View Full Version : Fox lampers breaking BASC lamping rules in Caithness
Catharnach74
12-Feb-11, 17:28
The British Association for Shooting and Conservation lamping rules this also covers Scotland!
Landowners and tenants must be informed and give approval before lamping commences.
Use only the appropriate firearms and ammunition in accordance with the conditions of your firearms certificate.
Familiarise yourself with all legal requirements.
It is always advisable to carry your firearm or shotgun certificate together with your written permission.
As a matter of courtesy, inform local residents who you are and where you will be shooting, together with your approximate starting and finishing times. You may wish to extend this courtesy to the local police, but you are under no obligation to notify of any lamping expedition.
During daylight hours familiarise yourself with the terrain you are to shoot over. You must ensure that you have established safe directions for firing and backstops.
Always carry a mobile phone, and where possible a six-figure grid reference of the area for emergency purposes.
Well I know the landowner has given these people permission to fox lamp on the farm land near my house but they've never knocked at my door to show there face and ask for my approval. I would approve but a little countryside courtesy wouldn't go a miss. Also another matter these people getting quite close to my house perimeter when lamping if they shoot a fox near my house and miss there could be bullet rickashay someone could get injured or even be killed. I'm considering informing the authorities about this matter they are acting a bit cowboyish but I think I'll be wasting my time!
If you think you are genuinly at risk because of the shooting, report it to the police. But if it is suspected that you are complaining as some sort of protest against the hunting you might risk being charged with wasting police time.
The BASC rules are only guidelines. They are not enforceable by law, hence the 3rd rule. Not letting you know is, as your post shows, a breach "of courtesy".
orkneycadian
12-Feb-11, 18:30
If they have no obligation to notify you, which rule has been broken?
Catharnach74
12-Feb-11, 18:39
Not against Fox hunting especially at lambing season or hunting in general, the thing I don't want is a bullet hitting my windows due to stupidity, injurying or worst killing someone!
Not against Fox hunting especially at lambing season or hunting in general, the thing I don't want is a bullet hitting my windows due to stupidity, injurying or worst killing someone!
That's understandable.
I would have thought most license holders would be fairly responsible with their weapons, but if you have concerns for your safety I would probably try to have a word with thme first, before going to the authorities.
Maybe a phonecall if you can get a number from the landowner would be enough, and also get them to let you know when they're hunting in future?
Catharnach74
12-Feb-11, 18:53
Fox lamping very close to my house within 50ft isnt a safe direction of fire in my book!
Fox lamping very close to my house within 50ft isnt a safe direction of fire in my book!
Shooting within 50ft probably isn't a problem as long as they're aiming away I would have thought.
As I said, maybe quietly letting them know your concerns, or asking the landowner to pass your concerns on, might be the best way of tackling things.
canadagirl
12-Feb-11, 19:09
Always better to have a friendly word with the neighbour before going to the authorities, otherwise you're just asking for hostility and sounds like they have no obligation to ask your approval. :confused Surely they're not shooting towards your house from 50' away? :eek:
buggyracer
12-Feb-11, 21:15
Must be pretty dumb foxes to sit 50yds from a house?
<snip>
I'm considering informing the authorities about this matter they are acting a bit cowboyish but I think I'll be wasting my time!
I think informing the authorities is a very good idea.
I think posting your concerns on a public forum before contacting said authorities is a bad idea.
In fact, if, as you say, "they shoot a fox near my house and miss there could be ricoshay someone could get injured or even be killed" is a real concern you'd have contacted the local police, wouldn't you? I know I would.
orkneycadian
12-Feb-11, 22:00
:roll:
I can see this resulting in a story worthy of Doodledandysons diary next week....
A major alert was sparked in Caithness at the weekend when a local resident reported alleged illegal firearms activities.
Northern Constabulary firearms officers were scrambled from Inverness, along with air support from RAF Lossiemouth. CASST dogs, however, were not required, much to their owners disappointment.
After a lengthy and expensive police operation, it turned out that the cause of the alarm was nothing more than some local hunters out "lamping" for vermin.
Chief Inspector Plod said that no laws were broken, but that the member of the public who reported the alleged incident, after getting miffed that they were not consulted about something they weren't required to be consulted on, was helping them with their inquiries [lol]
What pray, are all these foxes sitting on / in front of that are going to produce all these ricochets? Have you something akin to Mount Rushmore at the back of your house? If there was any risk of ricochet whatsoever, then the folk doing the shooting would be an awful lot more concerned than you would be!
skinnydog
12-Feb-11, 22:19
Have to say just go and speak to them!! There's always blokes out hunting for foxes out my way and good luck to them I say!! Only once have they ever caught something and they are always trying!! My money would be on the foxes, not them!
wavy davy
13-Feb-11, 02:19
:roll:
After a lengthy and expensive police operation, it turned out that the cause of the alarm was nothing more than some local hunters out "lamping" for vermin.
