Fox shooting! Not classed as sport shooting??

Zxthinger

anyone able to shed any light in the statement. It seems that the AGS guidelines state that fox shooting is not classed as a sport!

Personally I class it as my sport but I do carry it out with an objective that includes game management and livestock protection. Yet on several permissions there is nothing to protect or manage yet I have shot fixes there too!

Is there some reason why fox shooting would not fall under the sporting banner!

Any thoughts on the issue lads.

Cass

Most likely because they are not a game species.

Most other Fauna/Fowl have no season or a certain season. Anything else is afforded basic animal rights but not coverage under the wildlife act. Rabbits would fall under the same banner as Foxes. So while population control is necessary it would not be classed as a sport.

juice1304

It's not a sport, People shoot them for a reason. You may take it as your sport but there is no world fox shooting championship. I would class target shooting as a sport as it is, but if i am shooting rabbits, fox, deer etc.. i am hunting. I am doing it for a purpose either for food/crop protection or to protect livestock.
I would never class shooting an animal as sport, I take no pleasure in the kill, I may take pleasure from the fillet steak though:pac:. That is just my opinion on the matter though.

deeksofdoom

juice1304 wrote: »

It's not a sport, People shoot them for a reason. You may take it as your sport but there is no world fox shooting championship. I would class target shooting as a sport as it is, but if i am shooting rabbits, fox, deer etc.. i am hunting. I am doing it for a purpose either for food/crop protection or to protect livestock.
I would never class shooting an animal as sport, I take no pleasure in the kill, I may take pleasure from the fillet steak though:pac:. That is just my opinion on the matter though.

Ah come on now, come down off your moral high horse. You get no pleasure in the hunting part just the eating part:rolleyes:. Either your living in Alaska or you need another hobby.

Ever before there was football, hurling, soccer, etc..., there was hunting which is also a sport.

juice1304

deeksofdoom wrote: »

Ah come on now, come down off your moral high horse. You get no pleasure in the hunting part just the eating part:rolleyes:. Either your living in Alaska or you need another hobby.

Ever before there was football, hurling, soccer, etc..., there was hunting which is also a sport.

No i didn't say hunting just the kill. Don't twist my words. I enjoy stalking/hunting for many reasons, I'm not singing from a moral high horse. I said i don't get pleasure from the kill it is simply part of it and i am not alone in my thinking. I have great respect for my quarry. And don't need another hobby hunting is more of a lifestyle choice as it envelops every aspect of my life. People do things for different reasons and I am entitled to my opinion.

cookimonster

In the commissioners guidelines foxs are mentioned at least three times;
Firstly they are classed as vermin and fall under vermin control (hence Cass's point)
Secoundly there's mention of lamping,
Thirdly they talk about suitablity of calibre, where it mentions the OPs point about a non sporting activity, it then uses this point of view to say that the if there are no reasons to shoot foxes in a particular area then there's no 'good reason' to possess such a rifle.

I would assume this is the same line of thinking that should be observed by the GS upon deciding the suitability of each applicants shooting permissions for each firearm.
Hypothetical situation: applicant puts in for a .223 his land permisson is on a dairy farm, no game birds etc, is there a just reason for fox control?
By the way this is not my opinion just my reasoning as to the guidelines train of thought.

As a by the by, I belive, and please enlighten me, in the UK you need prior permisson from the firearms licenseing authority to hunt foxs???......

tac foley

Cass wrote: »

Most likely because they are not a game species.

Most other Fauna/Fowl have no season or a certain season. Anything else is afforded basic animal rights but not coverage under the wildlife act. Rabbits would fall under the same banner as Foxes.

There is one major difference between rabbit and fox - rabbits, I'm told, are 'a small furry animal used for making pie' whereas there is, AFIAA, no similar recipe exists for foxes.

tac

tac foley

cookimonster wrote: »

As a by the by, I belive, and please enlighten me, in the UK you need prior permisson from the firearms licenseing authority to hunt foxs???......

Here in UK foxes are classed as vermin. You can shoot them by having the condition 'pest control' entered on your firearms certificate, although you DO have to provide proof that relevant landowners have given you permission - just like you do in RoI.

I can't shoot foxes as I am only allowed to shoot targets - that is the 'condition' and 'good reason' for my firearms ownership.

Here in UK only those persons who have pest control/deer stalking as conditions can legally purchase and possess soft-point/expanding ammunition OR bullet. For target shooters like me, the penalties for the illlegal possession of even a single round of expanding ammunition OR bullet start with the seizure of all your guns, the suspension of your firearms certificate, an enormous fine and the extreme likelihood of a five-year vacation from the cares of the outside world in one of HM Prisons.

tac

syklops

tac foley wrote: »

There is one major difference between rabbit and fox - rabbits, I'm told, are 'a small furry animal used for making pie' whereas there is, AFIAA, no similar recipe exists for foxes.

tac

Do you like casserole?

tac foley

syklops wrote: »

Do you like casserole?

Sir, I am corrected, thank you. :eek:

However, I have no doubt at all that such a repast is not kosher.

You can have it.

tac

outfoxing

shooting foxes is a sport for me as I spend a lot of time rearing game birds feeding etc , maybe it's not politically correct to say so but that's just the case

cookimonster

Wheather it is indeed a sport or a necessary vermin control measure PC or not I certainly enjoy a outing of lamping or early morning calling as I find it quite challenging.
I don't always get my fox so to me they have a sporting chance.

Zxthinger

tac foley wrote: »

Here in UK foxes are classed as vermin. You can shoot them by having the condition 'pest control' entered on your firearms certificate, although you DO have to provide proof that relevant landowners have given you permission - just like you do in RoI.

I can't shoot foxes as I am only allowed to shoot targets - that is the 'condition' and 'good reason' for my firearms ownership.

Here in UK only those persons who have pest control/deer stalking as conditions can legally purchase and possess soft-point/expanding ammunition OR bullet. For target shooters like me, the penalties for the illlegal possession of even a single round of expanding ammunition OR bullet start with the seizure of all your guns, the suspension of your firearms certificate, an enormous fine and the extreme likelihood of a five-year vacation from the cares of the outside world in one of HM Prisons.

tac

You must have sleepless nights about thinking about regulation pertaining to ammo types!..your always preaching concern about hm prison and avoiding a stay!
Calm down mate! Please!

tac foley

Zxthinger wrote: »

You must have sleepless nights about rulesva regulation pertaining to ammo types!..your always preaching concern about hm prison and avoiding a stay!
Calm down mate! Please!

Just noting the differences between the RoI and the UK, that's all. YOU can buy any type of ammunition you feel like.

tac

Zxthinger

Ok the short of it is that nobody knows! And as per normal Garda guidelines give "Garda speak" and not statute speak!
,
So answer me this! Are foxes governed or owned under sporting rights!

Say a farmer owns land but not sporting rights! Surely he is entitled to protect his livestock!..

Cass

Zxthinger wrote: »

Ok the short of it is that nobody knows!

You've gotten your answer. If you want a statute or law then i'm afraid there are none. If an animal is not specifically listed on a protected species list then it's not mentioned at all. IOW there is no such thing as a vermin list. It's a term we use much like FO (Firearms Officer)

So answer me this! Are foxes governed or owned under sporting rights!

No fox is owned. Ever. They are a wild species. IOW you cannot say not to shoot a certain fox or foxes from a certain area because you own the land.

You are getting sporting right confused with ownership. Sporting rights is the person who holds the legal right to shoot on lands. This does not entitle them to claim ownership of any animal on those lands (wild animals).

Say a farmer owns land but not sporting rights! Surely he is entitled to protect his livestock!..

Of course he is.

Under the control of dogs act if a dog is worrying livestock you are meant to inform the dog warden, inform the owner of the dog, then you may take action and inform the Gardaí after you have done so. Now this is all well and fine, but if you see a dog attacking your livestock you're not going to sit back and follow procedure. You have the right to defend your livestock.


I use this only as an example and not to open a debate on dog shooting as frankly it's been done to death.

zen260

come on lads really??we all take pleasure in the kill deep down inside,,,

wexfordman2

zen260 wrote: »

come on lads really??we all take pleasure in the kill deep down inside,,,

Can't say I agree,in fact it's the one thing that always makes me wince a bit.not that I think I'm doing wrong or anythibg like that,but we'll aware that I am ending the existence of an animal that has as much a diesire to live as I do.

zen260

wexfordman2 wrote: »

Can't say I agree,in fact it's the one thing that always makes me wince a bit.not that I think I'm doing wrong or anythibg like that,but we'll aware that I am ending the existence of an animal that has as much a diesire to live as I do.

i understand what you are saying,,truth is most shooters calm there doing it for vermin control-management ect to justify the killing of an animal ,,but really at the end of the day most enjoy the kill but most will never admit to that,,

homerhop

I enjoy the hunt and always a well placed shot that the animal is killed fast and cleanly. Every fox I shoot I will look at and admire what a fine creature they are.

Zxthinger

Cass! Say you shoot a deer, and it jumps into your neighbours property!..

You can't claim it! It's on his property and he owns it!..

I have access to land with the sporting rights held by others! Doesn't stop me shooting there! As long as I'm not hunting it's fine.

And as far as ownership of wild hunted animals go! Yes you own them while they are own your property!!!! That's how the sporting rights works!!

I don't know how you managed to introduce dogs to the issue! They are nothing to do with hunting or sport!

Cass

Zxthinger wrote: »

Cass! Say you shoot a deer, and it jumps into your neighbours property!..

You can't claim it! It's on his property and he owns it!..

That's right. Unless you speak to the landowner, explain what happened, and see if they give you permission to retrieve the deer. However that is when it's shot. He does not own it before hand. Same applies with all animals. Not just deer.

Also section 23 allows for a defense for the purpose of humanely dispatching a wounded or injured animal. This is not a given, but a defense.

