Poor Mr Fox!! Is he not protected too? Its in our interest!!

ivanthehunter

Simple question, is the fox afforded any protection under any act?

If so many enjoy hunting Mr fox should we not endeavor to ensure his abundance and hence our continued shooting enjoyment?

It just seems a bit OTT to hear of people shooting 10 in one night and other such claims. I can assure you that if people had to walk around the fields they'd be lucky to shoot 3......
Its the envolvment and the participation that make the sport, in conjunction with sufficient numbers of quary. I am happy just to get out for the night with the possibility of a shot (or two:rolleyes:).
I'm not pointing fingers at anybody but i fell that people are to concerned with the total numbers shot instead of the joy of hunting ( which should ooze respect for the quary)

I would like to think that the ethical dilemma of leaving orphans to linger in a dark den will be in peoples thought now as i'm sure the vast majority of vixens are pregnant at this stage, remember that the dog fox is also heavily involved in the supply of food to the vixen and hence high yields of milk to the young.

If they are given some space now it will pay dividends come August..or when ever its dark enough for long enough!

Any thoughts

It wasn't me!

To be fair, I'd say high numbers shot is just indicative of overall populations. Chances are if you can only get three in a night, your local population is proportionally smaller than someone who shoots twenty. That other person might also be working across a huge area, several different permissions, and focussing on controlling numbers. Sometimes sport takes the back seat to pragmatism. and that's what really justifies our firearms.

stevoman

welcome back ivan!!!

i agree that a lot of people are more concerned about numbers that they shoot more then anything. pigeons and pheasents and ducks also feeling the brunt. in my opinion the heat of the hunt should be the main interest and the joy for the hunter.

Trojan911

ivanthehunter wrote: »

It just seems a bit OTT to hear of people shooting 10 in one night and other such claims. I can assure you that if people had to walk around the fields they'd be lucky to shoot 3......
Any thoughts

I have no issues with anyone that shoots ten foxes a night or whatever & I don't feel it is OTT.

When we do it we shoot for sheep farmers to help protect their livelihood. If it means "wiping out" the fox population around our area then so be it, our job is done. They'll be back again next year.

Same for crop farmers with rabbits & pigeon etc.

ivanthehunter

Personal i don't know one person that shoots them to keep numbers down, they shoot them because its good craic and its a night out. Chicken and the egg:eek:

Fair enough they might be doing the sheep farmer a good turn but studies shown that foxes in-fact eat very little and when they are found chewing on a lamb its generally because the lamb died as a consequences of birth difficulties etc etc. Yes the will attack lambs that are only a few hours old but i on the whole their damage is very limited where good farming sheds are used.
I might have got my licences under the banner of pest control but only one farmer ever asked me to shot a fox that attacked he personal supply of egg laying hens. In reality most people frown upon shooting such a beautiful animal and you know as well as i do that some farmers don't want the foxes shot as the believe that it keeps rabbit numbers down(never mind their admiration to such of resilient creature).

Do you remember here on the boards when some one claimed to have a nice shoot at a pigeon (unwittingly -out of season-) and there was uproar about the ethical issues of orphans.
Now we all know how smart the fox is and i put it to you that such an intelligent animal will suffer more stress that a gormless pigeon and hence will have a death that is more excruciating. Such a large offspring will also have (IMO) the ability to live longer with out food and hence will have to suffer more.

Fair is fair and we should all give nature a chance to strive, it's not like we're about to run out of ammo and foxes will take over the World. We can shoot more in the silly season when their inexperience will bring them right to our muzzles.
Yes yes their will always be a need to shoot problem foxes at unethical times but i hope that we can make it the exception and not the rule.

Never mind the rules I would just like people to think about their actions and see the full circle of those actions. The law of common sense is my only light and everybody knows what i mean and what I'm like.

