Archived from groups: uk.rec.shooting.game (
More info?)
"John" <zero_one34@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:Xns95AB9541FFD26OEcopyremovedheaders@130.133.1.4...
> "Theo Hopkins" <theo@theohopkins.wanadoo.co.uk> wrote in
> news:co0kbq$9vu$3@newsg1.svr.pol.co.uk:
>
> >
> > "John" <zero_one34@hotmail.com> wrote in message .
> >>
> >> Would you consider shooting clays as an acceptable alternative to
> >> pheasant or rabbit shooting? Target shooting as an alternative to
> >> stalking?
> >>
> >> John
> >
> > I find this an interesting question that you put.
> >
> > What _is_ the difference between the dead target and the live animal?
> >
> > I have a gut understanding, but not a logical understanding. I admit
> > to confusion here. Logically, I can only see that feildcraft skills
> > are missing at a target, but then maybe on could photo the real deer
> > and then shoot the tin deer.
> >
> > (This being if you are not shooting for food, which often with driven
> > pheasants is the case, for we know at some shoots, not a single
> > beastie is taken home by the punter.)
> >
> > Can you tell me? The CA, as they would not countenance drag hunting,
> > never really addressed this interesting issue, as they felt necessary
> > to deem the fox 'vermin' so it needed to be killed.
>
> I'll do my best Theo but alas, I don't think you'll ever fully understand.
> Okay, hunting, shooting or even trapping isn't just about killing.
> It's about understanding your quarry, your environment and in many ways
> yourself.
>
> I'll use the term hunting to identify all field sport disciplines.
> Hunting is not unlike yoga or mediation. Everyone hunts for a different
> reason and everyone has to justify their actions to their own morals.
>
> As I say, it's not about killing; killing is an end product of a hive of
> activities, skills and knowledge. To have any real success your must first
> understand your quarry in order to exploit your quarries weaknesses, after
> all even the smallest mouse has better senses than us ham handed humans.
> By the time one has become proficient and by the time one has learned to
> hunt a given quarry, one can not help but to admire and respect the
> quarry. One must learn every aspect of the quarry, its habits, it life
> cycles, its likes and dislikes and its weaknesses. I ask you, how can a
> hunter not be in a paradox?
> But above all, the Neanderthal instinct to hunt and gather is something
> that is either in you or it isn't. Sport, have your ever actually sat down
> and thought what motivates people to play team sports? It's not unlike the
> motivation of a hunter. This brings me on to the final point, to kill or
> not to kill.
> As I have said, it's not just about killing, so why take that final step?
> Before I can answer that, you must first understand the amount of skill
> and knowledge a hunter must acquire, these days they even have to be
> proficient in the legal aspects of hunting. So what does a stalker (for
> example, although it equally applies to every shooter or hunter) have to
> learn before the grade is achieved?
> Each topic has sub-topics which have even more sub divisions, field craft,
> marksmanship, total understanding of your quarry, total self control,
> butchery, negotiation, commitment, respect for both quarry and law,
> determination and so on and so on. These are things that can not be
> mastered over night and even a life time can not fully equip a person but
> never the less each individual area must be mastered before you have any
> hunting success.
>
> All of this accumulates to one point or one button, the trigger.
> Does the hunter feel remorse after the button is pressed? The answer is
> both yes and no.
> The accumulation of skills and knowledge has guided the hunter in to the
> shooting position and close enough for a humane kill. The hunter has
> justified his actions and is happy, he now checks his shot and the shot
> landed exactly where he intended, the beast reacted exactly as he had
> anticipated and the beast died as quickly as possible, the hunter is happy
> but now the real works begins.
>
> On reflection, the hunter has pitted his wits, stamina and skills against
> an animal far greater than himself, an animal that commands far greater
> respect than the victor of this chance meeting.
> The hunter did a job for whatever reason, used every ounce of skill and
> knowledge of a life times work and the hunter did the job well. The
> success is measured against the outcome and the out come was in the
> hunters favour, if it wasn't then the hunter would investigate his
> failings, correct the problems identified and learn some more. The above
> may or may not help you understand the difference between inanimate
> targets and live game in the eyes of a hunter, I'm not sure if it makes
> any sense either but for me, to hunt a live animal and do a good job is a
> privilege and an honour and an instinct that has been with me all my life,
> I dare say it will never be lost either.
>
>
> John
>
This all looks fine to me, and I do understand where you are coming from. I
was looking for just this sort of reply.
As to the "remorse", a friend of mine who used to stalk for the Forestry
Authority in Norfolk, had shot a deer in my wood. When I asked him to shoot
another, he prevaricated. Eventually, he said "I've killed enough animals".
Anyway, Marcus had spent two dawns in my woodland studying the deer before
he went for the kill on the third dawn. He also says he thanks the deer's
soul as it flies by.
However, all you talk about seems so different to the personal bags of 50
that some guns shoot in a day at my neighbouring shoot. There I can see
little difference to a kid's computer game.
Theo
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram