Has the RSPCA, etc. shot itself in the foot?

Archived from groups: uk.rec.shooting.game (More info?)

I think you were absolutely right to let them in, and if I were you I would
continue to do so - only people with things to hide would refuse them
entry - whether or not they backed fox hunting bans or not is completely
irrelevant , and as for withholding information re the despicable so called
'sports' you mentioned, i sincerely hope that this does not happen - it is
precisely the sort of behaviour that gets us all a bad name, i am sure
people who supported hunting do not really want to associate themselves with
such vermin.

Archived from groups: uk.rec.shooting.game (More info?)

"ad e nuff" <tony.warrington@ntlworld.com> wrote in
news:l_Epd.50$9%4.7@newsfe3-gui.ntli.net:

> I think you were absolutely right to let them in, and if I were you I
> would continue to do so - only people with things to hide would
> refuse them entry –

How long before the youth army arrives then?

>whether or not they backed fox hunting bans or
> not is completely irrelevant ,

Hunting has nothing to do with it, civil rights, privacy and bloody
mindedness is the name of the game.


>and as for withholding information re
> the despicable so called 'sports' you mentioned, i sincerely hope
> that this does not happen –

It will.

> it is precisely the sort of behaviour
> that gets us all a bad name, i am sure people who supported hunting
> do not really want to associate themselves with such vermin.

People who support hunting are just about as sick to the stomach as they
can get.
These idiots, who have voted for the ban, know nothing. It really pi$$es
me off.
The ban will mean that foxes will be shot to kingdom come, the ban has
not helped the foxes one little bit and to top it all off the country
folk and the country minded folk who support blood sports are now
alienated and that’s that.

John

Archived from groups: uk.rec.shooting.game (More info?)

I would'nt give the rspca a penny. The person that runs it apparently earns
nearly £100,000 a year, not bad for a charity worker.


"John" <zero_one34@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:Xns95CB8F57D5AB3OEcopyremovedheaders@130.133.1.4...
> Derry Argue <derry(delete)@adviegundogs.co.uk> wrote in
> news:Xns95AD580491595derryadviegundogscou@130.133.1.4:
>
>> What do other members of the group think? Do you still let them
>> in? And would you inform them if you suspected your neighbour
>> was in breach of the cruelty laws?
>
> I have no time what so ever for the RSPCA.
> They have openly admitted that they are against shooting sports and they
> will support a total ban.
> That's not the reason I have no time for them, the RSPCA are the biggest
> rip off come charity organisation I have ever had the misfortune to
> encounter.
> A few years back, one of my ferrets escaped. The poor little chap had
> the right idea and found his way to the village police station (now
> gone). Okay, the police had no idea what to do, so they called the
> RSPCA, the chap came out, pick up my ferret, walked back to the van
> (less than 10 yds) and killed my ferret down. Less than 4 hours after he
> had escaped!!
> The reason was because the chap was on his way home and there were no
> shelters open.
> After publicising this, I was contacted by ex-RSPCA employees and was
> told many bad things about this so called charity.
> For example, one ex-employee told how they used to breed kittens and
> puppies behind closed doors. What happened to these youngsters? They
> were destroyed as a training exercise for the new recruits, I mean
> practice equals perfect right?
> I was even given a confidential copy of one areas end of year accounts.
> Put it this way, I know how much they spend on staff refreshments and
> how it compares to the cost of animal housing.
> The atrocities this charity carries out is frankly sickening.
> One old woman who used to look after stray cats (given to her by the
> RSPCA) woke one morning to them knocking her door. They came in, took
> all the cats and put them down. Why? Just because.
> I would SERIOUSLY recommend any supporter of this organisation to do
> some research and find out how your money is spent.
> As for country folk helping the RSPCA, well there isn't any farmers in
> this neck of the woods that will give them the time of day.
> I have also been told it is common practice to destroy all working
> animals and not try to re-home, with the exception of a token few.
>
>
> John
>
>

Archived from groups: uk.rec.shooting.game (More info?)

"John" <zero_one34@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:Xns95CB8F57D5AB3OEcopyremovedheaders@130.133.1.4...
> Derry Argue <derry(delete)@adviegundogs.co.uk> wrote in
> news:Xns95AD580491595derryadviegundogscou@130.133.1.4:
>
> > What do other members of the group think? Do you still let them
> > in? And would you inform them if you suspected your neighbour
> > was in breach of the cruelty laws?
>
> I have no time what so ever for the RSPCA.
> They have openly admitted that they are against shooting sports and they
> will support a total ban.

You are right that the RSPCA is eventually going to campaign on game
shooting, despite their present denials. Just happens that Jackie Ballard
their new chief executive used to be my MP. I had raised my previous
problems with a local shoot with her when my MP. Because of a letter of mine
that had been printed in the Guardian, about hunting, she thought I was an
out-and-out anti, congratulated me for being so brave to write such a letter
when I lived next door to a stag hunt. Problem, it was not a letter from an
anti .... it was edited for brevity, and the last sentence in the
sub-editing made me look like one.

You heard it here first!

But, yes, _of course_ the RSPCA will campaign on shooting, or more
specifically, shooting that involves a bred animal, as is 90% plus of
pheasants. What do you expect them to do? That's their job, after all.


Can you tell why they should not try to get game shooting stopped?


Theo H

Archived from groups: uk.rec.shooting.game (More info?)

"Theo Hopkins" <theo@theohopkins.wanadoo.co.uk> wrote in
news:co82c6$q7r$1@newsg3.svr.pol.co.uk:

> Can you tell why they should not try to get game shooting stopped?

Can you tell me if they are going to try to stop all live stock farming?

John

Archived from groups: uk.rec.shooting.game (More info?)

>Subject: Re: Has the RSPCA, etc. shot itself in the foot?
>From: an6530@aol.comknujon (AN6530)
>Date: 26/11/2004 20:27 GMT

>
>Presumably after that they will be campaigning against livestock production
>and associated industries.

Then it will be time to play saviour to all the terrible things that happen to
wheat, barley, cabbages, cucumbers, carrots etc etc. What about all the grass
that gets beheaded in the summer?

Steve. Suffolk.
remove 'knujon' to e-mail

Archived from groups: uk.rec.shooting.game (More info?)

"Derry Argue" <derry(delete)@adviegundogs.co.uk> wrote in message
news:Xns95AD580491595derryadviegundogscou@130.133.1.4...
> I was reading a site this morning which described the ban on fox
> hunting campaign as the biggest mistake the RSPCA ever joined
> in.
>
> The point the writer made was that it has alienated the
> countryside by going after fox hunting and in the countryside
> information is spread by word of mouth. Prosecutions against
> illegal "sports" such as cock fighting, dog fighting, badger
> bating, etc. were easier prior to the hunting ban because
> country people who knew what was going on were sympathetic to
> the RSPCA and tipped them off.
>
> The writer claimed that this co-operation would be less likely
> in the future. Is there any truth in this?
>
> I must say, I view the SSPCA (in Scotland) with growing
> suspicion. They have had a conducted tour of my farm just once -
> - when I insisted that they see absolutely everything. After
> that visit, they voluntarily handed me a copy of the letter of
> complaint they had received, because it was such an outrageous
> lie, so that I could pass it to my solicitor! That alone must be
> unprecedented but is a reflection on what they saw here.
>
> But now my door is closed to the SSPCA unless they can produce
> documentary evidence of a genuine complaint which my solicitor
> to sue on for defamation (in Scotland).
>
> What do other members of the group think? Do you still let them
> in? And would you inform them if you suspected your neighbour
> was in breach of the cruelty laws?
>
> Derry

I must say I am always worried the way the RSPCA seem to have a
quasi-police way of doing things. They will have specials rights under the
new Animal Welfare Bill, rights I would only like my police (finally
answerable to electorate) to have.

Archived from groups: uk.rec.shooting.game (More info?)

"John" <zero_one34@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:Xns95CBE600C46ACOEcopyremovedheaders@130.133.1.4...
> "Theo Hopkins" <theo@theohopkins.wanadoo.co.uk> wrote in
> news:co88ud$kdh$1@news8.svr.pol.co.uk:
>
> >> > Can you tell why they should not try to get game shooting stopped?
> >>
> >> Can you tell me if they are going to try to stop all live stock
> >> farming?
> >>
> >> John
> >
> > No in my lifetime - and I reckon I have thirty years to go.
>
> Perhaps they should realise the parallels then?
>
> John

Not quite sure what you mean here. In fact no idea.

Parallels whith what?

Theo H

Archived from groups: uk.rec.shooting.game (More info?)

I run a ferret rescue (3.5 miles from our local RSPCA branch).
About a fortnight ago, I had 3 people contact me saying that the RSPCA had 2
ferrets in need of a home.
All 3 had given my details, including my rescue URL www.nhfr.co.uk
The RSPCA refused to contact me to rehome the ferrets, because I go
ferreting.
I work my ferrets, not the rescues we take in,
but I don't condone people who rehome from us & want to work their adoptee
ferret.

Ferrets were brought here approx. 2,000 years ago,
as the tool to farm rabbits for meat (which were also brought at the same
time)
If it weren't for working ferrets, there would be no "pet" ferrets.

There's probably only a small majority that don't look after their working
ferrets
Can the RSPCA state that more people abuse ferrets than cats/dogs ?
I doubt it.
A well cared for ferret will work much better than a 1/2 starved, dirty,
smelly, poor example of an animal.
It's like a 3rd World unfortunate, trying to run a 3 minute mile, compared
to a fit athlete.

I have had small-minded neighbours call the RSPCA to my house in the past, I
allowed them to look around, and stroke my dogs, which were reported back as
in good condition.
Now I stand by my rights, and don't allow them through my door, as they have
no powers to gain access unless the officer's name is stated on a warrant.
So STUFF 'EM! :-)

Archived from groups: uk.rec.shooting.game (More info?)

"Derry Argue" <derry(delete)@adviegundogs.co.uk> wrote in message
news:Xns95ADEB7FFA4F9derryadviegundogscou@130.133.1.4...
> John <zero_one34@hotmail.com> wrote in
> news:Xns95CB906952E43OEcopyremovedheaders@130.133.1.4:
>
> > The ban will mean that foxes will be shot to kingdom come,
> > the ban has not helped the foxes one little bit and to top
> > it all off the country folk and the country minded folk who
> > support blood sports are now alienated and that's that.
>
> I agree, but I suspect it won't be shooting but poison as there
> will no longer be any danger to hounds.
>
> Derry

I do realy not think "not a fox will be saved".

There will probably be some increase in foxes shot/piosoned/trapped but not
the same number as have 'got away'.

Can you convince me otherwise?

Theo H

Archived from groups: uk.rec.shooting.game (More info?)

"Theo Hopkins" <theo@theohopkins.wanadoo.co.uk> wrote in
news:co8dvr$3s5$1@newsg3.svr.pol.co.uk:

> I do realy not think "not a fox will be saved".
>
> There will probably be some increase in foxes shot/piosoned/trapped
> but not the same number as have 'got away'.
>
> Can you convince me otherwise?


I’m not quite sure what you mean but if you mean that more foxes will
“get” away then you’re in for a big shock.
Theo, by now I hope you know me well enough to know that I disagree with
plain wanton killing. I can tell you right now that foxes will be
completely persecuted in my area.
Let’s look at just one example. I shoot over a farm which is owned by
good friends, his ex-wife was the hunt master / mistress (?). He asked
me to shoot the foxes, she told me not to shoot the foxes. He came up
with a compromise and told me to thin the foxes. The surround four farms
wanted the foxes left alone (they are all hunt supporters).
I am not the only person who shoots these farms. The adjacent woodland
is full of fox earths and a healthy population always emerges.
Take away the hunts and the orders will be simple, shoot the foxes and I
can tell your right now, I know some very amateur fox shooters, they
will be very happy. The result? Well up until now the foxes have enjoyed
the protection of the hunts and their followers, come February and that
will be lost. The replacement? Well what do you think Theo?
As for getting away, well the hunts caught what, three – six foxes per
season?
I personally know half a dozen places foxes will be right now and if I
decided to go and persecute the poor beasties then I’ll get myself six
foxes in the morning.
My area is full of serious lampers, these chaps not only get paid per
tail but they live for lamping. Not so long ago I was chatting to one of
them and in his words “Roll on the ban!”
People, who have supported this ban, do not fully understand what goes
on or the alternatives, I am sure they sit back now and think “Hey we
have saved the foxes” but alas they have committed the foxes to the life
of the late wolf.