I don't want to play the guilt card but this time i will.
If you shoot animals that are tending to offspring then i want you to think of them slowly dying an agonizing death in the dark(maybe two days maybe seven days). and then when you go to hell many years from now you can shake Heir Hitlers Hand HHH.
I hope thats not to OTT for the conservative mob on the boards.

Sparks

Well, it's nice to see someone's still voting for the Greens I suppose

Trojan911

ivanthehunter wrote: »

Personal i don't know one person that shoots them to keep numbers down,

You now have met me (in a virtual sense, of course).

ivanthehunter wrote: »

they shoot them because its good craic and its a night out.

Do they? You can positively state this for every fox shooter then? Very sweeping statement.

ivanthehunter wrote: »

I don't want to play the guilt card but this time i will.
If you shoot animals that are tending to offspring then i want you to think of them slowly dying an agonizing death in the dark(maybe two days maybe seven days). and then when you go to hell many years from now you can shake Heir Hitlers Hand HHH.
I hope thats not to OTT for the conservative mob on the boards.

I don't get guilt trips & I don't Believe.

ivanthehunter

stevoman wrote: »

welcome back ivan!!!

i agree that a lot of people are more concerned about numbers that they shoot more then anything. pigeons and pheasents and ducks also feeling the brunt. in my opinion the heat of the hunt should be the main interest and the joy for the hunter.

Good to be back!!

Trojan911 would it not be better for some one to be a bit more proactive and keep number down earlier in the year and hence avoid the ethical issues that i have highlighted. Even then would it not be better to get 5 nights out while still shooting 10 foxes or even still further (and dare i say it) 10 nights out.

Isn't there a law that prohibits the shooting of any animal from a vehicle (YES). Well there you go, that puts the 20 fox a night man out of business.
If you are hunting deer and you have to stalk your pray over some difficult terrain and even preempt the deers movement by using you local knowledge and you eventually manage to be successful then you will pat your self on the back and in the pub later you will proclaim yourself the great white hunter and rightly so. but if you drove in to the woods and shoot the deer from the car window from 20 yards, i would find you in the pub and you wouldn't be telling a soul that you were a great hunter!! and to top it of imagine you shot a hind with suckling calf hidden near by
Deer do damage, foxes do damage, rabbits do damage, rats do damage mice do damage and fox eat rats, rabbits and mice.
Really its the humans that do damage.




Livestock protection is one thing but the reality of the issue is that a large % of fox shooters are only doing it for fun. I personal will be knocking it on the head till the silly season starts. IMO its the right thing to do.
If a farmer had a problem with foxes I'd shoot them but i won't go out and shoot them for fun when i think of the suffering that I'll be causing.

But i wouldn't think twice about it if a farmer requested it as it then become work.....
Do soldiers kill people for fun??? Do the worry about orphaned kids.
Work is what needed and fun is what you like doing.
Work doesn't leave a bad taste in you mouth but having some unethical fun might.

Would you shot the local fox that comes into your garden at night(question for urban-ites). Is he not a joy to see.

Never shoot the first one you see and there will always be more!

CJhaughey

ivanthehunter wrote: »

I don't want to play the guilt card but this time i will.
If you shoot animals that are tending to offspring then i want you to think of them slowly dying an agonizing death in the dark(maybe two days maybe seven days). and then when you go to hell many years from now you can shake Heir Hitlers Hand HHH.
I hope thats not to OTT for the conservative mob on the boards.

Sorry Bud but you have just made a couple of errors, firstly that there is no-one shooting foxes for pest control.
I do. I have chickens and the foxes have already cost me a few hens.
I don't have time to lamp and tbh I have better things to do then spend all weekend blasting away at foxes, I prefer eating things that I shoot and deer are a much better tasting animal than foxes (or so I am told).

I am not superstitious so hell doesn't concern me.
I have better things to worry about than a makeeupee bad place being in my future itinerary.

It wasn't me!

