first sika velvet stag under section 42

browning 12 bore

was out early this morning seen a nice little set on antlers nice distance away roughly 250 yards dropped him with my 80 grain winchester 243 was very happy:D but then i went to bring it to a local game dealer cause had no one for it yet any way brought it in and as a trained hunter i thaught it was going to be easier but it seemed there was more bloody paper work than before :mad:

moby30

Thanks for the story and pics Browning.

kildare.17hmr

Nice one browning 12 bore!

He only got his section 42 in the last week iirc

browning 12 bore

its look a healthy animal its a deer that is doing damage to the famers land knocking down fences tearing up grounds around a farmers plantation as well

dodderangler

It's a lovely stag aswell
I would've liked to see full body with head attached mate
Next time take with all body
Best of luck with the rest of the season

dodderangler

Mate you have F all to apologise about
You got a licence to shoot deer out of season cuz they cause a problem you are well within your rights to shoot any deer As long as its within the limits of how many your allowed
Atb

Cass

All "missing" posts have been moved to another thread.

That thread is not currently available. All posts on this thread are to be on topic.

crackcrack30

What crop/product was he causing damage to & over what area? how many deer are there and what was the ratio of males to females /@foot roughly .....was he the largest head?..... .how many more need to come out?...ect.....interesting.......

robertpatterson

crackcrack30 wrote: »

What crop/product was he causing damage to & over what area? how many deer are there and what was the ratio of males to females /@foot roughly .....was he the largest head?..... .how many more need to come out?...ect.....interesting.......

Why?
Hes got the section 42 from the dept
Surely that leaves him shoot whatever they say he can shoot
Some people might not look on this favourably but if hes clear and legal(which he is)
then i dont see a problem
Well done Browning

moby30

Section 42's are not given out like sweets, and anyone who tried to get one in the last year alone will know that its increasingly more difficult. Who the hell do people think they are questioning this anyway? After you submit an application it is followed up by an inspection by your local ranger who assesses the whole situation and if you cannot prove any damage is being done you WILL NOT get approval. To question this in any way is undermining the OP, His local ranger and the NPWS. Thats something Id expect from the antis not fellow deer shooters:eek:

dev110

Lads any more of this questioning the OP on the health of the animal, the legality of what was done, etc will not be tolerated.

The OP has a Section 42 and is perfectly legal and is doing his job of reducing the amount of damage the deer are doing.

Ignoring this will result in Infractions and/or Bans.

dodderangler

crackcrack30 wrote: »

What crop/product was he causing damage to & over what area? how many deer are there and what was the ratio of males to females /@foot roughly .....was he the largest head?..... .how many more need to come out?...ect.....interesting.......

The questions you asked there would've been takin into account when the ranger came out to inspect the land And the damage done

moby30

E. Fudd wrote: »

I know of a section 42 given out this year without any inspection by the NPWS of land / damage. Application posted in, section 42 posted back.

Thats a very big statement you have made there. Do you know personally the peron who it was given too? Did you contact the local ranger to voice your concerns? did you contact the NPWS to to question why it was given without inspection? If you are so concerned about this topic why dont you make yourself known to the NPWS and find out the full facts of the case you are talking about and come back and tell us. Its very easy to make an off the cuff remark like that without backing it up again thats something Id expect the antis to post up on a public forum to try and discredit our sport.
BTW Its in all our intrests to be selective in the animals we cull to ensure a healthy herd and nobody including myself would take any pleasure in having to take a healthy stag out of season with a section 42 but from time to time it has to be done unfortunately.

crackcrack30

robertpatterson wrote: »

Why?
Hes got the section 42 from the dept
Surely that leaves him shoot whatever they say he can shoot
Some people might not look on this favourably but if hes clear and legal(which he is)
then i dont see a problem
Well done Browning

The op started this thread, did he not expect interest, comment, questionds especially since he gave limited info to start with, i have no problem with 42s when needed, but with so little info that thread may have well been started in the forestry or farming section.............

