FieldSports Britain in the firing line

dev110

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OsvmBI9iGVk

There is a nice discussion going on on UK Varminting.
http://ukvarminting.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=16208&st=0

They were testing the effects the bullet will go through when is hits something before getting to the target. They were shooting through grass, branches, etc.

What can be clearly seen is Roy is shooting into a wood which is not considered a safe backstop. Also the chances of a ricochet are very high.

Roy registered with this response:

Roy Lumton wrote:

Please allow me to introduce myself. I am the Demon that has caused this rather interesting thread. I appreciate the critical stance in which your opinions have been proffered and I believe that a lively debate can resolve many issues.

On viewing this piece from a disconnected perspective, I can see the point which you are hammering home. However the conclusions that seem to have been assumed, by many of the contributors to this thread are simply "assumptions".

The filming was being done at the bottom of a valley, the shot angle was was at a slight downward angle and most importantly the line of scrub a few yards behind the top line of the target has grown up and in front of an old quarry face which rises up some 25 feet above the top line of the target. So just to quickly sum up, the back stop although interrupted with a few feet of foliage was more than ample considering all the given factors. Although I must admit that is purely my personal opinion.

When in a stalking or hunting situation we are very often faced with a similar shot option when a our intended quarry is standing in front of of a tree with a solid earth backstop immediately available behind the tree or bush.

I do understand your view point and in retrospect the camera angles did not show the shots in a favourable light, from an uninformed perspective.

I do hope this has answered some of your criticism and look forward to chatting with you all in the future.

Kind Regards

Roy.

What are ye thoughts on this?
Was it wise to post something like this that would cause serious danger to other people?

What I mean by this is, anybody that watches FieldSports might feel that having a wooded area would be considered a safe backstop and in return will cause serious danger to members of the public

patsat

I noticed that when watching I the other night!

That and the approach they had to shootin the stag made me feel like this episode was well below par.

rowa

I thought they should have opened the gate and let the animal on , it was clearly distressed and this was proven by taking three rounds at close range to kill it. The wisdom of videoing the whole thing and putting it on the web is asking for trouble.

garv123

It is hard to judge his back stop only using camera angles. I'm sure they knew where the bullets would end up safely in the ground.

But this is one of the good reasons why target shooting outside a range in Ireland is illegal. You see people the whole time on youtube shooting cans off tables and all sorts when using a bipod and half of them half no safe back stops at all.

The american guns lad made a 50 cal rifle in exchange for a chopper and he let the fella shoot at a barn half a mile away and the barn was the safe back stop.

dev110

Image from the behind the gun doesn't do any favours either

deeksofdoom

rowa wrote: »

I thought they should have opened the gate and let the animal on , it was clearly distressed and this was proven by taking three rounds at close range to kill it. The wisdom of videoing the whole thing and putting it on the web is asking for trouble.

I thought that too, they could have just opened the gate and left him out.:o

pugw

I would take his word for it, we should be sticking together rather than highlighting issues for the antis to latch onto, as for shooting the stag not much point letting him out the gate so he can just jump back in later on!

bazza888

it looks like the ground is rising well up behind the target after the 1st few trees?edit
just watched the 2 vids the one with the stag isnt great allright,and i guess even with a backstop as he is firing through the sticks the bullet could deflect at odd angle,so perhaps not the smartest thing to be doing

rowa

pugw wrote: »

I would take his word for it, we should be sticking together rather than highlighting issues for the antis to latch onto, as for shooting the stag not much point letting him out the gate so he can just jump back in later on!

I think they highlighted the issue by videoing the whole farce and posting it on their youtube channel themselves. it had nothing at all to do with hunting , three goons running up and down a field after the animal and it all getting more and more frantic. also i didn't see any backstop in this video either. Finally maybe getting the "shooters" doing a bit of maintenance on the gates and fences etc might have stopped this deer, and any other jumping into the field again.

howya mike

Just an observation but I wonder if the guys at field sports Britain looked at some of the threads videos and photos on this forum what would they have to say about them. I never judge videos or photos as camera angles etc can be very deceiving and Not give a true account of what really happened. Sorry but I don't think we should be discussing this.

dev110

howya mike wrote: »

Sorry but I don't think we should be discussing this.

Why not?

howya mike

Well because I don't like seeing any aspect of our sport criticised. I've seen lots of videos on this forum which could be used by fieldsports Britain to criticise in one way or another but I'm sure it wouldn't enter their mind as why would they want to highlight anything negative about the sport.
Just my opinion.

It wasn't me!

howya mike wrote: »

Well because I don't like seeing any aspect of our sport criticised. I've seen lots of videos on this forum which could be used by fieldsports Britain to criticise in one way or another but I'm sure it wouldn't enter their mind as why would they want to highlight anything negative about the sport.
Just my opinion.