!
Oh dear. I think that equating nice fluffy foxes with vermin, even in jest, is going to bring wrath doon on your heid. Or maybe I've been on the org too long.
The bottom line is they should have knocked your door and told you what was happening. Others are correct, phone the landowner or catch a word with one of the hunters. Why are we so eager to report everything these days? A polite, even light hearted comment quite often does the trick and reminds people to be courteous if they have forgotten.
Personally I would be marching around the field banging a couple of metal dustbin lids for a good half hour before they show up. :lol:
That reminds me, must put a wanted add on the org. Dustbin lids,metal, 2 of....
billmoseley
13-Feb-11, 11:27
:roll:
I can see this resulting in a story worthy of Doodledandysons diary next week....
A major alert was sparked in Caithness at the weekend when a local resident reported alleged illegal firearms activities.
Northern Constabulary firearms officers were scrambled from Inverness, along with air support from RAF Lossiemouth. CASST dogs, however, were not required, much to their owners disappointment.
After a lengthy and expensive police operation, it turned out that the cause of the alarm was nothing more than some local hunters out "lamping" for vermin.
Chief Inspector Plod said that no laws were broken, but that the member of the public who reported the alleged incident, after getting miffed that they were not consulted about something they weren't required to be consulted on, was helping them with their inquiries [lol]
What pray, are all these foxes sitting on / in front of that are going to produce all these ricochets? Have you something akin to Mount Rushmore at the back of your house? If there was any risk of ricochet whatsoever, then the folk doing the shooting would be an awful lot more concerned than you would be!
it seems some one was arrested in this investigation that very friendly Irish man who has been mentioned a few time in this thread Rick O Shay
orkneycadian
13-Feb-11, 11:36
So what was the damage this morning? How many windows were broken? I've checked the BBC News site for reports of deaths and injuries caused by this guy Rick o' Shea but there seems to be none thankfully. Did all the death and destruction that was predicted not happen after all?
Catharnach74
13-Feb-11, 22:28
Safe distance when shooting near property is 50meters, they shooting well under 30meters in some cases that's breaking the firearms law!
northener
14-Feb-11, 08:43
Safe distance when shooting near property is 50meters, they shooting well under 30meters in some cases that's breaking the firearms law!
I have to ask, why are you transmitting this information across Caithness and beyond and yet are reluctant to talk to the landowner, shooters or if you're really hacked off and believe that you could have a serious problem - the Police?
All that you're achieveing here is tarring anyone out with a lamp and a gun/dog in Castletown with the same brush, you'll not be thanked for that. (But I know it will cheer up Ducati no end:Razz). If the ones who are shooting are responsible sorts, then a polite word outlining your concerns should be met with something sensible - if not, then take it further.
I have to ask, why are you transmitting this information across Caithness and beyond and yet are reluctant to talk to the landowner, shooters or if you're really hacked off and believe that you could have a serious problem - the Police?
All that you're achieveing here is tarring anyone out with a lamp and a gun/dog in Castletown with the same brush, you'll not be thanked for that. (But I know it will cheer up Ducati no end:Razz). If the ones who are shooting are responsible sorts, then a polite word outlining your concerns should be met with something sensible - if not, then take it further.
My sentiments exactly northener.
Why for the life of me some people have to share the most inane dribble on the 'Org' rather than simply deal with the 'problem' in real life amazes me.
Seems to be a 'Castletown' thing though.... ;)
Now what time is Tescos open and whos the best car polisher in Caithness.....
I have had a lot of people out here lamping. Always after midnight and have never asked for permission. We once stopped one lot and they informed us that my father gave them permission about 2 months before, that would have been really good as he had died 5 years before then. They were out again the other night and lamping in fields that have ewes due to lamb in 1 month. How can you say that is responsible.
northener
14-Feb-11, 15:29
I have had a lot of people out here lamping. Always after midnight and have never asked for permission. We once stopped one lot and they informed us that my father gave them permission about 2 months before, that would have been really good as he had died 5 years before then. They were out again the other night and lamping in fields that have ewes due to lamb in 1 month. How can you say that is responsible.
Has anyone on this thread said the people on your land are 'responsible'?
its just a saying northerner. Just was wanting to point out what has happened to me. Don't worry won't bother again
canadagirl
14-Feb-11, 21:18
One would hope that people packing firearms would be 'responsible' :eek: I have no idea about crofting laws etc but is there not something to stop harassment of livestock at lambing/calving time? Laws are completely different here as when I've someone in the fields at night we block the roads and call the cops - then watch as the search dogs try to find the discarded guns!
