Giant Fox caught in Kent

EGAR

Ahm, everypenny, you do not seem to know much about animals, do you? Any species that has been domesticated is considered FERAL if left to it's own devices without the influence of Man.

Species who have never been domesticated are WILD.

Great that you see it as your right to shoot defenseless animals who are only in the situation because of Man. Nice philosophy you have going there.

MACT1RE

Discodog wrote: »

Because according to you & everypenny it is our responsibility to make sure that we don't get shot when walking in woods that we own.

Firstly, why don’t you give Coillte a ring and ask them about the forests you think you own and let us all know how you get on.

Secondly, to imply that by simply being in the same forest as a deer stalker will mean you get shot is so far below the level of intelligence I had previously credited you with that I can only assume you are trying to either rise me or deliberately misinform some reader who might not know anything about the mechanics of hunting with a rifle and scope.

Thirdly, this is as far off topic and reality that I am willing to go with you.

You’re on your own now.

EGAR

I am off to bed now. Tis tiring to argue with the trigger happy ignorant.

Chris_Heilong

I dont think anybody has the rights to firearms, especially when people with guns start blabbing on about rights, what is thei the USA??? If you have them then why not everyone else, the law has to change!

everypenny

EGAR wrote: »

Ahm, everypenny, you do not seem to know much about animals, do you? Any species that has been domesticated is considered FERAL if left to it's own devices without the influence of Man.

Species who have never been domesticated are WILD.

Great that you see it as your right to shoot defenseless animals who are only in the situation because of Man. Nice philosophy you have going there.

My definition of two words may be off, but my legal rights in shooting them aren't. I didn't see you jumping at Discodog when he stated that a fish wasn't an animal :-)

everypenny

Chris_Heilong wrote: »

I dont think anybody has the rights to firearms, especially when people with guns start blabbing on about rights, what is thei the USA??? If you have them then why not everyone else, the law has to change!

Dont get you??? Is this in relation to hunting or crime? Man has used weapons since we became man. Its there application that enabled us to come out of the woods and stand upright over the long grass. Their use and development has helped us fend of predators and develope as one of the must succesful species the world has ever known. Are they missused? Yes. Do i approve of that? No. But your comment here is so far off topic that its not funny. Equating a hunter here with gun crime in america is the equivalant of equating someone who owns a puppy to an eco terrorist.

everypenny

EGAR wrote: »

I am off to bed now. Tis tiring to argue with the trigger happy ignorant.

Trigger happy and ignorant?

Attack the post not the poster.... You don't have a clue what i'm like on or off the hunting grounds. I have not once generalised or labled you with a stereotype due to your activities or beliefs.....

Good mature responce though, undermine a person with insults whos opinions you cant change through sound reason and argument.

"All animals are created equal, but some are more equal then others" Ironically more apt to describe your last post than mine.

Discodog

everypenny wrote: »

My definition of two words may be off, but my legal rights in shooting them aren't. I didn't see you jumping at Discodog when he stated that a fish wasn't an animal :-)

EGAR is very choosy about who she jumps on as are the other ladies in this forum

LB6

I resent that comment by EGAR

"I am off to bed now. Tis tiring to argue with the trigger happy ignorant."

How dare you call me ignorant. How dare you call me trigger happy.

Your post has been reported. If you cannot contribute to a good debate, please keep your comments to yourself.

A FEMALE SHOOTER!

Discodog

MACT1RE wrote: »

or deliberately misinform some reader

I have been posting here for long enough that people can judge whether I misinform.

You attitude to cats is just symptomatic of many hunting issues. If the law says that I can kill it then I will because .......I enjoy it.

But it people think that these guys are the only cat shooters take a look at the feral cat threads in the Hunting forum. There you will see exactly how hunters view cats. One even thought it fun to post a pic of a dead cat used as an arrow quiver - hilarious !.

Funny thing is that you will read some threads where hunters were warning each other about bad PR whilst others gloated about the A&P posters "getting in a tizzy".

Chris_Heilong

That implication is not allowed here.

Discodog

LB6 wrote: »

I resent that comment by EGAR

"I am off to bed now. Tis tiring to argue with the trigger happy ignorant."

How dare you call me ignorant. How dare you call me trigger happy.

Your post has been reported. If you cannot contribute to a good debate, please keep your comments to yourself.

A FEMALE SHOOTER!

As this is your first post here how can she be referring to you ?. Based on the comments made by some of the hunters who have posted here her comment is perfectly valid. She used the singular so unless you are telepathic you have no idea who she was referring to.

So someone with a gun is daring, you weren't threatening were you, a woman who runs a rescue - nothing new for EGAR

EDIT: Oh you did post before - I must of missed it

LB6 wrote: »

By all means post, but like it says - be civil about it.

Good to see that you practice what you preach.


PS it is bad etiquette to report a post & then comment on thread.

talullah

Omg, this is digusting. Why shoot it and why photograph the poor thing in such a disrespectful way!!! Some people really make my blood boil...there was no need for this.:mad:

LB6

Actually - it's my third post here Disco.

"Based on the comments made by the hunters who have posted here her comment is perfectly valid."