lb1981

I think the shooting section on boards should be limited to registered users and anybody question a poster on the morality of anything they shot should be band as this is not the place for them.
As hunters we have an obligation to land owner's to carry out crop protection for them because without them we have no sport and if that means shooting bambi then so be it.
I see suggestions that he should have left that stag and just shot a sick or injured one??? What if there was none,what does he tell the land owner,sorry I can't shoot anything for you because the do gooders won't like it.
He had a section 42 so he could go out there and shoot what he wants and anybody question that doesnt have a clue about this sport and certainly doesn't belong on this forum.

Cass

Questions, and comments are welcome in this thread as they are in every other thread. However some people were unable to control themselves, and the posts that were removed contained abuse on a level i have only seen coming from those opposed to hunting. IOW anti's.

Section 42's are issued, and the OP stated clearly in this thread, and his previous thread a week ago, that he had the appropriate licenses, etc. So the issue is not one of whether his actions were legal they were of an ethical, and moral theme. Such discussions are not permitted as they always invite trouble in the form of anti's using the thread as a platform to spout their nonsense.

The rule was also implemented to protect the users of the forum from such abuse, and give them a safe place to discuss their sport. I am personally surprised that some posts were of the same vein as those previously posted by antis however my personal opinions aside they broke the forum rules the same as the anti hunting groups so they were removed.

If people can keep their emotions in the check, and ask civilised questions they will get civilised answers, and not run the risk of having their posts removed.

Read the rules people. They tell you what specifically can, and cannot be discussed. Whether to use a 58 gr or 150 gr bullet for a clean kill is a perfectly suitable topic in terms of "ethics". However asking if a section 42, deer hunting, etc is ethical or right is not permitted. It's legal therefore it is up to the person to decide that for him/herself.


Let's keep this civil lads. There is no need for arguments or aggressive tones. It serves no purpose, your point will be lost in the background of anger, and most likely the post will be removed meaning your point is gone.

moby30

Well firstly if I appear aggressive towards you I apologise.
But,

Firstly: I have seen somebody have what I see make a personal attack on a hunter in terms of implying that they were wrong in culling what appears to be a healthy stag even though it was done 100% legally.

Secondly: Ive seen somebody in my opinion stoop to a low by posting a pic that was put up on facebook by the OP which correct me if im wrong is not allowed on this forum.

Thirdly: I have seen somebody post a very sarcastic remark about the whole "Trained Hunter" topic which regardless of what we may or may not think of it does not warrent such an attack especially as the op is obviously very proud of having it and did it in his own words-"To Better Himself"

Finally Ive seen somebody put up a post that appears to say you can just send off an application for a section 42 and "Hey Presto" you have it

I will and always will stick up for people I think are being accused in the wrong or unfairly attacked without the full facts being known and especially if I think the argument is doing our sport damage so for this I make no apology.

Lastly if its a friend of yours that has the section has he had one before on the same land? or was it just the first time applying and for a new permission, but I fully believe and I say from first hand experience that the NPWS WILL NOT give a section 42 without investigation. I fully understand and dont expect you to give out all the details but I think thats a very serious assertion and that there may well have a valid reason why one was given without an inspection and if not here is not the place to discuss it, the responsible thing to do is take it up with the NPWS.

deeksofdoom

I've no problem with a farmer having a section 42 to shoot deer that are causing damage to his crops or the fellah who gets asked to do it. Go away about your buisness and discretely cull the animals and thats it, job done.

dodderangler

I have yet to shoot a nice stag like that and when I eventually do I'd put it up on billboards of I have to cuz its a proud moment in any persons life of hunting to take a nice stag

ssl

This kind of OP bashing will make people post in the photo section where there is no discussion and that will make this place boring.

Some people are talking like they are estate managers and not about protecting crops which are people's livelyhoods.