If people have a genuine concern about un-invited poeple being on or near thier land behaving inappropriately, would it not be the adult thing to do to call the landowner / neighbouring landowners? or if this is not possible call the police to ask if any one is out shooting in the area?
We have had uninvited people lamping, and in fact shooting, on our land before, and when investigated, it turned out to be a genuine mistake. The guy (who is very reputible, and carries out very successful vermin control in the area) had been humanely shooting foxes in our neighbours land, and had accidentally strayed into one of our fields.
I completely understand the fear for livestock that goes through any landownders head when you first see the lamp, or hear a shotgun on your land, (particularly at this time of year with ewe's heavy in lamb) but am not sure that posting on here actually does any good in that situation?
The time spent posting on here could surely be better spent investigating the situation properly, rather than scaremongering, and re-opening the fox-hunting 'can of worms' yet again.
We don't all have the same views on shooting, but at least lets behave like responsible adults about the whole thing.
northener
15-Feb-11, 09:39
its just a saying northerner. Just was wanting to point out what has happened to me. Don't worry won't bother again
My apologies, I've just re-read your original post and I understand what you meant now. I read it as referring back to my comment regarding 'responsible' lampers.
Mea culpa.
I would have thought most license holders would be fairly responsible with their weapons,hen they're hunting in future?
You mean like the guy that shot and killed his 12 year old stepso (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/devon/4209528.stm)n in the belief that it was a fox he was shooting at during a "lamping" session, or do you mean the teenager who shot a 12 year old (http://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/news/around-yorkshire/local-stories/distress_of_lamping_teenager_who_shot_boy_1_242436 5), who was out lamping with him.
Lamping is just another way for retards with guns to kill animals for sport.
You mean like the guy that shot and killed his 12 year old stepso (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/devon/4209528.stm)n in the belief that it was a fox he was shooting at during a "lamping" session, or do you mean the teenager who shot a 12 year old (http://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/news/around-yorkshire/local-stories/distress_of_lamping_teenager_who_shot_boy_1_242436 5), who was out lamping with him.
Lamping is just another way for retards with guns to kill animals for sport.
I don't think foxes are shot in Caithness for sport, they are shot, under the consent and wishes of the landowner, to safeguard livestock.
The first example you gave there is valid, mistakes were made through negligence. But maybe a quiet word, as I suggested, to the lampers to highlight the concerns of shooting near a residence would be enough to stop it.
I don't think your second example is valid at all, it was a teenager playing with an air gun. Hardly a vetted gun license holder.
I don't think foxes are shot in Caithness for sport, they are shot, under the consent and wishes of the landowner, to safeguard livestock.
Yes I believe you. I also believe in Father Christmas and that Liverpool will win this years Premiership
The first example you gave there is valid, mistakes were made through negligence. But maybe a quiet word, as I suggested, to the lampers to highlight the concerns of shooting near a residence would be enough to stop it.
So your answer to this is to "have a word with them". Do you not think that confiscating gun and a ban on keeping guns would be a better deterrent
I don't think your second example is valid at all, it was a teenager playing with an air gun. Hardly a vetted gun license holder.
Read the link, without blinkers on and you might find this sentence:
"..Denis Lofthouse, for Beauchamp, said his client, who had a licence for the weapon.."
Yes I believe you. I also believe in Father Christmas and that Liverpool will win this years Premiership
What is it they say about sarcasm? But fair enough, views differ.
So your answer to this is to "have a word with them". Do you not think that confiscating gun and a ban on keeping guns would be a better deterrent
No, my answer to the original poster was to have a word with them. It's amazing how some people think they're acting safely but don't notice a hazard in front of their eyes. I'm pretty sure posting on here won't make the original poster any safer.
Confiscating guns and banning people from using them would definately be appropriate for people deliberately acting dangerously with them. Absolutely. Where have I said otherwise?
Read the link, without blinkers on and you might find this sentence:
"..Denis Lofthouse, for Beauchamp, said his client, who had a licence for the weapon.."
Sorry you're correct. I did scan the article to see mention of a licence, but I missed it.
But I can assure you, I don't have any blinkers on, I am quite indifferent to the whole subject.
I will however stand by my original statement that "I would have thought most license holders would be fairly responsible with their weapons".
How many people go shooting farm pests every night in Britain? Hundreds? Thousands? Yet your links give 2 examples of accidents in the last 6 years. I'm sure there are more, and I'm sure you could post them here, just as I could post a hundred links to deaths caused by careless, licenced, drivers.
By what logic would that mean that MOST drivers are not fairly responsible?