The law prevents hunting protected species from a vehicle, same as not being able to hunt them with a lamp. Foxes are not a protected species and therefore not subject to the same restrictions.

ivanthehunter

Trojan911 wrote: »

I have no issues with anyone that shoots ten foxes a night or whatever & I don't feel it is OTT.

When we do it we shoot for sheep farmers to help protect their livelihood. If it means "wiping out" the fox population around our area then so be it, our job is done. They'll be back again next year.

Same for crop farmers with rabbits & pigeon etc.

This forum is called Hunting and not Pest Control, i dont know if they have that forum on the boards but you might find it under Eradication or Extermination but its not in the Shooting forum.
Maybe you'll find it in the Farming forums:D:pac:;)

Whos the pest now me auld cyber buddy:cool::P
lol

ivanthehunter

CJhaughey wrote: »

Sorry Bud but you have just made a couple of errors, firstly that there is no-one shooting foxes for pest control.
I do. I have chickens and the foxes have already cost me a few hens.
I don't have time to lamp and tbh I have better things to do then spend all weekend blasting away at foxes, I prefer eating things that I shoot and deer are a much better tasting animal than foxes (or so I am told).

I am not superstitious so hell doesn't concern me.
I have better things to worry about than a makeeupee bad place being in my future itinerary.

Fair enough, i dont believe in hell either-- i believe in violence, pain suffering and death after heavy taxation but i have decided to make a choice as i hunt fox for fun and i dont like the idea of the young dying of cold and starvation.. its the same reason that i now use a gun instead of snares, its the same reason that i take close range accurate shots that drop'em.
I dont like the idea of something suffering in pain unless i wish it to be so!!!

PS i also believe in joy and happiness

Vegeta

It wasn't me! wrote: »

The law prevents hunting protected species from a vehicle, same as not being able to hunt them with a lamp. Foxes are not a protected species and therefore not subject to the same restrictions.

Amendments made in 2000 now cover the fox too.

Still someone can lamp from the backroads, spot a fox. Stop, exit the vehicle and enter the field (the recommended but not legally required 60 ft) assuming they have permission to enter the field and shoot them

Or drive around the fields (again with permission) spot a fox, exit vehicle. Shoot fox.

Trojan911

ivanthehunter wrote: »

Good to be back!!

Trojan911 would it not be better for some one to be a bit more proactive and keep number down earlier in the year and hence avoid the ethical issues that i have highlighted. Even then would it not be better to get 5 nights out while still shooting 10 foxes or even still further (and dare i say it) 10 nights out.

Isn't there a law that prohibits the shooting of any animal from a vehicle (YES). Well there you go, that puts the 20 fox a night man out of business.
If you are hunting deer and you have to stalk your pray over some difficult terrain and even preempt the deers movement by using you local knowledge and you eventually manage to be successful then you will pat your self on the back and in the pub later you will proclaim yourself the great white hunter and rightly so. but if you drove in to the woods and shoot the deer from the car window from 20 yards, i would find you in the pub and you wouldn't be telling a soul that you were a great hunter!! and to top it of imagine you shot a hind with suckling calf hidden near by
Deer do damage, foxes do damage, rabbits do damage, rats do damage mice do damage and fox eat rats, rabbits and mice.
Really its the humans that do damage.




Livestock protection is one thing but the reality of the issue is that a large % of fox shooters are only doing it for fun. I personal will be knocking it on the head till the silly season starts. IMO its the right thing to do.
If a farmer had a problem with foxes I'd shoot them but i won't go out and shoot them for fun when i think of the suffering that I'll be causing.

But i wouldn't think twice about it if a farmer requested it as it then become work.....
Do soldiers kill people for fun??? Do the worry about orphaned kids.
Work is what needed and fun is what you like doing.
Work doesn't leave a bad taste in you mouth but having some unethical fun might.

Would you shot the local fox that comes into your garden at night(question for urban-ites). Is he not a joy to see.

Never shoot the first one you see and there will always be more!

Ivan,

I have tried to make sense of this post and I can't. Re-define it, cut out the waffle (which is most of it) and rewrite it.

