Sooo mad four pheasants killed!

moan 77

I am a proud member of a gun club which release around 200 cocks and 100 hens per year but we shoot no hens and only about 70% of the cocks. I personally release 100 cock at my own expense into deep wooded areas where they have a great chance of making it to year two or three, by the way pheasants only live to 5 or 6 years before nature take over. If we the shooting people of ireland didnt do anything, foxes would be out of control and no pheasants to be seen or any other ground nesting birds as rabbits would be in the same boat and hares. So think long about the underline tone in your post. the balance must be kept and that includes us the shooting people of Ireland.

Angus Og

I don't know if foxes would be out of control. A lot of them die naturally. If you hunt foxes, you can't expect everyone to agree with you, since a lot of people have seen evidence for the decline of fox populations, and shooting them would only make those issue worse.

I just don't agree with hunting for sport.

recedite

blinding wrote: »

Cheers to all that replied to my query about gutting and cleaning a bird.

I was just curious to know if there were many people out there still willing to do what is a not too pleasant task.
That was a good answer about being unwilling to shoot it if not willing to clean and prepare for the oven.

Aside from shooting, there are lots who keep and breed poultry for eggs and as a hobby. Whenever another batch is reared the hens are very easy to sell, but the cockerels go into the pot.

recedite

helena.ryan wrote: »

When I was young, my dad shot a magpie out our back, I was upset, he explained to me that the magpies were killing the robins we had in our garden. So while it was sad that this magpie was killed, it gave a whole family of robins a chance.

We have all seen the wildlife programmes on TV where the lion/wolf/eagle kills its prey, but nobody demands that the predator should then be killed itself as some sort of retribution. So why do people feel smug about "doing their bit" for the wildlife on their own doorstep by killing off magpies and crows?

Vegeta wrote: »

What are we using to define a species being native. I thought magpies turned up sometime in the 1600s and were not a native (here at end of last ice age) species.

Even if they're not native I think Pheasants arrived as a quarry species for hunters at around the same time as the Magpie was recorded being here.

Not any real point there just think its a little unfair to say a magpie deserves to be here more than the pheasant.

It is curious though, how some people make a big deal about whether a bird and even the species of trees being planted are native and how long their ancestors have been living here. Imagine the hot water you would land in if you tried applying the same logic to the human population.
A magpie perched in a beech tree. Native or not? Good or bad?

Angus Og

Yeah, my brother wrote his thesis on early human settlements, and their effect on the native wildlife. That argument is probably a bit too deep. All we can do now is try to find common ground. We all have a part to play in nature.

Graces7

I misread the last line of this as "shooting the people of Ireland.."

May I add a transatlantic note here re using hunt meat? Some of the Food Banks there which literally keep many folk alive in these hard times, get the meat they do not need from their hunting donated.

So they have eg 2 lb packs of minced venison to give and use; one such made tamales last week with this.

Would love any such meat here. not sure re managing to clean it but I can gut fish.

No I could not kill; and the thought of shooting makes me feel sick. But we each have different skills and gifts to contribute.

Others can and if the meat is used; if it is left out it will feed wild life anyways. And maybe help the lambs be left alone?

We lived many years on a small island where there were no predators and rabbits bred as rabbits will.

There was a 60 pence bounty on each tail and regrettably few ate rabbit. But the gulls did well on the meat.

Many can only cope with eating meat if they do not know where it came from.

I eat very little meat; mostly the cost of it, but regret bad farming practices that make food cheap enough for those like myself on a small pension to buy.

Given the huge difference in price between eg free range and caged hens eggs? Literally three times the price.

We have pheasants up here; a beauty indeed to see and hear.

Differences need not come to blows or abuse.

moan 77 wrote: »

I am a proud member of a gun club which release around 200 cocks and 100 hens per year but we shoot no hens and only about 70% of the cocks. I personally release 100 cock at my own expense into deep wooded areas where they have a great chance of making it to year two or three, by the way pheasants only live to 5 or 6 years before nature take over. If we the shooting people of ireland didnt do anything, foxes would be out of control and no pheasants to be seen or any other ground nesting birds as rabbits would be in the same boat and hares. So think long about the underline tone in your post. the balance must be kept and that includes us the shooting people of Ireland.

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1

artieanna wrote: »

To my delight, nearly every day since October five pheasants came up the back field...However a person not far from my home has been out shooting odd days over the past two weeks and now I only see one poor bird on his own.

Without a doubt they have been shot and I am soooooooo angry, its such a pity to see it happen and I could do nothing about it.....

I'm sorry Artienna, but firstly Pheasants aren't native wildlife in Ireland and these birds were only bred and released for shooting. The very fact that you had 5 birds together in October shows thay are captive bred and released by a gun club. This is a good healthy countryside activity. While we can have mixed views on shooting animals such as Foxes or Magpies, there really is nothing to complain about when it comes to Pheasant season. I love to see them in my own garden and indeed many years ago my kids used to hand feed some and had (foolishly ) given them names. We were certainly sorry when they were shot but took it as the legitimate act that it was. I don't shoot myself and I'm often at odds with gun clubs for other aspects of their activities but I honestly can't fault them for shooting birds raised for that purpose.

doctor evil

Angus Og wrote: »

lot of people have seen evidence for the decline of fox populations

What evidence is this? (links to studies etc)

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1

Angus Og wrote: »

Ia lot of people have seen evidence for the decline of fox populations, and shooting them would only make those issue worse.

I just don't agree with hunting for sport.

I don't agree with a lot of hunting and I personally abhor shooting Foxes, but you cannot say there is any evidence of a decline in Fox numbers. Indeed what evidence we have shows that numbers remain static no matter what hunting, or other environmental issues, occur. I'd welcome some background to your premise.

Angus Og

I'm pretty sure you both misunderstood. I meant that fox mortality continues, regardless of hunters. I'm going by British studies which show that most foxes die as a result of being killed by vehicles. That is what the leading fox expert (Stephen Harris) in Britain says.

I wasn't trying to say foxes are endangered. Sorry, my post was unclear.

I can't tell you about Ireland, as Ireland doesn't seem to have many studies on fox deaths. If you happen to know of any, I'd appreciate the links.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/hunting-ban-has-done-little-to-cut-deaths-among-our-fox-population-398674.html

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1

Angus Og wrote: »

I don't know if foxes would be out of control. A lot of them die naturally. If you hunt foxes, you can't expect everyone to agree with you, since a lot of people have seen evidence for the decline of fox populations, and shooting them would only make those issue worse.

Not wishing to labour this point but I think what you stated was quite clear - "a decline of Fox population". Of course Foxes die despite hunting. All animals die from predation, starvation, etc.

Road deaths are not a significant cause of mortality among Foxes here. Population figues for Foxes remain amazingly steady despite what may befall them. It would appear that we can support a certain population and numbers over that don't survive or if numbers drop more survive to fill the gap left.

Sad as I find the death of a Fox (as I think they are wonderful animals) I always remind myself that as a species they will be unharmed by that individual death. AND there is no decline in the population size. Best not to confuse Mortality with Population Decline. Humans suffer dreadful mortality but our population continues to grow.:)

Angus Og

Yeah, that's what I meant. I was talking about the annual decline after the birth of cubs. I hadn't actually reread my post until someone pointed it out above you. If you look at the context, "I don't know if foxes would be out of control. A lot of them die naturally", you might have guessed.

It's not like I could edit my post a day afterwards, since then people would wonder why you, and the person above, asked me for the evidence.

I don't doubt that fox populations remain steady, but then again I haven't seen the studies you obviously have. I'm only going by the number of foxes I've seen with my own eyes. And I did say that I was talking about British studies when asked. I obviously confused you both by saying population decline, but that was just how I said it. If this forum was quicker, I would have been asked to correct my words quicker. And would have done.

I'm still against hunting for sport though, and this is the nature and bird watching forum, so I don't need to make any excuses on that.