Blazing Sporrans
15-Feb-11, 22:52
Couldn't agree more that posting your concerns on here has been a monumental waste of time Catharnach. If you have legitimate concerns, then contact the police. As for shooting within 30 meters of your house, what direction are they shooting in? Toward the house or away from it? Knowing the answer might alter the responses you're getting. Any firearms holder worth their salt will tell you that gun safety, including weapons handling and the importance of a safe backdrop are the most important facets of shooting; not whether you actually come back from your outing with a dead fox or two. If you live in the country, where people are dependent upon the destruction of predators such as foxes as part of their livestock husbandry, then you'll have to expect that these activities will go on as a necessity, especially approaching lambing time. However, in this day and age, there's no reason why they shouldn't be using sound moderators. If you asked for one in days gone by, there were natural suspicions that you wanted to go poaching deer, but these days you only have to mention the magic words of 'health and safety' and you'll get one in a flash...
Walter Ego
15-Feb-11, 23:05
You took your time, Anfield........
".. Sorry you're correct. I did scan the article to see mention of a licence, but I missed it.
How many people go shooting farm pests every night in Britain? Hundreds? Thousands? Yet your links give 2 examples of accidents in the last 6 years.."
The fact that there maybe thousands of people going around shooting "pests" fills me with some alarm.
I am sure you remember Dunblane, Hungerford and more recently Cumbria. All these incidents were carried out by people who had legally licenced guns.
Who knows where the next massacre is going to take place, it might even be your neighbour!
Couldn't agree more that posting your concerns on here has been a monumental waste of time
And I thought that was what forums were for.
You took your time, Anfield........
Unlike a lot of posters on here I have a life away from my PC.
Also I got fed up with some of your colleagues hiding behind womens skirts, sorry Mods, when the going gets a bit tough.
Seems that some people like dishing it out but can't take it back.
I am sure you remember Dunblane, Hungerford and more recently Cumbria. All these incidents were carried out by people who had legally licenced guns.
Who knows where the next massacre is going to take place, it might even be your neighbour!
You're right!
All these incidents WERE carried out by licenced gun users.
Do you see that as a reason to ban all guns?
I've done a wee bit of off the cuff research here, and, did you realise that all those killings were carried out by MEN!
Do you see that as reason to ban all willies?
You're right!
All these incidents WERE carried out by licenced gun users.
Do you see that as a reason to ban all guns?
I've done a wee bit of off the cuff research here, and, did you realise that all those killings were carried out by MEN!
Do you see that as reason to ban all willies?
I would say we are all safer when no one has a gun. But I say that a lot and no one listens, or agrees anyway.
I would say we are all safer when no one has a gun. But I say that a lot and no one listens, or agrees anyway.
True, and I wouldn't argue with that.
But how many deaths a year are caused by irresponsible, licenced drivers.
Would we all be safer if nobody had a car?
Maybe, but I don't see that as a suitable way of tackling the problem. The many should not suffer because of the actions af the few.
I've done a wee bit of off the cuff research here, and, did you realise that all those killings were carried out by MEN!
Do you see that as reason to ban all willies?
I would agree with your proposal to castrate all people with guns. However, nature has done half the job for you because
people who shoot animals for sport have no testicles.
That is why they like inflicting pain on other sentient creatures
True, and I wouldn't argue with that.
But how many deaths a year are caused by irresponsible, licenced drivers.
Would we all be safer if nobody had a car?
Maybe, but I don't see that as a suitable way of tackling the problem. The many should not suffer because of the actions af the few.
No I guess you are right, what is the odd killing spree compared with people's freedom to shoot stuff :roll:
I would agree with your proposal to castrate all people with guns. However, nature has done half the job for you because
people who shoot animals for sport have no testicles.
That is why they like inflicting pain on other sentient creatures
Sorry, that wasn't my proposal, I was questioning if it was yours.
I've never actually fired a gun, I'm not sure if I've ever even held one. I'll be careful not to in future in case my dangly bits disappear.
You're obviously against the shooting of animals for sport, and I assume Ducati is also. That's fair enough and perhaps one of the more noble things to feel passionate about. I myself am quite indifferent to it, but I am certainly not against the killing of foxes or pests which may pose a threat to livestock.
Blazing Sporrans
16-Feb-11, 21:28
And here was me thinking we were discussing people lamping for foxes rather than shooting for sport Anfield? I'm sure farmers and crofters don't see shooting foxes as sport, rather a necessity of trying to make a living off the land. I'm neither a crofter, farmer or firearms license holder by the way...