Cheers.

Jonty

Vegeta wrote: »

Or drive around the fields (again with permission) spot a fox, exit vehicle. Shoot fox.

Surely if you're off a road and in a field you can cap the fox without exiting the vehicle?

Trojan911

Jonty wrote: »

Surely if you're off a road and in a field you can cap the fox without exiting the vehicle?

That's my understanding of it. On private property with permission, no need to exit vehicle.

Vegeta

Jonty wrote: »

Surely if you're off a road and in a field you can cap the fox without exiting the vehicle?

Nope not since amendments made in 2000

Have a read of this its discussed at length there

Vegeta

Jonty wrote: »

Surely if you're off a road and in a field you can cap the fox without exiting the vehicle?

Trojan911 wrote: »

That's my understanding of it. On private property with permission, no need to exit vehicle.

You'd both be getting in trouble guys

Courtesy of IRLConor
Quote:

Section 36 of the Wildlife Act, 1976 as amended by Section 44 of the Wildlife (Amendment) Act, 2000 says the following:

1. Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act apart from this section but subject to, section 42, a person shall not hunt or disturb for the purpose of hunting—
   1. any protected wild animal by means of a mechanically-propelled vehicle, vessel or aircraft, whether it is being so propelled or is stationary,
   2. any protected wild bird by means of such a vehicle, vessel or aircraft while it is being so propelled.

Think the red bits crossed out are the amendments made in 2000

So even a stationary vehicle seems out of bounds.

gofaster_s13

Jonty wrote: »

Surely if you're off a road and in a field you can cap the fox without exiting the vehicle?

Pop a cap in his ass:rolleyes:

endasmail

differnent folks different strokes lads,if that man wants to go out and shoot ten foxes or more in his locality and be left with feck all to be hunting,thats up to him

Trojan911

Vegeta wrote: »

You'd both be getting in trouble guys

Is the fox now protected?

lightening

endasmail wrote: »

differnent folks different strokes lads,if that man wants to go out and shoot ten foxes or more in his locality and be left with feck all to be hunting,thats up to him

So, fvck the eco system? I dunno. I worked on a sheep farm in Wicklow for a while, just at dipping and lambing time. The owner of the farm had eager hunters calling over all the time offering their services. Never have I seen such generosity! Unfortunately there was never a problem with the foxes! They never went near the sheep unless they were well dead.

lightening

Trojan911 wrote: »

no need to exit vehicle.

You sure about that?

jwshooter

we have foxes so well clipped around were giving serious consideration to breeding a few for next year.

Vegeta

Trojan911 wrote: »

Is the fox now protected?

No, but again the following is quite clear

Section 36 of the Wildlife Act, 1976 as amended by Section 44 of the Wildlife (Amendment) Act, 2000 says the following:
Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act apart from this section but subject to, section 42, a person shall not hunt or disturb for the purpose of hunting—

1. any protected wild animal by means of a mechanically-propelled vehicle, vessel or aircraft, whether it is being so propelled or is stationary,

The word protected was removed in 2000, so it now reads

"any wild animal by means of a mechanically-propelled vehicle, vessel or aircraft, whether it is being so propelled or is stationary," Any wild animal includes the fox.

endasmail

lightening wrote: »

So, fvck the eco system? I dunno. I worked on a sheep farm in Wicklow for a while, just at dipping and lambing time. The owner of the farm had eager hunters calling over all the time offering their services. Never have I seen such generosity! Unfortunately there was never a problem with the foxes! They never went near the sheep unless they were well dead.

no mate i never said "fvck the eco system"
im saying when i go out i do be delighted with one fox,i enjoy just getting out

lightening

endasmail wrote: »

no mate i never said "fvck the eco system"
im saying when i go out i do be delighted with one fox,i enjoy just getting out

I know you never said that I did. The eco system comment was directed a the fellow you mentioned in your post that shoots ten foxes, not you. His "different stroke" may be screwing up the eco system.