Well done browning.

alderdeer

dodderangler wrote: »

I have yet to shoot a nice stag like that and when I eventually do I'd put it up on billboards of I have to cuz its a proud moment in any persons life of hunting to take a nice stag

I agree completely isn't that what the hunting forum is for even if it is out of season just once its shot legally its a proud moment for the hunter. That's a lovely head were you long stalking him browning

Sparks

moby30 wrote: »

Firstly: I have seen somebody have what I see make a personal attack on a hunter in terms of implying that they were wrong in culling what appears to be a healthy stag even though it was done 100% legally.

...and then you saw that post being deleted.

Secondly: Ive seen somebody in my opinion stoop to a low by posting a pic that was put up on facebook by the OP which correct me if im wrong is not allowed on this forum.

...and then you saw that post being deleted.

Thirdly: I have seen somebody post a very sarcastic remark about the whole "Trained Hunter" topic which regardless of what we may or may not think of it does not warrent such an attack especially as the op is obviously very proud of having it and did it in his own words-"To Better Himself"

...and then you saw that post being deleted.

Finally Ive seen somebody put up a post that appears to say you can just send off an application for a section 42 and "Hey Presto" you have it

...and then you saw that post being deleted.

Look moby, I know what you're saying but:

1. We can't delete the posts before they're posted y'know. And we don't pre-moderate every comment on here. So if you do see posts like that, odds are they're about to go away fairly quickly; and
2. If you do see posts like that, don't respond to them. Hit the report post button and let us know they're there in case we've missed them, and then just walk away.

Don't post arguing with the poster, don't quote the post, don't feed the troll. Just walk away and let the mods deal with it. We get emailed as soon as you hit the report post button and there are four of us, so the response time is getting better. But if you just argue with the trolling, you're adding to the workload because now we have to delete the offending post and then delete the posts that quoted it, referenced it, argued with it, and so on. And then we have to explain to those posters when they inevitably PM us full of righteous indignation just why we had to delete their posts. It takes what would be a five minute job and turns it into anything up to a half-hour of typing (and thats for me, touchtyping and with a fibre optic internet connection - it can take a lot longer if the mod is modding from his phone or has a bad dialup connection or whatever).

moby30

Thats no problem Sparks but I am on the phone most of the time and not being the best with technology y'know so it can take me a while to respond to a post and in this case some of the posts were deleted as i was writing and the first ive known of them is when i finally get to press the send button. Didnt realise that regular posters would be considered Trolls either but now I do.

Thanks

BTW Although both sides got a bit carried away myself included I think it was a good enough debate and interesting to see others point of view.

Sparks

moby30 wrote: »

Didnt realise that regular posters would be considered Trolls either

Only when they're trolling...

sikahuntejack

The sooner they stop giveing out secton 42 the better the deer are getting slaughtered enought with poachers durning the season without being shot out of season dont get me wrong when deer numbers were plentyfull go back 10 years ago i was all for section 42 but we have all seen a drop in numbers in the last few years. credit to the lad its a nice sika he shot

dodderangler

sikahuntejack wrote: »

The sooner they stop giveing out secton 42 the better the deer are getting slaughtered enought with poachers durning the season without being shot out of season dont get me wrong when deer numbers were plentyfull go back 10 years ago i was all for section 42 but we have all seen a drop in numbers in the last few years. credit to the lad its a nice sika he shot

Jesus The land I hunt and have hunted for years has more deer than rabbits and you can see the damage they do in the forestry area and on the meadows
And especially to fences

raymonjdevine

From what I can see, lads are fierce "protective" of deer, that basically do more damage to crops, fences & livestock than any bunny or fox will ever do :eek:

And what really amazes me it that some of the same lads will happily shoot whatever number of bunnies & foxes they meet

If these lads were loosing money because of the number of deer on their property I wonder would they as "protective" of them?

browning 12 bore

well there fella thanks it was a nice head and a nice bit of damge as well and i dont they would stop section 42 casue all section 42 are investagated so if there caseing damage then they hava to do something for the farmer, not inrelation to you comment they get hit in season by poachers i totally agree with you on that but thats all i agree with you on

Grizzly 45

FWIW,I personally find the idea of Sect 42's rehensible in the extreme.
To me it's a lazy mans method of keepering/farming or whatever you wish to call it.Dont get me wrong,I understand perfectly the reasons behind it,but I dont have to agree with them.