DeHaviLand
16-Feb-11, 21:38
Oh, pay no heed to Anfield, every village needs an idiot. Its just bad luck that he's ours! :roll:
David Banks
16-Feb-11, 22:39
I suppose it is not called fox hunting - so as to differentiate it from the activity involving hounds.
The Canadian version of Google has not provided much 'light' on the subject.
Can anyone explain the background of the term "lamping"?
DeHaviLand
17-Feb-11, 00:10
I suppose it is not called fox hunting - so as to differentiate it from the activity involving hounds.
The Canadian version of Google has not provided much 'light' on the subject.
Can anyone explain the background of the term "lamping"?
Aye, its because its done at night, using a lamp to spot the foxes, and to momentarily stop them in their tracks, seconds before a speeding projectile stops them permanently in their tracks.
Interesting it is not a sport when people take the trouble to sneak onto someone else's land at night without permission?
Blazing Sporrans
17-Feb-11, 02:22
Interesting it is not a sport when people take the trouble to sneak onto someone else's land at night without permission?
It's not considered a sport full stop. It's a necessary evil to protect sheep and lambs in particular, otherwise there would be a lot less lambs for the kids and womenfolk to go 'aaaahh' over come springtime, never mind the farmers and crofters trying to make a living.
canadagirl
17-Feb-11, 03:37
I suppose it is not called fox hunting - so as to differentiate it from the activity involving hounds.
The Canadian version of Google has not provided much 'light' on the subject.
Can anyone explain the background of the term "lamping"?
Try pitlamping. The sport comes in trapping the guys who are doing it illegally on your property.:lol:
Interesting it is not a sport when people take the trouble to sneak onto someone else's land at night without permission?
It's not a sport full stop. It's protecting livestock from pests. Would you consider sheep dipping as killing fleas for sport?
The original poster also said that the people had permission from the landowner.
It's not a sport full stop. It's protecting livestock from pests. Would you consider sheep dipping as killing fleas for sport?
The original poster also said that the people had permission from the landowner.
And someone else said they had trouble with people doing it on their land without permission?
Aye but you have no answer to killing the poor fleas. :lol:
And someone else said they had trouble with people doing it on their land without permission?
Ok. Didn't realise you were speaking about that.
What are the laws regarding permission anyway? Do they need it?
We used to be outside Basque jurisdiction until the almighty Eurocrats stuck their undemocratic snouts in. They're vermin too!
DeHaviLand
17-Feb-11, 13:58
We used to be outside Basque jurisdiction until the almighty Eurocrats stuck their undemocratic snouts in. They're vermin too!
Eh? What has womens underwear got to do with this?
Eh? What has womens underwear got to do with this?
Another constructive contribution to a thread from DHL, what powers of the English language you possess
Oh, pay no heed to Anfield, every village needs an idiot. Its just bad luck that he's ours! :roll:
Yes, I took over job from you. Sadly I have been sacked, as village elders say that I am not nearly as big an idiot as my predecessor.
It's not a sport full stop. It's protecting livestock from pests. Would you consider sheep dipping as killing fleas for sport?
Lamping takes place in areas where there are no sheep, thus adding to the view that it is a sport carried out by retards who like inflicting pain on animals.
In parts of England Lamping has been linked to other types of crime such as badger baiting, hare coursing and theft of farm machinery (http://www.thisishullandeastriding.co.uk/news/City-officers-team-colleagues-rural-East-Yorkshire-combat-poaching/article-2782827-detail/article.html).
In parts of England Lamping has been linked to other types of crime such as badger baiting, hare coursing and theft of farm machinery (http://www.thisishullandeastriding.co.uk/news/City-officers-team-colleagues-rural-East-Yorkshire-combat-poaching/article-2782827-detail/article.html).
Don't forget sparrow-mumbling:
http://nq.oxfordjournals.org/content/s4-X/245/184-a.extract#
Blazing Sporrans
17-Feb-11, 19:12
Lamping takes place in areas where there are no sheep, thus adding to the view that it is a sport carried out by retards who like inflicting pain on animals.
Of course, because the foxes can't get a bus at that time of night to go to their favourite takeaway, they starve. Either that or they only make their dens in the middle of a field full of sheep. Perish the thought they might hide cubs in dens well away from the areas in which they will hunt. Just a thought....
Lamping takes place in areas where there are no sheep, thus adding to the view that it is a sport carried out by retards who like inflicting pain on animals.
How do you define an area with no sheep?
A fox will travel several miles from its den to find food.
I think if you draw a 3 mile radius around all the farmers fields in Caithness there won't be many circles that don't have sheep in them.
They were out again the other night and lamping in fields that have ewes due to lamb in 1 month..
That statement seems to blow yours out the water.