You got the wrong end of the stick there, no offense meant.

whitser

i agree with some what ivan is saying. i would probably take in a season what some will shoot in a night. i think that with some its a numbers game, they get a buzz from a big head count thats not what hunting is about. im hearing from lads around the country that in some places foxes a getting to heavily lamped and numbers a very low. in the late 70's and early 80's money for pelts nearly brought fox populations to dangerously low levels.
what ever about shooting foxes in the winter its shooting of foxes in summer and spring which really does damage to numbers. unless there's a fox doing damage i think a season should be there. doesnt have to be written in law just hunters using their own common sense. around mid march cubs will be born and i personally stop before then and wont hunt a fox til late august when the adolesents are vending for the selves.
the farms i hunt on are always glad to see numbers kept down but even a farmer will tell you they dont mind an odd fox knocking around.

whitser

endasmail wrote: »

differnent folks different strokes lads,if that man wants to go out and shoot ten foxes or more in his locality and be left with feck all to be hunting,thats up to him

i agree with that. each to their own and i wouldnt try and tell any hunter what he can or cant do but some lads should realise that they only damaging thier own sport in the long run by not giving old charlie a break. again each to thier own but lets have some common sense, hunting shouldnt mean whole sale slaughter.

greenpeter

i dont like foxes because they eat game but on the other hand they probably eat twice as many rats than game birds ect, i think any anmial should be giving the right to survive a hunt which makes it all worth while so i wouldn't shoot a fox till september

cavan shooter

endasmail wrote: »

differnent folks different strokes lads,if that man wants to go out and shoot ten foxes or more in his locality and be left with feck all to be hunting,thats up to him

The question is how you look at it, Shooting foxes is a sport or the shooting of foxes is a control of vermin (respected vermin at that)

I control the population but always try to leave an older fox knocking around to keep the whipper snappers at bay. Its not sport to me its about controling the population.

That should stur it up a bit:D

NoNameRanger

Ah welcome back Ivan, it was so quiet around here while you were gone.:) I support what you are trying to get across. Yes foxes should be left alone to breed in peace and given the respect they deserve, after all they are our most charismatic native species. Yes it's fine to shoot the trouble maker but lamping the entire countryside and implementing population control should be reserved for the autumn and winter. I don't have a problem with shooting cubs either on a summers evening but only take the vixen when you've got all the cubs. We should be humane to all animals not just the ones we consider game.

Vegeta is correct; Foxes can not be hunted using a vehicle and that includes offroad and includes shining a lamp from a vehicle or resting a gun on a vehicle.

Trojan911

lightening wrote: »

You sure about that?

That was my understanding, however, not anymore since Vegeta pointed out the above change in legislation.

bunny shooter

Personally I only shoot foxes from late August to end of January for reasons Ivan expresses in OP

Terrier

I do quite a bit of lamping on my beat and I have shot over 75 foxes every year for the last 3 years.
In saying that once Jan 31st comes I stop shooting until the end of May\Aug depending if charlie comes snooping around my poults or if a farmer is having issues!

Control not eradication! (except Mink )

ivanthehunter

whitser wrote: »

i agree with some what ivan is saying. i would probably take in a season what some will shoot in a night. i think that with some its a numbers game, they get a buzz from a big head count thats not what hunting is about. im hearing from lads around the country that in some places foxes a getting to heavily lamped and numbers a very low. in the late 70's and early 80's money for pelts nearly brought fox populations to dangerously low levels.
what ever about shooting foxes in the winter its shooting of foxes in summer and spring which really does damage to numbers. unless there's a fox doing damage i think a season should be there. doesnt have to be written in law just hunters using their own common sense. around mid march cubs will be born and i personally stop before then and wont hunt a fox til late august when the adolesents are vending for the selves.
the farms i hunt on are always glad to see numbers kept down but even a farmer will tell you they dont mind an odd fox knocking around.