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1

Angus Og wrote: »

I'm still against hunting for sport though, and this is the nature and bird watching forum, so I don't need to make any excuses on that.

I certainly didn't ask you to. I never referred to anybody's opinion on hunting but simply corrected the "fact" regarding Fox population numbers. That's all!

Angus Og

And Irish humans don't actually suffer dreadful mortality rates. Nor do British ones.

So, that really didn't help your argument.

And did I say it was a "fact"? Just wondering. I can't see it. I'm still interested in seeing the studies you've read on Irish foxes by the way.

Or is what you say just your opinion?

magicbastarder

Angus Og wrote: »

And Irish humans don't actually suffer dreadful mortality rates. Nor do British ones.

i think you'll find that irish and british mortality rates are exactly 100%. no matter how many advances medical science has made.

Angus Og

Well done, I nearly laughed. Pity you aren't interested in the argument, just in trying to be smart.

Good luck with your stand up routine.

You've done more to prove I'm right than I could have.

magicbastarder

Angus Og wrote: »

You've done more to prove I'm right than I could have.

sure.

Angus Og

magicbastarder wrote: »

i think you'll find that irish and british mortality rates are exactly 100%. no matter how many advances medical science has made.

Yeah, because this thread is about the fact that all animals will die sooner or later. Sure, indeed.

Get an argument, or read a book.

magicbastarder

is there amny merit to the opinion that raising thousands of chicks in captivity and then releasing them to blunder around unfamiliar countryside is cruel?

spotted four dead pheasants in about five miles on the M2 today.

Angus Og

I'd like to apologise for being an idiot.

Sorry.

Half-cocked

magicbastarder wrote: »

is there amny merit to the opinion that raising thousands of chicks in captivity and then releasing them to blunder around unfamiliar countryside is cruel?

spotted four dead pheasants in about five miles on the M2 today.

Research carried out in the late 70's showed that only between 3% and 5% of released pheasants survived to breed in the wild. That sounds pretty bad, but remember that many wild bird species have a 90% mortality rate within their first year. If you removed the shooting mortality from the equation, I suspect that survival rates among released pheasants might be comparable to wild birds. Shoots make a considerable investment in their birds and will try to minimise mortality. The reason we're seeing so many dead pheasants on the side of the roads is because they have sex on the brain this time of the year and it seems to override their survival instinct. You certainly won't see so many ending up as roadkill outside the breeding season. Most of the adult birds we're seeing now were released back in July/August last year and have survived the shooting season and the winter, they aren't newly released birds blundering around the countryside. Shoots let their birds gradually go wild with a secure pen and food supply that they use as a 'base' from which they can start to explore their new territory from. Some birds will have been wild for even longer, they can live 10 years or more but these are exceptional birds. I would agree however that shoots who dump captive birds into the wild on shoot days are acting in a highly unethical manner and the birds that aren't shot are probably doomed - I haven't seen it over here, but it is a problem in the UK on commercial shoots where profit comes before ethical behaviour.

stevoman

magicbastarder wrote: »

is there amny merit to the opinion that raising thousands of chicks in captivity and then releasing them to blunder around unfamiliar countryside is cruel?

spotted four dead pheasants in about five miles on the M2 today.

through work we had to visit a chicken factory where the chickens are reared and killed.

guess how many they kill in a day? 140,000. i couldnt beleive it myself when they said it.

what i find hard to understand is people have an issue with gun clubs rearing pheasents in open pens with space, then releasing these birds into the wild and letting them wild up. they are then hunted during the season but with the aid of a dog and the pheasent has a very good fighting chance.

the chickens on the other hand have non, yet i never here of animal rights activists ever protesting outside a factory.

i myself am rearing pheasents this year in the back of my home and i am rearing them under batnam hens, as is about 10 members of our gun club. because the pheasents are hatched and reared under a live hen, the hens from that clutch that are released into the wild will 90% chance hatch and rear the own clutches in the wild. thats a good result insuring you give more than you take from nature.