John

Archived from groups: uk.rec.shooting.game (More info?)

"Kyle Kensett" <kyle@rarms.nospam.co.uk> wrote in
news:41a83a34$0$33596$ed2619ec@ptn-nntp-reader02.plus.net:

>>Parallels whith what?
>
> Many Antis use the fact that 'according to them' many pheasants
> reared for shooting are raised in factory farming conditions. One
> would assume the same conditions are applied to the chickens raised
> so that said anti can enjoy a meal at McDonalds with his sprogs.
>
> This would be my view on a parallel
>
> Kyle


It’s not hard to draw parallels.
As Kyle has pointed out, right from the rearing stages and to the end
product as I will point out.

I can not see much of a difference between a Shepard and a Keeper
(although I would love to hear some). Give that their motives are the
same, the end product is rearing a crop of meat.

John

Archived from groups: uk.rec.shooting.game (More info?)

>Subject: Re: Has the RSPCA, etc. shot itself in the foot?
>From: "Theo Hopkins" theo@theohopkins.wanadoo.co.uk
>Date: 26/11/2004 23:24 GMT

>I do realy not think "not a fox will be saved".
>
>There will probably be some increase in foxes shot/piosoned/trapped but not
>the same number as have 'got away'.

>Can you convince me otherwise?

I think not.

In the past I half half heartedly enjoyed some of your contributions to this NG
but having Googled and digested some of your contributions in other groups I do
not think you are much open to being convinced to accept views contrary to the
ones you already hold.

Perhaps you would care to share with us some of your other interests, hobbies
or pastimes so that those with a mind to do so can contemplate if they have any
value, merit and justification. Of course having done that they may well decide
to quiz, badger and possibly even have a dig at you on a regular basis -
rather in the fashion that you are apt to do in this very GAME SHOOTING
newsgroup.

In short Theo you are rather beginning to brass me off.



Steve. Suffolk.
remove 'knujon' to e-mail

Archived from groups: uk.rec.shooting.game (More info?)

AN6530 wrote:
>>> Subject: Re: Has the RSPCA, etc. shot itself in the foot?
>>> From: an6530@aol.comknujon (AN6530)
>>> Date: 26/11/2004 20:27 GMT
>>
>>>
>>> Presumably after that they will be campaigning against livestock
>>> production and associated industries.
>>
>> Then it will be time to play saviour to all the terrible things that
>> happen to wheat, barley, cabbages, cucumbers, carrots etc etc. What
>> about all the grass that gets beheaded in the summer?
>>
>> Steve. Suffolk.
>> remove 'knujon' to e-mail

Soylent Green is the only answer. ;-)
--
One of the most difficult things in the world is to convince a woman
that even a bargain costs money. -- Edgar Watson Howe

Archived from groups: uk.rec.shooting.game (More info?)

Malcolm <Malcolm@indaal.demon.co.uk> wrote in
news:iWfZTqnReGqBFwLU@indaal.demon.co.uk:

>>And how much of that £80,000,000 goes on animal homing then?
>>
> Have a look at their accounts and see if it says there.

No, no, no Malcolm, you tell me.
You seem to preach the points of the RSPCA Or should that be RS£AC, so I
was just wondering if you really did know about the RSCPA.

My eyes were opened and frankly I am amazed our queen will have anything
to do with the organisation. They admitted liability after they killed
my pet both verbally and in writing and I would have taken them to
court, had any solicitor bothered to even remotely entertain the idea.
Trying to find a solicitor who will take the RSPCA to court is like
trying to find a priest to assassinate the Pope. I guess they all have
funny handshakes.

John

Archived from groups: uk.rec.shooting.game (More info?)

"Theo Hopkins" <theo@theohopkins.wanadoo.co.uk> wrote in
news:co9rd4$pa1$1@news6.svr.pol.co.uk:

>> Any comments Theo?
>>
>
> Yes.
>
> If you are going to campain against field sports, then it is logical
> to campaign against pheasant shooting well before hunting with
> hounds.
>
> That is logical? Yes ? No?

No need to get strong here Theo. I am having ago at you, simply asking a
question.
I don’t think logic comes in to it at all.