Thank god someone sees sence...

gofaster_s13

Around home it can look like search parties looking for escaped convicts there are that many people lamping from the roads I even woke up one night to see someone lamping my garden from the road. There should be a season in place, the antis would love to get a pic of a starving litter of cubs due to a vixen shot. The sport can't afford to just dismiss the antis as a bunch of loonies any more.

lightening

gofaster_s13 wrote: »

The sport can't afford to just dismiss the antis as a bunch of loonies any more.

Why? Are you targeted by them often? You are right though, mass slaughter of foxes in one night will draw attention.

gofaster_s13

lightening wrote: »

Why? Are you targeted by them often? You are right though, mass slaughter of foxes in one night will draw attention.

We're all being targeted by them, and they are more vocal than we are everyone has seen the regular demonstrations in cities around the country protesting against bloodsports as they call them.

Tackleberry.

whitser wrote: »

i agree with some what ivan is saying. i would probably take in a season what some will shoot in a night. i think that with some its a numbers game, they get a buzz from a big head count thats not what hunting is about. im hearing from lads around the country that in some places foxes a getting to heavily lamped and numbers a very low. in the late 70's and early 80's money for pelts nearly brought fox populations to dangerously low levels.
what ever about shooting foxes in the winter its shooting of foxes in summer and spring which really does damage to numbers. unless there's a fox doing damage i think a season should be there. doesnt have to be written in law just hunters using their own common sense. around mid march cubs will be born and i personally stop before then and wont hunt a fox til late august when the adolesents are vending for the selves.
the farms i hunt on are always glad to see numbers kept down but even a farmer will tell you they dont mind an odd fox knocking around.

+2, i'd not shoot a fox after St,PATRICKS Day for the same reasons

lightening

gofaster_s13 wrote: »

We're all being targeted by them

Have you been physically targeted when out shooting? What happened? Has everyone here been targeted by anti people?

gofaster_s13 wrote: »

everyone has seen the regular demonstrations in cities around the country protesting against bloodsports as they call them.

I vaguely remember seeing one outside the GPO (could have been anti testing on animals actually) in Dublin in the early eighties. There certainly isn't regular protests or demonstrations in Dublin and I have never seen them in other cities around the country.

Are you in England?

It wasn't me!

lightening wrote: »

Have you been physically targeted when out shooting? What happened? Has everyone here been targeted by anti people?

I personally have received threats by phone, with the caller stating that they know where I live. I know others have had the same experience.

I vaguely remember seeing one outside the GPO (could have been anti testing on animals actually) in Dublin in the early eighties. There certainly isn't regular protests or demonstrations in Dublin and I have never seen them in other cities around the country.

Are you in England?

They occur around Bank of Ireland, College Green every so often. Also seen a few outside the GPO. There are fairly regular ones outside the fur shop on Grafton street and Brown Thomas. I find them utterly annoying, frankly.

lightening

The anti fur protesters are a different bunch and the fur trade is rotten to the core, particularly in Asia. I am in Dublin city center nearly every weekend. I have never seen an anti-hunt demonstration. I vaguely remember seeing posters of greyhound cruelty a while back.

Sounds like the person that called you knows you, has your number etc... Did you contact the Gardai? Did the trace the number and what was the outcome?

It wasn't me!

They don't know me, weren't even bright enough to call from an ex-directory line. I took note of the number in case it happened again, in which case I'd go to the guards, but I didn't do so then.

I'm in Dublin city centre everyday, and while I've never seen an anti-hunting protest, I've seen plenty against "animal cruelty" with photos of fox-hunting slipped into the posters.

Also, with regard to the fur trade, most of the protests occur outside an antique furs dealership, the stock of which is primarily 19th century, so unless the protesters have an in-depth knowledge of fur-trapping practices (farming is a modern invention of the fur trade) from the 19th century, they're deeply misguided and ill-informed in their protest, and therefore not worth their own hot air.