I think it should be a "final solution" rather than the norm,once every other method has been tried to discourage the deer out of the farmers crop or plantation.IE have piegon bangers been tried?Electric fences?Checking first off when the plantation was founded was the proper research done on the deer numbers in the area ,and was proper deer fencing installed from the get go??And if not why not??

Even if need be peppering the deer with rock salt from a shotgun??
I would actually consider that part of a rangers job in conjunction with the hunter who has the lease,to advise and try and prevent first ,shoot second and lastly.
Rather than just come down inspect the damage, walk around ,shrug say "grand so,deer have done damage,...Heres your 42 off you go!"

If they are as thin on the ground as claimed,would it not be better to discourage them first from a certain area,rather than permantly removing them for good??
Just my 2cents.

crackcrack30

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

Even if need be peppering the deer with rock salt from a shotgun??

Just my 2cents.

Gorden fu*ken ramsey eat your heart out thats hardcore food prep Limerick style....................:D

kildare.17hmr

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

FWIW,I personally find the idea of Sect 42's rehensible in the extreme.
To me it's a lazy mans method of keepering/farming or whatever you wish to call it.Dont get me wrong,I understand perfectly the reasons behind it,but I dont have to agree with them.

I think it should be a "final solution" rather than the norm,once every other method has been tried to discourage the deer out of the farmers crop or plantation.IE have piegon bangers been tried?Electric fences?Checking first off when the plantation was founded was the proper research done on the deer numbers in the area ,and was proper deer fencing installed from the get go??And if not why not??

Even if need be peppering the deer with rock salt from a shotgun??
I would actually consider that part of a rangers job in conjunction with the hunter who has the lease,to advise and try and prevent first ,shoot second and lastly.
Rather than just come down inspect the damage, walk around ,shrug say "grand so,deer have done damage,...Heres your 42 off you go!"

If they are as thin on the ground as claimed,would it not be better to discourage them first from a certain area,rather than permantly removing them for good??
Just my 2cents.

There was a documentory i watched about black bears and the ranger lad was shooti
Them with rubber bullets fro the pump action in resudential areas to get rid of them, seemed to work in fairness and cant imagine why it wouldnt for deer.

Not against section 42 at all and i would have done the same as the OP in that situation. Just puttin it out there

ttemme

dodderangler wrote: »

Jesus The land I hunt and have hunted for years has more deer than rabbits and you can see the damage they do in the forestry area and on the meadows
And especially to fences

Tell the truth now;)

steyrman

fair play browning the land owner has a problem with deer and your there to give a hand sort it out .

On the other side why are people jumping on the band wagon when it comes to sec 42 if it is not on your land and it had no effect on your shooting why give someone a hard time . during the season on the farms i shoot deer become nocturnal very hard to cull them . Sec 42 this time of year would keep on top of them as the are feeding different times of the day along with doing damage to standing crops and fencing the time to cull deer is when there doing most damage imo

Fallow01

I thought the main Game Dealers are not taking Section 42 deer this year due to low numbers, which Game Dealer(s) are still buying?

garv123

Fallow01 wrote: »

I thought the main Game Dealers are not taking Section 42 deer this year due to low numbers, which Game Dealer(s) are still buying?

The said it to make themselves look better more like, they run a business and aren't going to turn away easy money at the end of the day

ttemme

garv123 wrote: »

The said it to make themselves look better more like, they run a business and aren't going to turn away easy money at the end of the day

Will never understand people selling what they hunt & shoot, goes against everything huntings about IMO