So - I could do the same thing and say that all the comments by the anti-hunters would justify me calling them ignorant and lumping ye all into one bunch too? Because I don't happen to agree with everything that's being said. That's just childish behaviour and therefore I won't. I'm not IGNORANT.

I don't know about etiquette on reporting posts, that's not a worry for me - I'll check it out later.

Her comment "the trigger happy ignorant" is not singular - it's plural!

"By all means post, but like it says - be civil about it."
"Good to see that you practice what you preach."
I'm very civil, thank you :-)

"So someone with a gun is daring, you weren't threatening were you, a woman who runs a rescue - nothing new for EGAR"
Good Lord - will you stop reading more into things than are there. No I wasn't threatening. You just seem to thrive on getting people's goats up and you achieve nothing by it - but more animosity instead of trying to come to some sort of agree to disagree formula.

Whispered

Discodog wrote: »

Btw it is bad etiquette to report a post & then comment on thread.

People have been banned for doing it (other haven't) but seeing as how LB doesn't regularly post here she probably didn't know.


Back to the conversation - I have to say I'd be permanantly damaged if I came upon a man with a gun in the forest. Permission or not it would terrify me. Even walking with my husband and dog, I worry about bumping into people, had never even considered bumping into a man with a gun. With regards to signs on the entrances, thats assuming you enter from the gates, we'd often park up and walk, coming out in another area then getting back to the car via the road. I'll be worried about that now.

Shanao

I'm pretty sure EGAR made that comment in regards to the hunters who were talking about shooting cats, not all the hunters who had commented here.

Discodog

LB6 wrote: »

Actually - it's my third post here Disco.

"Based on the comments made by the hunters who have posted here her comment is perfectly valid."

So - I could do the same thing and say that all the comments by the anti-hunters would justify me calling them ignorant and lumping ye all into one bunch too? Because I don't happen to agree with everything that's being said. That's just childish behavious and therefore I won't. I'm not IGNORANT or misguided.

I don't know about etiquette on reporting posts, that's not a worry for me - I'll check it out later.

This is the second time that a hunter has seriously misquoted me.

Your version in quotation marks:

"Based on the comments made by the hunters who have posted here her comment is perfectly valid."

What I actually said:

Discodog wrote: »

Based on the comments made by some of the hunters who have posted here

Did you conveniently edited out the "some" or were you just too quick & Jumped the Gun ?

seamus

Read before responding

______________________________________________________

Overall, we're happy with how this thread is progessing. People are generally arguing their points without losing the plot or becoming insulting. It would be nice to keep it that way.

If you feel yourself getting angry, please take five minutes; step away from the keyboard, stick on the kettle, maybe watch a little TV.

The quality or impact of your post will not be affected by how soon you respond to the previous poster. It will be affected by responding before you've considered your reponse.

There won't be any warnings on-thread.

LB6

Thank you Whispered, I didn't know.

"Jump the gun" who me? never - might hurt myself lol

BTW just because I shoot, doesn't make me a hunter!

homerhop

Whispered wrote: »

People have been banned for doing it (other haven't) but seeing as how LB doesn't regularly post here she probably didn't know.


Back to the conversation - I have to say I'd be permanantly damaged if I came upon a man with a gun in the forest. Permission or not it would terrify me. Even walking with my husband and dog, I worry about bumping into people, had never even considered bumping into a man with a gun. With regards to signs on the entrances, thats assuming you enter from the gates, we'd often park up and walk, coming out in another area then getting back to the car via the road. I'll be worried about that now.

I find that interesting Whispered,
How would it leave you permanantly damaged? and for the sake of being pc can we use the term person as there are females who like to hunt also.

Vegeta

Discodog wrote: »

Why don't you check yourself but my guess is that, in forming an oath, no one would ever imagine that a Vet would hunt because it would be totally opposed to his profession. Your attitude is that if the Oath doesn't mention it & you can debate the meaning of basic English then anything is allowed.



It doesn't have to be on a course of treatment. He didn't state it because he shot it - he clearly didn't care about the fox yet he is supposed to care about the welfare of animals.



The only one here who is fabricating or dreaming is you. You are free to interpret the role of a Vet in any way you like. Most people here use Vets & they do not need convincing.

So I see you still let your prejudice blind you.

Thanks for showing your inability to answer my straight forward request to back up your position with anything even resembling a fact.

ppink

Whispered wrote: »

People have been banned for doing it (other haven't) but seeing as how LB doesn't regularly post here she probably didn't know.


Back to the conversation - I have to say I'd be permanantly damaged if I came upon a man with a gun in the forest. Permission or not it would terrify me. Even walking with my husband and dog, I worry about bumping into people, had never even considered bumping into a man with a gun. With regards to signs on the entrances, thats assuming you enter from the gates, we'd often park up and walk, coming out in another area then getting back to the car via the road. I'll be worried about that now.

are they supposed to put signs on the entrances (sorry I must have missed that bit). I always thought the signs were for gun club outings as I cannot even count the amount of times I have come across people with guns in the woods - just individuals but no signs up.