Not all criticism is invalid. We should be constantly open to information and discussion. We need to be demonstrably interested in pursuing best practices and reevaluating to make sure we keep up with any and all thoughts and ideas. Blindly backing people to the hilt just because you share a common interest is a very poor policy, and if you see stuff here that you think is less than best practice, you should open a discussion on it. The absolute best thing about a place like this is that you can air such opinions and more information can become available.

pugw

dev110 wrote: »

Why not?

The man who shot the video has clarified the issue and confirmed that the area he was firing into provided a safe backstop, considering he broadcast the film on the internet in a country full of antis, do-gooders and a heavy handed police force I would be willing to accept he is telling the truth! The reason I think we should let sleeping dogs lie is that the more hype made about it on forums the more likely it is that someone with an agenda against fieldsports Britain and what they are trying to do will pick up on it and complain him to the police! Just my opinion i have no problem with lads criticising the video just think its shooting ourselves in the foot!

dev110

I posted up this thread to discuss about showing Roy shooting into what looks like a wooded area. No where in the video was there mention of a raised bank behind the wood and there was no comment on Youtube explaining it either.

For people who don't read here or UKVarminting I wouldn't be surprised if they went out and started shooting at a target where they used a wooded area as a backstop because they saw it in one of Fieldsports Britain's video.

Most people know that using a wooded area isn't a good idea.

There was a thread up here a year or more ago where a user nearly got shot because someone was shooting at a target with a wood as a backstop.

I don't see how we are shooting ourselves in the foot by discussing safe backstops or by saying they don't agree with how the wild stag was dealt with.

howya mike

Well if your going to criticise field sports Britain videos are you going to be as critical of some videos on here? Are we going to be allowed talk and criticise them if we see something wrong? Would it be wise for us to do this or would we be shooting ourselves in the foot? Would we be helping the sport in doing so?
I'm all for healthy criticism and do not just agree and blindly support anything hunting or shooting related but the man in the video gave his explanation which is enough for me and doesn't need to be brought up on other forums. Safety should be thought at junior and club level. The amount of shooters that look at this site is a tiny proportion of the total amount and so it's really doing nothing but it only takes one or two antis to see it and start shouting.

Vegeta

howya mike wrote: »

Well if your going to criticise field sports Britain videos are you going to be as critical of some videos on here?

Link to a few of those videos if you get a chance

howya mike

Vegeta wrote: »

howya mike wrote: »

Well if your going to criticise field sports Britain videos are you going to be as critical of some videos on here?

Link to a few of those videos if you get a chance

Why???
I don't have an issue with any videos on here.
It's a simple question I asked

Vegeta

howya mike wrote: »

Why???
I don't have an issue with any videos on here.
It's a simple question I asked

Cool, I just wanted to know if there were specific videos here you had issue with. If there were any, I would have definitely been up for an open discussion of any potential safety issues shown in them.

So I suppose from my point of view, if a video with questionable content is posted here (and is not an attempt at trolling) I would happily discuss it.

It wasn't me!

Yes, absolutely agree with Vegeta. If it's been put online, it's fair game for discussion on any observations, and it's important that we do so. It's not enough to be safe; you have to be *seen* to be safe, and that means the generation of discussion, criticism and comment is the healthiest thing we can be doing.

howya mike

Great lads. I'll agree and disagree with yous. I'm all for safety but I'll stick to my guns on this one.
Thanks

Sparks

howya mike wrote: »

Great lads. I'll agree and disagree with yous. I'm all for safety but I'll stick to my guns on this one.
Thanks

That's grand Mike; and just as soon as we drop the forum rule against illegal stuff being condoned and you see a video of Irish shooters doing illegal things (and there've been enough posted here only to be deleted by the mods), then you might just actually have a point.

Until that stage, mind, you're arguing that you should be allowed to carry a taser for self-defence in case a lingerie football team try to kidnap you for use as a mascot.

Unless you wanted to go make the point on other forums with less scruples, that is. :rolleyes:

howya mike

Sparks wrote: »

howya mike wrote: »

Great lads. I'll agree and disagree with yous. I'm all for safety but I'll stick to my guns on this one.
Thanks

That's grand Mike; and just as soon as we drop the forum rule against illegal stuff being condoned and you see a video of Irish shooters doing illegal things (and there've been enough posted here only to be deleted by the mods), then you might just actually have a point.

Until that stage, mind, you're arguing that you should be allowed to carry a taser for self-defence in case a lingerie football team try to kidnap you for use as a mascot.