Walter Ego
17-Feb-11, 22:29
Another constructive contribution to a thread from DHL, what powers of the English language you possess
Yes, I took over job from you. Sadly I have been sacked, as village elders say that I am not nearly as big an idiot as my predecessor.
Lamping takes place in areas where there are no sheep, thus adding to the view that it is a sport carried out by retards who like inflicting pain on animals.
In parts of England Lamping has been linked to other types of crime such as badger baiting, hare coursing and theft of farm machinery (http://www.thisishullandeastriding.co.uk/news/City-officers-team-colleagues-rural-East-Yorkshire-combat-poaching/article-2782827-detail/article.html).
Anfield, you can do better than this, old chap.
Crude insults with vague links? Well below what you're capable of.
Saying lamping has been linked to badger baiting and the theft of farm machinery is like saying
As predicted, this thread has turned into nothing but another fox hunting debate!
The vast majority of people out shooting in caithness are reputible shooters, who hold full shotgun licenses, and have asked permission from the appropriate people. They are regularly vetted by police and without a valid reason for holding a shotgun liscence, cannot have one. They are carrying out an invaluable service to farmers and crofters of the area, and should be commended for the humane work they do. These people are generally very sensbile, careful members of society who take health and safety very seriously, and will not ifre a gun unless it is safe to do so. There will always be the odd exception, but this is, unfortunately, the situation in all walks of society.
To reiterate my earlier comment -
If anyone believes thats guns are being used in a way which is not safe, they should contact the landowners and/or police and report the shooter. I believe that if people are proved to be using their guns unsafely, they should be taken away. I am also sure that all reputable shotgun licence holders (of which i am one) would happily discuss their practices with the police should they be questioned, and would happily support the removal of licenses of those not adhering to the rules and safety regulations. (If the few who are causing gun owners to get a 'bad name' are stopped from owning guns, this would improve the 'bad' reputation that gun owners as a whole seem to have been given)
On the subject of fox hunting as a sport - this is a completely separate issue.
Fox hunting as a sport (as far as I'm aware anyway) involves packs of dogs and people on horseback chasing a fox for miles through fields, and I fully agree, this is inhumane and unneccessary.
Hunting Foxes as vermin control (which i believe is the most common sort of 'fox hunting' carried out in Caithness) is a much more humane way of disposing of vermin - normally a single shot, cleanly taken and involving no prolonged suffering to the animal.
Anyone who thinks that fox hunting as vermin control is cruel, barbaric etc only need to come and see a field on an early morning in April, mid lambing, and see the desctuction that can be caused by a fox. A fox often visits a field and kills a large number of young, defenceless lambs, and removes only one to take back to feed thier own young. This leaves lots of others lying dead in the field with their throats or tongues ripped out - never to be eaten, and therefore unneccessarily killed. To me, this is more of a 'sport' to the fox - who has done this for fun and not necessity, proved by leaving additional dead lambs and not actually eating them. Believe me, a field full of dead lambs is not a pretty sight, and in my eyes a much more cruel and pointless waste of life than a single, humane shot to the fox. (not to mention expensive to the farmer/crofter).
Nature is nature, and i fully appreciate that all animals have to live which unfortunately involves a certain degree of predators killing prey (and the loss of the odd lamb here and there has to be -and generally is - accepted as 'bad luck, but nature'). However, when you see the desctuction, pain and unnessesary suffering that can be caused by a fox first hand, I think many people would agree that foxes need to be controlled in humane and safe ways to protect other species, and peoples livlihoods.
Walter Ego
17-Feb-11, 22:36
As predicted, this thread has turned into nothing but another fox hunting debate!
The vast majority of people out shooting in caithness are reputible shooters, who hold full shotgun licenses, and have asked permission from the appropriate people. They are regularly vetted by police and without a valid reason for holding a shotgun liscence, cannot have one. They are carrying out an invaluable service to farmers and crofters of the area, and should be commended for the humane work they do. These people are generally very sensbile, careful members of society who take health and safety very seriously, and will not ifre a gun unless it is safe to do so. There will always be the odd exception, but this is, unfortunately, the situation in all walks of society.
To reiterate my earlier comment -
If anyone believes thats guns are being used in a way which is not safe, they should contact the landowners and/or police and report the shooter. I believe that if people are proved to be using their guns unsafely, they should be taken away. I am also sure that all reputable shotgun licence holders (of which i am one) would happily discuss their practices with the police should they be questioned, and would happily support the removal of licenses of those not adhering to the rules and safety regulations. (If the few who are causing gun owners to get a 'bad name' are stopped from owning guns, this would improve the 'bad' reputation that gun owners as a whole seem to have been given)
On the subject of fox hunting as a sport - this is a completely separate issue.
