Sport?

Latest Articles

Sport?
Page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 Next

Downsizer Forum Index -> Shooting and Trapping for the Pot

Author

Message

Northern_Lad

Joined: 13 Dec 2004
Posts: 14210
Location: Somewhere

Posted: Thu Nov 29, 07 8:55 am Post subject:

bodger wrote:

Hunting fulfills the same ends that you say sport does The aims of hunting have nothing to do with killing people either.

Hopefully so, unless you're out with Dick. However, you do come back with deer, birds, frogs, leaches, etc which were happily froliking about.

Bodger

Joined: 23 May 2006
Posts: 13524

Posted: Thu Nov 29, 07 9:03 am Post subject:

Totally lost me there I'm afraid.

Yesterday I took a cow that I'd cared for for two years on a stressfull journey to a large concrete building that was full of death and had it turned into meat.

Two weeks ago I sat in a tree stand in the middle of woods. A deer pased infront of me and I shot it in as humane a way as is possible to take any creatures life . The deer had no idea what was about to happen, I refuse to believe that my cow didn't have an idea what was a foot.

I know which meat I'm the happiest with.

Northern_Lad

Joined: 13 Dec 2004
Posts: 14210
Location: Somewhere

Posted: Thu Nov 29, 07 9:08 am Post subject:
You're confusing yourself. Would you call animal husbandry sport? It can be enjoyable and rewarding, but I think few would call it sport. I agree, the wild animals will almost certainly have a more enjoyable life, and given a good shot, a quicker, less stressful death.

Bodger

Joined: 23 May 2006
Posts: 13524

Posted: Thu Nov 29, 07 9:13 am Post subject:
I call hunting sport, along with many other people, nor do I feel the need to go around with a glum face just incase people might think that I'm enjoying myself. I don't consider myself to be confused at all. Thank goodness, hunting has very little to do with animal husbandry.

Treacodactyl
Downsizer Moderator

Joined: 28 Oct 2004
Posts: 25795
Location: Jumping on the bandwagon of opportunism

Posted: Thu Nov 29, 07 9:38 am Post subject:

bodger wrote:

Thank goodness, hunting has very little to do with animal husbandry.

Apart from most game that's released or good deer management where the surplus is taken etc?

Bodger

Joined: 23 May 2006
Posts: 13524

Posted: Thu Nov 29, 07 9:50 am Post subject:
Your assumption is incorect TD. The majority of game in the UK is not released into the wild but has actually been in the wild for centuries. The majority of pheasant are reared from chicks through to the poult stage before release, but you fail to take into account just about all, Deer, hares, geese, ducks rabbits,wood pigeons, grouse and a fair proportion of partridges.

KILLITnGRILLIT

Joined: 14 Sep 2006
Posts: 894
Location: Looking at a screen in the front room

Posted: Thu Nov 29, 07 9:54 am Post subject: Re: Sport?

Ian33568 wrote:

The wild boar were driven up the valley towards the hunters and then shot. This is something I have difficulty getting my head around. If hunting is for sport (and food), what and where is the sport in this method. The boar do not stand a chance - no contest.

Take away the guns, dogs, beaters and tracking systems....then call it sport?

I imagine some of the boar were missed too? or managed to backtrack or avoid flushing as most areas that hold them are very thick cover? Dogs aren`t infallable and may find gave hard to scent in some conditions, indeed my dogs have missed both live and dead animals in clear sight on occaisions. I also think you had the sport/food the wrong way round, as all hunting/shooting people I know don`t shoot food animals for sport only or even primarily.

Taking away the guns, dogs, beaters and tracking systems and you are left with an unarmed soft animal against an animal that is tough and ferociously armed and no animal will take on a quarry the danger of getting killed is a near certainty. There are however some hunters who use dogs and a dagger and that is all to kill boar.

My idea of sporting is to use fieldcraft and some degree of technology to out-wit my quarry and provide myself with a meal .......or not. I watch for geese and pigeon using fields regularly I note the wind direction and how they enter the area and then I set up as I feel fits the situation. With deer I like to either watch for signs that they are in a certain area or to ambush them as they enter or leave a certain place, the deer geese etc are all better tuned to spotting/hearing/smelling trouble than I am or ever will be so what I lack in those senses I feel I can make up for with reasoned thinking and technology. Getting to within 100m of grazing deer(better still 40m) or having 500+ geese answer your call and whiffle into your decoys is the sporting element that gives the buzz and is rounded off by a well placed shot.

If it were just for meat then I would pen up some tasty quadrapeds and go out and kill one when I needed the food.