I have access to land with the sporting rights held by others! Doesn't stop me shooting there! As long as I'm not hunting it's fine.

What?

So you have "access" to land, but others hold the sporting rights? Have they, the sporting rights holder, given you permission to shoot on the land? If not then you have no right to shoot.

Also if you're not hunting then what are you doing? It's either hunting or nothing. As target shooting outside a range is an offence.

And as far as ownership of wild hunted animals go! Yes you own them while they are own your property!!!! That's how the sporting rights works!!

No.

If a person owned the animals on their land they would be legally responsible for the welfare of those animals. Other than it being a nightmare to enforce it is simply not the case. They own them if they are injured, wounded or caught on the person's land in such a condition. However if they are alive, well, uninjured, etc. then they are not owned by any person unless that person put them there and can prove such.

I don't know how you managed to introduce dogs to the issue! They are nothing to do with hunting or sport!

I used it as an example. Protection of livestock, etc.

cookimonster

Zxthinger wrote: »

And as far as ownership of wild hunted animals go! Yes you own them while they are own your property!!!!

Under the wildlife act no one owns wild animals etc, if you legally hunt them then after they have been hunted they become the property of the Hunter. You may retrieve your property with prior permisson of a land owner as in the example you have given.
There is a difference between owning livestock and penned birds then wild birds / animals.
Penned game birds under EU regs are classified as poultry, once released for the purpose of restocking they become wild birds.

If released birds cross the boundary of one permission to another they can be legally shot by an other party, not because of land ownership but by the fact they are in the wild and no longer on the original property. Obviously if they where still on your property only you and designated others are allowed to legally hunt them.

Zxthinger

"Also if you're not hunting then what are you doing? It's either hunting or nothing. As target shooting outside a range is an offence." cass

I don't need the permission from the holder of the 'sporting rights' to shoot on land when I have permission to be there from the owner!

There is zeroing! And clay shooting!..
And livestock protection!

And as I see it the person entilrled to the sporting rights owns the wild animal while they transit the land in question!. Once they leave his land they belong to someone else but I do see your point about the legalities of such when it comes to car accidents etc etc but wild animals are not controllable so as such no court in the land would persue costs against a landowner or holder of sporting rights unless their direct actions caused an accident!

Cass

Zxthinger wrote: »

I don't need the permission from the holder of the 'sporting rights' to shoot on land when I have permission to be there from the owner!

Nope.

The land owner may not necessarily be the sporting rights holder and as such any permission given by anyone other than the person that owns the sporting rights has no legal weight.

So if the person that owns the land did not specifically name sporting rights in the sale/buying of the land then the original sporting right/land owner still holds them. It's a messed up system but it's the law.

Its the reason why there is so much concern about old estates. From the time of the landlords. They owned the sporting rights. When they sold the lands or "left" they may still retain the sporting rights to the lands even though they no longer own them.

There is zeroing!

Illegal. We discussed/covered this already in your other thread.

And clay shooting!..

Perfectly legal.

And livestock protection!

I'd class that as hunting. IOW you are hunting the problem species.

And as I see it the person entilrled to the sporting rights owns the wild animal while they transit the land in question!. Once they leave his land they belong to someone else but I do see your point about the legalities of such when it comes to car accidents etc etc but wild animals are not controllable so as such no court in the land would persue costs against a landowner or holder of sporting rights unless their direct actions caused an accident!

I've highlighted your mistake there.

Sporting rights, as explained above, is permission to shoot game on land. This is not always the land owner, and is still a confusion between shooting permission/rights and ownership of animals.

No one owns wild animals. You've even said it yourself. The courts could not enforce the law on people if it were the case.

Bushwack

There vermin,but they are great to hunt,now a game keeper would not class them as sport or any body trying to put a head of game on the ground.

dodderangler

wexfordman2 wrote: »

Can't say I agree,in fact it's the one thing that always makes me wince a bit.not that I think I'm doing wrong or anythibg like that,but we'll aware that I am ending the existence of an animal that has as much a diesire to live as I do.

I only ever felt a remorseful about shooting a fox which was one I had crossed paths with a few time in space of two years. Called him a few times but he was bit too crafty to come in range.Nice big lad. Always had a lovely coat on him and nice tail. I got him last year as he just so happen to run out in front of me.
Felt bit remorseful because the hunt was over.

Dian Cecht

dodderangler wrote: »

I only ever felt a remorseful about shooting a fox which was one I had crossed paths with a few time in space of two years. Called him a few times but he was bit too crafty to come in range.Nice big lad. Always had a lovely coat on him and nice tail. I got him last year as he just so happen to run out in front of me.
Felt bit remorseful because the hunt was over.

Great post!

For me it's more about the hunt than the kill. Food for the table is a bonus . Livestock protected is a necessity.

4200fps

foxs are fun to shoot reason or no reason, vermin or not. I met nobody yet who hates shooting them, they are good sport even if it doesn't fall in that category. I do see multiple threads guys create looking for areas where theres foxs to shoot. At the end of the day its hunting and its my hobby