Unless you wanted to go make the point on other forums with less scruples, that is. :rolleyes:

Ehhh. Sorry but have I missed something???? What's this about me arguing that you should be allowed carry a TASER for SELF DEFENCE in case a LINGERIE FOOTBALL TEAM try to KIDNAP me for a MASCOT.
What are you talking about ?????? I really don't understand.
Unless i want to make the point on other forums with less scruples? What are you implying?

Lullymore24

howya mike wrote: »

Well if your going to criticise field sports Britain videos are you going to be as critical of some videos on here? Are we going to be allowed talk and criticise them if we see something wrong? Would it be wise for us to do this or would we be shooting ourselves in the foot? Would we be helping the sport in doing so?
I'm all for healthy criticism and do not just agree and blindly support anything hunting or shooting related but the man in the video gave his explanation which is enough for me and doesn't need to be brought up on other forums. Safety should be thought at junior and club level. The amount of shooters that look at this site is a tiny proportion of the total amount and so it's really doing nothing but it only takes one or two antis to see it and start shouting.

I see your point Mike
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=80851297&postcount=9

I posted that Video on this site Almost 10 days ago as I had watched it and found it highly informative and useful.
(Nobody questioned my post at the time)

I do also agree that finding faults where there aren't any is not in the interests of fellow hunters.(A picture or video can be twisted to show something that is not there, there are enough shooting Anti's doing that every day)

FSB was a breath of fresh air when it first graced our screens.
It is a pitty that instead of knocking it, someone here would not try to make an Irish version of it.
I have watched several episodes that featured Ireland in a good light.

Just my thoughts on the subject as an avid fan of the Show.
I tend to watch the show more that read forms as I like to take on board the experiences of guys who do a lot of Shooting and hunting.

I have leaned a lot from that show and it's spin off series.
I don't know what anybody on this forums experiences are, but I doubt much have hunted as much as Roy Lupton.
<I have no affiliation to the show or members on it, just am a fan and giving my view>

Sparks

howya mike wrote: »

What are you implying?

That you're making this argument, not because you really believe in what you're saying, but because you want to get a dig in at this forum.

Or are you saying that shooters are a special case, in that if we see one of our own doing something stupid, we should never ever criticise their actions, regardless of whether those actions are unsafe or illegal -- but anyone else should get both barrels to the face on the mere suspicion of doing anything untoward?

'Cos I'm not sure which of the two of those is more disconnected from reality, to be honest.

howya mike

I am not having a dig at this forum.
I said my piece and both agreed and disagreed and was happy to leave it at that.
If you look back at some of my posts including threads that have been deleted you will see that I'm probably the first to criticise if i see something either unsafe or illegal. If I was to go onto another forum and somebody used a video or pic from boards and had a go I would also defend boards. I know the mods have a difficult job and have rightly deleted some content but it's my opinion and speaking from experience that pics and videos can be very deceiving. I could make a photo look like I was shooting directly at a house when in reality I'd be know where near it. A highly experienced and highly regarded shooter with more credibility than probably most shooters in this country has been unfortunately caught out like this and gave a very valid excuse and this thread should be about supporting him. If we want to talk about using a wooded area as a safe backdrop why not start a new thread asking everyone and without mentioning any specific shooter or fields sport Britain and I will gladly get involved and my answer would be short and sweet. NO.

pugw

Sparks wrote: »

That you're making this argument, not because you really believe in what you're saying, but because you want to get a dig in at this forum.

Being a bit overly paranoid there sparks and harsh on mike! The way i interpreted what he said was that there may be a video or photo uploaded here that looks worse than it actually is, but by some of us acting like the internet police we are giving those who oppose our sport ammo to discredit it. I dont think he was having a dig at this forum and he politely agreed to disagree with the lads who wished to criticise Roy's video! On the other hand your posts were sarcastic and condescending . . . .

Sparks wrote: »

That's grand Mike; and just as soon as we drop the forum rule against illegal stuff being condoned and you see a video of Irish shooters doing illegal things (and there've been enough posted here only to be deleted by the mods), then you might just actually have a point.

Until that stage, mind, you're arguing that you should be allowed to carry a taser for self-defence in case a lingerie football team try to kidnap you for use as a mascot.

Unless you wanted to go make the point on other forums with less scruples, that is. :rolleyes:

deeksofdoom

Howya Mike, made a very valid point in first post, shooters should stick together. Roy Lupton gave his explanation, you just have to take it at face value that he was telling the truth. There is no need to debate it.

As bad as fieldsports britain can be from time to time, it can also be quite entertaining and if you do get sick of it you will eventually go back and watch all the episodes you've missed.

dicky82

well i thought this weeks episode of 'FSB' would have a bit of explaining about back stops and obstacles. . .
there was some fox shooting in a wood. . . i hope nobody watching it goes out thinking it's ok to shoot foxes in a wood. . .