>
> I would like to see changes in pheasnt shooting so it was more like
> hunting.

Not sure I follow here. You would like to see pheasant killed by dogs?

> I have been consisttent on this group that I think that _breeding_
> animals as targets should be stopped.

You have indeed, but isn’t breeding cows for a Sunday roast also the
same?

>
> People talk about "respect for the quarry". Clearly people understand
> this in many different ways. I believe, for instance, in both deer
> shooting and deer hunting with hounds, there is suich a respect. I
> can not see such respect when an animal is _specifically_ bred to die
> as a sport. They seriously question the way some shooters don't eat
> any of what they shoot.

I can not condone stag hunting, but that isn’t to say I would vote
against it.
Lambs are bred to die, steers are bred to die, chickens are bred to die,
fish are bred to die.

> Such sort of thinking is shared by a number of people I know locally,
> and these are people who shoot or have shooting going on around them.
> I have a woodland, and my logger has a shotgun; yesterday we meet up
> to discuss some extraction.. He thinks what is happening _in our
> area_ quite stupid. He also said he's had a fox skulking around his
> ducks and chicken. He told me the fox was too far a way to get a
> clean kill, so just let of a shot over its head.

So your point is?

BTW your loggers actions of “shooting over the foxes head” are to my
mind uneducated and frankly amateur. Why educated the fox? Tell him to
get the right tool for the job and next time do the job properly.

John

Archived from groups: uk.rec.shooting.game (More info?)

>Subject: Re: Has the RSPCA, etc. shot itself in the foot?
>From: an6530@aol.comknujon (AN6530)
>Date: 27/11/2004 09:41 GMT

>Perhaps you would care to share with us some of your other interests, hobbies
>or pastimes so that those with a mind to do so can contemplate if they have
>any
>value, merit and justification. Of course having done that they may well
>decide
>to quiz, badger and possibly even have a dig at you on a regular basis -
>rather in the fashion that you are apt to do in this very GAME SHOOTING
>newsgroup.

Well Theo?




Steve. Suffolk.
remove 'knujon' to e-mail

Archived from groups: uk.rec.shooting.game (More info?)

"AN6530" <an6530@aol.comknujon> wrote in message
news:20041127083354.21623.00001058@mb-m12.aol.com...
> >Subject: Re: Has the RSPCA, etc. shot itself in the foot?
> >From: an6530@aol.comknujon (AN6530)
> >Date: 27/11/2004 09:41 GMT
>
> >Perhaps you would care to share with us some of your other interests,
hobbies
> >or pastimes so that those with a mind to do so can contemplate if they
have
> >any
> >value, merit and justification. Of course having done that they may well
> >decide
> >to quiz, badger and possibly even have a dig at you on a regular basis -
> >rather in the fashion that you are apt to do in this very GAME SHOOTING
> >newsgroup.
>
> Well Theo?

> Steve. Suffolk.
> remove 'knujon' to e-mail


Because the success and failures of the campaign to keep hunting should be
required reading and carefully studied by those who will one day be
defending defending driven shooting where hand reared/artificially reared
birds are shot at?

Archived from groups: uk.rec.shooting.game (More info?)

>Subject: Re: Has the RSPCA, etc. shot itself in the foot?
>From: "Theo Hopkins" theo@theohopkins.wanadoo.co.uk
>Date: 27/11/2004 14:23 GMT

>Because the success and failures of the campaign to keep hunting should be
>required reading and carefully studied by those who will one day be
>defending defending driven shooting where hand reared/artificially reared
>birds are shot at?

Neat sidestep. You should be in politics.

Steve. Suffolk.
remove 'knujon' to e-mail

Archived from groups: uk.rec.shooting.game (More info?)

On Sat, 27 Nov 2004 10:20:52 -0000, "Scrote"
<scrote@nospam.dontwork.sodoff.net> wrote:

>Soylent Green is the only answer. ;-)

For those who didn't see the film, Soylent
green was made by recycling people who had undergone
compulsory euthanasia after reaching a certain age.