Treacodactyl
Downsizer Moderator

Joined: 28 Oct 2004
Posts: 25795
Location: Jumping on the bandwagon of opportunism

Posted: Thu Nov 29, 07 10:00 am Post subject:

bodger wrote:

Your assumption is incorect TD.

Nope, you've misread me. Most game that is released requires some animal husbandry. Many of the real wild game actually requires some work that you could describe as husbandry such as habitat management predator control etc, etc. If we're splitting hairs then some of the things in your list aren't game.

Bodger

Joined: 23 May 2006
Posts: 13524

Posted: Thu Nov 29, 07 10:20 am Post subject:

The ' Most' game that you refer to is infact represents very much a minority when it comes to the target species here in the UK.

Please don't refer to 'We' when mentioning splitting hairs, in the context of this discussion, thats simply bringing in semantics.

To many thousands of people in the UK hunting is an enjoyable sport, thats why its classed as a field sport.

Billions of words have been expounded on the rights and wrongs of hunting and neither side will ever be convinced but to get this thread back on track. The original question was should hunting be considered a sport ? IMO I think that I've answered this question.

Northern_Lad

Joined: 13 Dec 2004
Posts: 14210
Location: Somewhere

Posted: Thu Nov 29, 07 10:23 am Post subject:

bodger wrote:

Billions of words have been expounded on the rights and wrongs of hunting and neither side will ever be convinced but to get this thread back on track. The original question was should hunting be considered a sport ? IMO I think that I've answered this question.

Billions of words have been said and written on the rights and wrongs of hunting, but that's not what we're discussing.

Most people here believe that hunting has a valid part in food supply, myself included, so long as it's done in the right way.

My only problem with hunting is that it's classed as a sport when I don't believe it should be for the reasons given before. I can understand why some might call it so as the feelings are similar, but the objectives aren't.

Treacodactyl
Downsizer Moderator

Joined: 28 Oct 2004
Posts: 25795
Location: Jumping on the bandwagon of opportunism

Posted: Thu Nov 29, 07 10:27 am Post subject:

bodger wrote:

The ' Most' game that you refer to is infact represents very much a minority when it comes to the target species here in the UK.

Again you're misreading me! I said that the much of the game that **is** raised requires animal husbandry. Do you disagree? I also said many true wild game also requires some work, do you disagree?

So, what are the numbers of released game vs true wild game (which doesn't include rabbits, pigeon etc)?

Behemoth

Joined: 01 Dec 2004
Posts: 19023
Location: Leeds

Posted: Thu Nov 29, 07 10:28 am Post subject:

If target/clay pidgeon shooting is classed as a sport then I think hunting should be.

Perhaps though we're all missing a trick and should just call hunting what it is, hunting. Classifying it as a sport, past-time, entertainment, job seems to me to be a diversionary waste of time.

You can apply a moral code and ethics to the activity but second guessing the motivation of the individual is difficult and it's what they do that counts.

Jonnyboy

Joined: 29 Oct 2004
Posts: 23956
Location: under some rain.

Posted: Thu Nov 29, 07 10:57 am Post subject:

Brownbear wrote:

Treacodactyl wrote:

To me any animal should be killed as quickly and humanely as possible with minimal risk of wounding. So I don't agree with taking shots at the maximum possible range to increase the 'sport' of the shooter for example. Doesn't the idea of giving an animal a chance also mean it's more likely to be wounded? If I go to the dentist I don't fancy increasing his sport by tying one hand behind his back, I want the job done as well as possible!

Absolutely agree. Given that your purpose is to kill, there is a duty to do so as efficiently and quickly as possible. There's a lot of bloody nonsense talked about shooting by people who want to play at being the Marquis of Queensbury, giving it a sporting chance and all. A 'hunter' is performing the same function as a butcher. Because he uses a rifle instead of an axe, some people seem to feel there is a sort of aristocratic glamour to be had, and that it might rub off on them with a bit of effort and by affecting certain viewpoints.

Agree, agree.

Bodger

Joined: 23 May 2006
Posts: 13524

Posted: Thu Nov 29, 07 11:14 am Post subject:
I hunt for the sporting element. At the risk of being repetitive I enjoy using the skills that are required in obtaining a good clean kill. The killing part is important , but if I was only interested in killing animals for killings sake, then I'd get myself a job in a slaughterhouse. Hunting is a sport.

Northern_Lad

Joined: 13 Dec 2004
Posts: 14210
Location: Somewhere

Posted: Thu Nov 29, 07 11:17 am Post subject:
The tracking and stalking I could agree to being a sport, just not the final act. Would you class cricket as a sport if when a batsman was out he got killed?

	Downsizer Forum Index -> Shooting and Trapping for the Pot	All times are GMT Page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 Next
Page 2 of 5

View Latest Posts