Fox hunting as a sport (as far as I'm aware anyway) involves packs of dogs and people on horseback chasing a fox for miles through fields, and I fully agree, this is inhumane and unneccessary.
Hunting Foxes as vermin control (which i believe is the most common sort of 'fox hunting' carried out in Caithness) is a much more humane way of disposing of vermin - normally a single shot, cleanly taken and involving no prolonged suffering to the animal.
Anyone who thinks that fox hunting as vermin control is cruel, barbaric etc only need to come and see a field on an early morning in April, mid lambing, and see the desctuction that can be caused by a fox. A fox often visits a field and kills a large number of young, defenceless lambs, and removes only one to take back to feed thier own young. This leaves lots of others lying dead in the field with their throats or tongues ripped out - never to be eaten, and therefore unneccessarily killed. To me, this is more of a 'sport' to the fox - who has done this for fun and not necessity, proved by leaving additional dead lambs and not actually eating them. Believe me, a field full of dead lambs is not a pretty sight, and in my eyes a much more cruel and pointless waste of life than a single, humane shot to the fox. (not to mention expensive to the farmer/crofter).
Nature is nature, and i fully appreciate that all animals have to live which unfortunately involves a certain degree of predators killing prey (and the loss of the odd lamb here and there has to be -and generally is - accepted as 'bad luck, but nature'). However, when you see the desctuction, pain and unnessesary suffering that can be caused by a fox first hand, I think many people would agree that foxes need to be controlled in humane and safe ways to protect other species, and peoples livlihoods.
A good post, Farmer.
Unfortunately it will fall on deaf ears in some quarters.
As predicted, this thread has turned into nothing but another fox hunting debate!
<snip>
Only for those who are so blind they cannot see.
I applaud your well balanced post, farmer.
orkneycadian
18-Feb-11, 01:14
However, when you see the desctuction, pain and unnessesary suffering that can be caused by a fox first hand, I think many people would agree that foxes need to be controlled in humane and safe ways to protect other species, and peoples livlihoods.
Most true. Fortunately we don't have foxes in Orkney, but when living south, we had a fox in a hen house a few times and like Farmer says, it killed every hen for "sport", then carried off 1 or 2 for its dinner. It had no need to kill the rest, but it did.
Anfield, you can do better than this, old chap.
Crude insults with vague links? Well below what you're capable of.
Saying lamping has been linked to badger baiting and the theft of farm machinery is like saying
I have to keep my posts simple so that the intellectually challenged members of the killing animals brigade can understand.
Do a search on "NFU" and "Lamping" and you will find quite a few links relating to crime and lamping.
And what was it you were saying before you got cut off mid sentence?
The vast majority of people out shooting in caithness are reputible shooters, who hold full shotgun licenses, and have asked permission from the appropriate people. They are regularly vetted by police and without a valid reason for holding a shotgun liscence, cannot have one.
I will bet that the gun lobbyists in Dunblane, Hungerford, Cumbria etc all said the same thing about their comrades in arms amd look what happened.
With regards to "..come and see a field on an early morning in April, mid lambing, and see the desctuction(sic) that can be caused.." you failed to mention where and when this incident took place. Whilst foxes undoubtably do eat stillborn/dead lambs there does not appear to be a lot of proven evidence that foxes kill healthy lambs. Are you getting mistaken for a close relative of the fox that does have a proven record of killing sheep i.e. dogs, of which an incident of three dogs shot by a farmer was on this forum not so long ago.
I am quite sure that if the type of incident you describe did take place, then the Countryside Alliance and other such organisations would have made sure that the story, together with photographs was carried in every national newspaper, yet I can not find a single link.
Most true. Fortunately we don't have foxes in Orkney, but when living south, we had a fox in a hen house a few times and like Farmer says, it killed every hen for "sport", then carried off 1 or 2 for its dinner. It had no need to kill the rest, but it did.
Err, did you not stop to think, after the first time that fox got into your hen house, that you should make it more secure? If, as you say that it happened a few times, then you are not a fit and proper person to look after livestock
orkneycadian
18-Feb-11, 18:43
Err, did you not stop to think, after the first time that fox got into your hen house, that you should make it more secure? If, as you say that it happened a few times, then you are not a fit and proper person to look after livestock
More than you it would appear! If you coop them up 24/7, they get bored and peck each others feathers out. And Supermarket lemmings don't get the "Free Range" eggs they want. You need to let them out. As it gets dark, they make their way back to the hen house under their own steam, then when they are all in, you shut the door. If the fox gets there before you, you might as well not shut the door. Foxes don't have the reputation for being cunning for nothing....