Which raises another question... If you
absolutely *had* to eat another person would you prefer
a veggie or a carnivore? I'm told that in the natural
order of things carnivores rarely eat each other. ;-)

Gyppo

John Craggs - Writer - Adult Tutor - Storyteller
and All-Round Rogue
Need a laugh? Then subscribe to the free Monday Silly Digest:
mail to: gyppo1@ntlworld.com With 'MSD SUB' as subject.

Archived from groups: uk.rec.shooting.game (More info?)

"John" <zero_one34@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:Xns95CCA17D945A8OEcopyremovedheaders@130.133.1.4...
> "Theo Hopkins" <theo@theohopkins.wanadoo.co.uk> wrote in
> news:coa3p8$o3$1@news7.svr.pol.co.uk:
>
> >> Not sure I follow here. You would like to see pheasant killed by
> >> dogs?
> >
> > Not particularly, I think shooting is a better way. Any way, most
> > dogs can't fly.
>
> I'm losing you here Theo.
>
> >> You have indeed, but isn't breeding cows for a Sunday roast also the
> >> same?
> >
> > Somehow I think it is different.
>
> How so? Both are bred to be killed.

Because I think there is some sort of difference in the way that humans
relate to farm animal or quarry animal. Shooters are encouraged to "respect
the quarry". Farmers are not expected to do the same with farm animals.
>
> >Especially as at _some_ shoots, the poor beastie is not eaten.
>
> A result of anti-shooting campaigns?

No. As the result of a sport that has become an industry and is putting down
just too many birds. This coupled with the problems of the export market in
Europe. The anti-shooting campaigns, which at the moment are flea-bites, are
quite unable to effect the market at the moment.

>
> > But this is a gut feeling of mine, and not
> > amenable to logic. I guess it is a bit like 'canned hunting'? At the
> > sort of shoot next to me the Guns merely shoot the bird. It is not
> > their dog that recovers it, and anyway, it is recovered to the
> > gamecart.
>
> Theo, you say you support the "One for the pot man" but can you not see
> that a ban of pheasant shooting is a ban on everyone?

A ban on big-bag driven shooting where nothing is eaten is likely to end up
as a ban on everyone. What needs to happen is a shift in thinking within
shooting so that it is no longer 'OK' to shoot big bags. Perhaps the days of
driven shooting are over and it is the time now for walked up or rough
shooting to be what happens (I hope in my ignorance I understand the nature
of these two). However, with so much shooting now being commercial and
payment based on number of birds shot, this makes any reversal away from
this big-bag shooting difficult.

But this is for the world of shooting to resolve, not me. I'm only actually
hopefully being a help by pointing out the future.

>
> > They don't know - or even see - the beaters. They could not
> > distinguish the beastie they have shot from any other on the
> > gamecart. They need no hunting skills or knowledge of the 'ways of
> > game'. And they don't take anything home with them.
>
> Not much different from an abattoir then?

But shooting claims to be above the world of sordid farming and the
slaughter house. It is about the respect that I am told many in shooting
have for the quarry. And I accept many do have this respect...and others see
shooting as an alternative to golf, and just an adult versionof a computer
game.
>
> >And they
> > certainly don't draw the beastie -
>
> For goodness sake man, there's precious little time to reload, let alone
> get the pens and paper out! (Sorry, just had too).

Nice one there!

Use a loader? And download the image up on your multifunction mobile phone?
>
>
> >so they would be unable to say
> > even from the contents of the crop what the beastie had for its last
> > meal - acorns, maybe right now, or perhaps corn from a feeder or
> > winter wheat shoots.
>
> No different from say the average meat consumer then?

No. but again there is this claim that shooting is of a different quality -
especially those who say it puts the man in touch with his huner-gatherer
background.
>
> > He is amateur with a shotgun, he has only got it recently, previously
> > he had a good air rifle.
>
> First lesson is to use the right tools for the right job.
>
> John
I'll tell him to get a .22 or employ a marksman?

Archived from groups: uk.rec.shooting.game (More info?)

"Theo Hopkins" <theo@theohopkins.wanadoo.co.uk> wrote in
news:coaefc$ku3$1@newsg3.svr.pol.co.uk:

>> >> You have indeed, but isn't breeding cows for a Sunday roast also
>> >> the same?
>> >
>> > Somehow I think it is different.
>>
>> How so? Both are bred to be killed.
>
> Because I think there is some sort of difference in the way that
> humans relate to farm animal or quarry animal.

