Jan 2 2013, 09:02 PM
No, they stand on each others shoulders wearing a large trench coat and a big hat, and wait at the bottom.
Don't shoot the messenger. They are also absent from the Scilly Isles, the Isle of Man, the Channel Islands and all the Scottish islands except Skye and Harris.
Posted by: x2lls Jan 2 2013, 09:02 PM
Are you sure there were never foxes on IOW? Is it some sort of Galapagos outpost of the British Isles with it's very own endemic species - which didn't include vulpes? Perhaps it was hunted to extinction in previous centuries and THEN imported to keep the hunts from a few centuries of boredom.....? Are they still 'bred as cubs and released'?
If they were imported I don't imagine it was a recent thing and more probably took place in an era when 'ecololgy', 'bio-diversity', 'habitat' or 'sustainability' were not part of our language in relatively common usage like they are these days.
Just like 'we' took rabbits and rats around the world as our ancestors conquered the globe and destroyed large tracts of Australia and other paradises...
Law of Unintended Consequences comes to mind
It is illegal to release animals into the wild. Even if you catch a squirrel in a cage trap, you are obliged to destroy it humanely, not release it.
And talking of the law of Unintended Consequences , the badger is a prime example.
Posted by: spartacus Jan 2 2013, 09:04 PM
Less time strangling fish with your bare hands and more time on education perhaps?
"oooh... 'ark at 'er..."
Careful or I'll take you to the vet and get you declawed (where they can also declaw Polecats AND Ferrets)
Posted by: x2lls Jan 2 2013, 09:06 PM
No sense waiting at the bottom, when the prey has moved across the canopy well out of harms way!
Posted by: spartacus Jan 2 2013, 09:10 PM
Should have asked 'Were they EVER 'bred as cubs and released'? I doubt it somehow
Simple question.
Posted by: NORTHENDER Jan 2 2013, 09:10 PM
You can attach anyone of about six names on here to this picture and it would sum them up to a T.
Posted by: NORTHENDER Jan 2 2013, 09:12 PM
Just better hope they do not gain a strong foothold Amelia.
http://www.iwight.com/living_here/environment/operation_squirrel.asp
Posted by: Dodgys smarter brother. Jan 2 2013, 09:18 PM
I'm not making this up you know:
Posted by: FactFile Jan 2 2013, 09:21 PM
Ah yes, the old 'losing the argument so resort to abuse ploy'. Wondered who'd surrender first.
Posted by: NORTHENDER Jan 2 2013, 09:22 PM
I think the title Dodgys Dumber Brother would be more apt.
Posted by: NORTHENDER Jan 2 2013, 09:27 PM
In my 60 years of shooting and hunting of all sorts I have never known a breeding programme for release back into the wild of the fox for hunting purposes. Please could you point me in the direction of your source material Amelia. I am not saying there have not been ,just that I know of none.
Posted by: NORTHENDER Jan 2 2013, 09:30 PM
Where am I losing the argument. Another name for the picture
Posted by: x2lls Jan 2 2013, 09:33 PM
I think Northender has held his ground very well. And he certainly hasn't 'lost' any argument!!
There are too many blinkered individuals who will argue for arguments sake. There is a whole different world in the country than those cosy little supermarkets who sanitise what really goes on. I'll bet 99% of those arguing are not vegetarian. Think on.
And don't forget, this saga started as a view against hunting with hounds, which NE has already stated, he disagrees with. Seems to me the real hounds are on this forum!
Posted by: Biker1 Jan 3 2013, 07:58 AM
As I have said before and will re-iterate one more time................
IT IS THE GAINING OF PLEASURE FROM THE KILLING and, in many cases, calling it a "sport" that is my issue here.
(Perhaps the killing of wild animals should be in the Olympics and Paralympics?)
I am not arguing whether any form of our wildlife needs to be controlled or not. Or whether any of it should be used for food.
In his post about gassing Northender inferred that pleasure was to be gained from this practice, hence my comment.
Posted by: Penelope Jan 3 2013, 09:49 AM
IT IS THE GAINING OF PLEASURE FROM THE KILLING and, in many cases, calling it a "sport" that is my issue here.
(Perhaps the killing of wild animals should be in the Olympics and Paralympics?)
I am not arguing whether any form of our wildlife needs to be controlled or not. Or whether any of it should be used for food.
In his post about gassing Northender inferred that pleasure was to be gained from this practice, hence my comment.
I'm going for gold in the synchronised stoat throttling.
Powered by Invision Power Board (http://www.invisionboard.com)
© Invision Power Services (http://www.invisionpower.com)