Discodog

Vegeta wrote: »

So I see you still let your prejudice blind you.

Thanks for showing your inability to answer my straight forward request to back up your position with anything even resembling a fact.

It's not my position. I do not make the rules that govern the behaviour of Vets. The RCVS do not publish a lot of internal material.

The Vets actions will be judged by the RCVS & his clients. His employer must be taking the client view into account & has removed all references to the Vet on their website.

Why would one Vet remove another Vet from their site if they felt that he had done nothing wrong ?. Surely there would be messages of support on their site.

homerhop

If it is a club that has been given shooting rights to woodland as long as there are signs posted at main entrances it covers them. Each club has to give a list of members and prove that they have insurance.

Discodog

What is the law regarding shooting close to roads & public rights of way ?.

The following is from the Coillte Leisure Leaflet Pdf available here:

http://www.coillte.ie/fileadmin/user_upload/pdfs/Coillte_Eng_17.pdf

Hunting and shooting is restricted to selected forest areas where
they are not considered to compromise public safety.
•Where appropriate, Coillte may permit the use of it’s lands for
hunting and shooting by individuals, clubs/syndicates and commercial
operators in accordance with the principles of Coillte’s Sustainable
Forest Management and the laws on the use of firearms.
•Where hunting/shooting rights on Coillte lands are held/owned by
a third party, Coillte will inform all users of existence of such rights.
•Foxhunting is not permitted on Coillte’s lands except where there are
long established rights or conventions which pre-date Coillte’s ownership
of the land. ONLY in these cases is foxhunting allowed under permit.
•No recreational hunting will be permitted in Coillte Forest Parks.
Where culling is required in Forest Parks it will only be undertaken
by approved Coillte personnel or contractors.
•All persons exercising sporting rights on Coillte’s estate must comply
strictly with conditions of the licence agreement, the relevant laws
covering the use of firearms and any Coillte guidelines or codes of
practice that may be in place.

homerhop

Discodog wrote: »

It's not my position. I do not make the rules that govern the behaviour of Vets. The RCVS do not publish a lot of internal material.

The Vets actions will be judged by the RCVS & his clients. His employer must be taking the client view into account & has removed all references to the Vet on their website.

Why would one Vet remove another Vet from their site if they felt that he had done nothing wrong ?. Surely there would be messages of support on their site.

Well there is another senario Discodog,there are organisations out there who have no problems targeting that practise or members of its staff in the name of animal rights. Perhaps they took into concideration the safety of the rest of the staff. That is of course just a senario no more than your reason for taking him off the site.

Discodog

homerhop wrote: »

Well there is another senario Discodog,there are organisations out there who have no problems targeting that practise or members of its staff in the name of animal rights. Perhaps they took into concideration the safety of the rest of the staff. That is of course just a senario no more than your reason for taking him off the site.

I have not seen any reports of action by animal rights people. The only organisation that has suggested a protest is the Fox Project & they are a fox rescue. Surely if you were worried for the safety of staff you would remove their details as well. The only person missing is the Vet.

ppink

interesting coillte take on shooting to compromise public safety.

An area close to me has pheasants raised on it every year for shooting. one year we happened up there at the wrong time and while the guys on the left of us were getting the pheasants to fly up the guys on the rhs of the road were shooting out over our car at the pheasants. i did wonder if it was legal as it did not seem very safe to me.

the fox was not shot with a gun used for hunting was he?

maybe the vet practice just did not want the hassle?

homerhop

60 ft from a road, and depending on the right of way such as a river bank a foreshore licence can be got.

everypenny

everypenny wrote: »

So you know, i would be a huge advocate of safety when it comes to firearms, as would all the shooters and hunters i know. I feel i can safely speak for the ones i know in saying that at no point would we ever condone the firing of ammunition in the vicinity or around other people.

There has been many a day that i have been out shooting and have stopped because of people in the area. I would rather miss 1000 days hunting then have an accident on my hands.

At no stage would i fire a shot unless i knew where it was going to land ie ensuring that a propper backround was in place, so as to ensure that other people in the area,, property or livestock was not put at risk.

In regards to walking in the countryside, you are perfectly safe. If you wish to wear bright colours as is advised in america then do. I personally used to put them on my dog when out running to make it easier that he be seen by traffic, the same principal would apply here.

My original quote....

Discodog wrote: »

Because according to you & everypenny it is our responsibility to make sure that we don't get shot when walking in woods that we own.

You're stance on my quote...

Discodog wrote: »

This is the second time that a hunter has seriously misquoted me.
Did you conveniently edited out the "some" or were you just too quick & Jumped the Gun ?

It doesn't seem to bother you when you miss quote others though...

Discodog wrote: »

As this is your first post here how can she be referring to you ?. Based on the comments made by some of the hunters who have posted here her comment is perfectly valid. She used the singular so unless you are telepathic you have no idea who she was referring to.

She was reffering to me. And i still haven't recieved an explanation to why i was called ignorant and trigger happy... Nor have i recieved an explanation as to why you put words into my mouth without correction of that statement or an explanation as to how you felt that that statement could be considered to mean what you said