Is that good or bad?

>Shooters are
> encouraged to "respect the quarry". Farmers are not expected to do
> the same with farm animals.

Which *is* / *was* my original point.

>>
>> >Especially as at _some_ shoots, the poor beastie is not eaten.
>>
>> A result of anti-shooting campaigns?
>
> No. As the result of a sport that has become an industry and is
> putting down just too many birds. This coupled with the problems of
> the export market in Europe. The anti-shooting campaigns, which at
> the moment are flea-bites, are quite unable to effect the market at
> the moment.

Game sales are rising and the public at large is eating more game but
after the 80’s it will take time.

>> Theo, you say you support the "One for the pot man" but can you not
>> see that a ban of pheasant shooting is a ban on everyone?
>
> A ban on big-bag driven shooting where nothing is eaten is likely to
> end up as a ban on everyone. What needs to happen is a shift in
> thinking within shooting so that it is no longer 'OK' to shoot big
> bags. Perhaps the days of driven shooting are over and it is the time
> now for walked up or rough shooting to be what happens (I hope in my
> ignorance I understand the nature of these two). However, with so
> much shooting now being commercial and payment based on number of
> birds shot, this makes any reversal away from this big-bag shooting
> difficult.

That’s the thing Theo, “Big-bag” days are gone. The type of shooting
that you have encountered *isn’t* big. Look back at the British history
of shooting and you will see that even the biggest commercial shoot
isn’t that big when compared to shoots of old.

> But this is for the world of shooting to resolve, not me. I'm only
> actually hopefully being a help by pointing out the future.

IMHO I personally think you are right, shooting needs reform if it’s
going to survive.

>> Not much different from an abattoir then?
>
> But shooting claims to be above the world of sordid farming and the
> slaughter house. It is about the respect that I am told many in
> shooting have for the quarry. And I accept many do have this
> respect...and others see shooting as an alternative to golf, and just
> an adult versionof a computer game.

Theo, go and talk to some of the chaps who work in the abattoir.

>> First lesson is to use the right tools for the right job.
>>
>> John
> I'll tell him to get a .22 or employ a marksman?

..22 isn’t really the right tool to shoot foxes. .22H is likely to work
for him.

John

Archived from groups: uk.rec.shooting.game (More info?)

Theo,

I understand that most animal rights supporters would not eat at MacDonalds


You are right I probably should talk to some animal rights activists, I used
to be a member of the R.S.P.C.A.'s Animal Action Youth club so I already
have a small understanding of that side of the fence. However from the same
token, animal rights activists could learn something from listening to hunts
people and shooters personally rather than from an enormously biased media
service.

Whils on the media note we (shooters) must be doing something right!!

Copied and pasted from the Countryfile website:-

Pheasant shoot vote.

On 21 November Countryfile explored the issues surrounding game shooting and
we asked viewers to take part in a phone vote.

Of the 58,315 people who voted, 9% thought shooting should be banned while
91% were against a ban.


So from 58,000 people who could be bothered to pick up the phone 9 out of
10 of them think that Pheasant Shooting shouldn't be banned

I used MacDonalds to convey the point that in rearing pheasants commercially
there can be no more cruelty than in the rearing of domestic meat animals.
If you eat meat then you contribute in some way to the death of an animal.

I realise that Animal Rights people are not gormless, however why pick on
shooting rather than intensive farming? or commercial fishing? Pesticide
manufacturers (WMD for poor old Mr Mozzy ? Surely there has to be some
kind of a hidden agenda? Polical class war maybe?

I read somewhere I forget where that the lead Labour chap for banning Fox
hunting enjoys Fishing as his pastime. Now they banned Fox hunting because
they think it is cruel, no? I would have thought fishing would be more
cruel? But then maybe Fishing is seen as the common persons sport rather
than all those Toffs who go shooting and Fox hunting!!