Mellor

ivanthehunter wrote: »

Would you shot the local fox that comes into your garden at night(question for urban-ites). Is he not a joy to see.

I imagine you're not a city dweller Ivan, so I'll humour you. Obviously people don't shoot foxes in a urban garden. And he is not a joy to see, city foxes are scabby mangy things and I pity them.


I find it kinda funny that you are defending the fox under the guise of ethics and reducing pain. And not too long ago this was the very arguement put to you against your ideas of hunting with a xbow.

gofaster_s13

The antis are regularly around the GPO and central bank, they predominantly protest against the fur trade and bloodsports like coursing and fox hunts but they also have books of pics with them showing pics of shot foxes, driven shoots etc, these people get massive publicity and also have their own very sympathetic political party, the Greens.

ivanthehunter

Mellor wrote: »

I imagine you're not a city dweller Ivan, so I'll humour you. Obviously people don't shoot foxes in a urban garden. And he is not a joy to see, city foxes are scabby mangy things and I pity them.


I find it kinda funny that you are defending the fox under the guise of ethics and reducing pain. And not too long ago this was the very arguement put to you against your ideas of hunting with a xbow.

Don't tar all with the one brush!!
I have seen hundreds of urban foxes if not thousands and some are mangy things and some have brilliant coats that Jone Collins would be proud to be seen in. The same can be said of farmland foxes and wilderness foxes.

As for the xbow issue, theres nothing wrong in theory with a well placed 1 inch wide broadhead:D its as good as a hornet if used within a realistic range, however the pain and suffering that i am referring to are secondary problems relating to cause and effect. So your post is irrelevant to the OP

Is the pain of a gun shot any less than that of an arrow shot? Hopefully i'll never have to experiment on you:eek: so you'll never really know but if i was to carry out such a despicable act on such a prominent poster as yourself, which one would you choose first....;) (again no infractions please as this is humour only and not a direct threat on my good friend mellor:P)



As to a reduction in pain and suffering, it is not the aim of any hunter to cause prolonged pain and suffering. This is true of the many thousand European bow and rifle hunters and thankfully this train of thought is filtering down to trappers via new trap design..

It wasn't me!

I've seen as many urban foxes in good nick as I have ones in minging condition, possibly more, but mange is definitely a problem in urban environments. One way or the other though, crossbows are not as immediately lethal as rifles, and I don't like the idea of prey being hunted with them, so let's not revisit this debate. It was senseless then and it hasn't become a better idea since.

ivanthehunter

It wasn't me! wrote: »

crossbows are not as immediately lethal as rifles

Thats not entirely true, a close look on the net will turn up many example of animals being shoot with bolts and arrows that die as quickly as animals shot with rifles.
On the whole the rifle offers the hunter a very lame hunting experience due to the massive range of modern ammunition, (I'll be cheeky here but only in defense of bow hunting:rolleyes:) its like something out of a pathetic safari experience- drive thru shooting...:mad:

Mellor as you know i am unable to divulge any of my real life experiences here;) because of intense scrutiny from Mr x :rolleyes:but to put it plainly hunting is not hunting unless your close enough to smell your prey. Now thats real skill being able to get that close..

The rifle has, in my opinion signaled the death of any real hunting skills that man once processed due to its precision.





The end result of any hunt is to insure the instantaneous death or subsequent death of the target species.
Bolts and arrows have a limited realistic range but within that range they are very effective and they can in skilled hands, secure the death of any target species.

With 11 countries within Europe currently involved with bow hunting I'm afraid that your views are tainted by some misconception that 11 government wildlife groups did not succumb to.

Also if you don't want this great debate to continue then don't try and antagonize me with your posts...

It wasn't me!

I made no attempt to antagonise you. You're as entitled to your opinion as I am to mine, but I disagree fundamentally with you.

bunny shooter

It wasn't me! wrote: »

...........You're as entitled to your opinion as I am to mine...........

+ 1