Kyle

Avid Fisherman as well as Shooter



"Theo Hopkins" <theo@theohopkins.wanadoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:co9svo$pvq$1@newsg2.svr.pol.co.uk...
>
> "Kyle Kensett" <kyle@rarms.nospam.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:41a83a34$0$33596$ed2619ec@ptn-nntp-reader02.plus.net...
>> >Parallels whith what?
>>
>> Many Antis use the fact that 'according to them' many pheasants reared
>> for
>> shooting are raised in factory farming conditions. One would assume the
> same
>> conditions are applied to the chickens raised so that said anti can enjoy
> a
>> meal at McDonalds with his sprogs.
>>
>> This would be my view on a parallel
>>
>> Kyle
>
> You need to meet and talk with some animal rights folk. Though they tend
> to
> be boring :-(
>
> There are a very high proportion who are vegetarian, so eat no meat.
> There is a smaller proportion who are vegan, so eat no eggs or milk
> either.
> Almost certainly no committed anti-shooting people would ever dream of
> eating at MacDonald's, being the totemic 'bady' company.
> Check out any animal rights site and you will see campaigns against
> factory
> farming.
> Oh! And MacDonalds in the UK now use free range eggs due to anti pressure
> on
> the company.
>
> The fieldsports world insist in painting animal rights people as gormless,
> inconsistent and stupid. This may be comforting to the field port folk,
> but
> means that you underestimate your enemy. I am in two minds about hunting
> with hounds - yet it seems that these "stupid" antis have won. Why?
>
> Some pheasants are indeed raised in factory farming conditions until they
> are put out of the rearing sheds. To quote the Game Conservancy Trust in
> the
> document 'A Question of Balance', "Game rearing has benefited from the
> advances in poultry breeding technology since the Second World War". Until
> recently, much game rearing has been based on Emtryl. This was a case of
> using antiprotozoal drugs to counter the poor husbandry of intense
> rearing.
>
>
>

Archived from groups: uk.rec.shooting.game (More info?)

an6530@aol.comknujon (AN6530) wrote in
news:20041127133944.21555.00001295@mb-m11.aol.com:

>>That’s the thing Theo, “Big-bag” days are gone. The type of
>>shooting that you have encountered *isn’t* big. Look back at the
>>British history of shooting and you will see that even the biggest
>>commercial shoot isn’t that big when compared to shoots of old.
>
> One of the points I was going to make John. However I am rather
> beginning to grow tired and resent the presence of some self
> appointed armchair advisor who seems to believe he knows what is or
> is not best for us as individuals and fieldsports in general.


I think it is something that most people do tend to forget.
Go back to the days of old “Winny” and that’s where people will find
“big” shoots, go further back and the real big shoot days will be found.
To days shooting scene isn’t that big at all. Long gone are the days of
10 or 20 drives and literally thousand bird days.

I doubt if *all* the birds were eaten then but in saying that times were
different and the community as a whole less wasteful.
Okay I can see and understand where Theo is coming from and IMHO pure
commercial shooting will be used as an example to tar us all.

I don’t honestly think these industrialise events promote the best image
but they do keep traditions alive and if some effort was invested in
actually dealing with the glut of birds after the days shoot, I
personally believe they could promote shooting sports.

I doubt it would be hard to “give” pheasants away. The shoot owners
could use their slice of Britain to train youths in the art of
keepering, secure the future of our sports if you will.
IMHO the commercial shoots have forgotten about marketing other aspects
of what they do and if they were to change only slightly, re-embrace the
traditions and the old ways (for want of a better description), they
could also secure their futures.
Sadly and all too often in our times, everything comes down to money and
quick money at that. A lot of these shoots are owned by fellows who
haven’t risen from the ranks and they don’t care about image as long as
the guns keep coming, they promote their shoots in a way that attract
“big bag men” and as such they promote an image which they can not
morally defend or justify. Long term planning has gone out of the
window, morals have seen better days and the true countryman and artful
keeper has and will be tarred by the same brush.

John

Archived from groups: uk.rec.shooting.game (More info?)

>Subject: Re: Has the RSPCA, etc. shot itself in the foot?
>From: John zero_one34@hotmail.com
>Date: 27/11/2004 19:15 GMT

>Steve, while I'm about it. Are You up this way over the festive period?
>Plenty of shooting waits.
>
>John

I wish I was John but now you can fly from Cardiff to Norwich for 40 quid I
think we are going to persuade the MIL to fly over for Xmas. However rest
assured that if we have to come down I will give you a shout!

Steve

BTW: You should have e-mail!