Shut the door too early, not all hens in, fox gets them outside the henhouse
Shut the door too late, fox gets them inside the henhouse.
Fox gets too bold and takes the hens through the day
Shoot the fox, fox cant get them
Simples. :Razz
"I will bet that the gun lobbyists in Dunblane, Hungerford, Cumbria etc all said the same thing about their comrades in arms amd look what happened"
As mentioned by numerous others already, all walks of society have an unfortunate few who give the 'majority' a bad name. By your response, are you suggesting that every driver have their licence and car removed simply because a few unsafe drivers exist in the world?
"With regards to "..come and see a field on an early morning in April, mid lambing, and see the desctuction(sic) that can be caused.." you failed to mention where and when this incident took place. Whilst foxes undoubtably do eat stillborn/dead lambs there does not appear to be a lot of proven evidence that foxes kill healthy lambs. Are you getting mistaken for a close relative of the fox that does have a proven record of killing sheep i.e. dogs, of which an incident of three dogs shot by a farmer was on this forum not so long ago.
I am quite sure that if the type of incident you describe did take place, then the Countryside Alliance and other such organisations would have made sure that the story, together with photographs was carried in every national newspaper, yet I can not find a single link."
Stillborn or dead lambs are killed, that is true, but also often killed are strong, healthy lambs which are numerous days or even weeks old, and showing no signs of ill health. These incidents happen regularly, and if you so wish, i shall call you the next time this happens on our land so you may come a view this for yourself.
Just because 'Google' doesn't ping a link onto your screen, doesn't mean this doesn't happen - personal experience, in my opinion, is worth far more than what a search engine may state - or perhaps you are claiming that computers are now more reputable than personal experience? If you ask any farmer / crofter in the County, I'm sure they will back me up in my comment about foxes killing livestock.
Talking of Proven evidence - We are yet to find any evidence that any other species killed the lambs in question. No dogs have been spotted roaming the area, and so I feel it safe to assume this is not the cause of death. Sometimes assumptions have to be made based on the best available evidence (namely a mauled carcus, taken for a post mortem, and having trained professionals stating that this is highly likely to be the work of a fox, along with numerous sightings of foxes roaming in the local area at the time of death)
You may choose to 'rubbish' this statement, as you appear to have done to my previous post, but may I simply say that at least my first post showed a degree of 'open mindedness' and 'balance' to the whole debate, which your response certainly has not.
To put this more simply - There's no talking to some people.
Blazing Sporrans
18-Feb-11, 18:54
I have to keep my posts simple so that the intellectually challenged members of the killing animals brigade can understand.
It must be nice to have such a massive intellect and it's extremely charitable of you to ensure you correspond at a level that allows the rest of us to understand and participate in debate.
I will bet that the gun lobbyists in Dunblane, Hungerford, Cumbria etc all said the same thing about their comrades in arms amd look what happened.
And put these tragedies into context against the numbers of law-abiding citizens who hold firearms for genuine and legitimate reasons and will live a lifetime without offending, never mind going on a rampage in such examples as you cite. Michael Ryan killed people using an automatic assault rifle in August 1987 as I recall; Thomas Hamilton killed children and their teacher using a handgun in March 1996 and Derrick Bird went on his rampage in June 2010. Hungerford and then Dunblane rightly saw fundamental changes in firearms legislation, banning automatic weapons and handguns. I haven't done any research but I wonder how many instances of fatal stabbings there have been in that same period? And yet we still haven't banned knives.
If, as you say that it happened a few times, then you are not a fit and proper person to look after livestockIt's a good job you're here to keep us all right on how to run our lives. I doff my (figurative) cap to you...
By the way, http://www.wildlifeonline.me.uk/questions_answers_foxes.html#kill might answer some questions about foxes and predation for you.
I have to agree with "Farmer" about the distruction that a rogue fox can cause. Yes there are foxes that purely kill for food and you will find very little evidence of the kill, then you can say that just nature. It is when they kill for fun. You go into a field and find lambs that are atleast 1 week old (none of mine are out before that age) lying dead with the tongue ripped out of them and tails ripped off , along with mothers heartbroken standing beside them. It is never for "fun" when a farmer asks someone to come in and shoot a fox and it is not purely for loss of profit. We do care for our animals.
Lamping if done with permission is needed in this County but not welcomed if done without the farmers permission.
Anfield how dare you say Farmer is not a fit person to look after livestock if it has happened a few times. If you are more intellegent than any of the rest of us please tell what to do if you think killing foxes is wholey wrong. Oh and I do not think farmer would be willing to have someone as ignorant and as rude as you anywhere near their farm.
Walter Ego
18-Feb-11, 22:12
You see, Anfield, this is where you fall down.
Instead of coming up with reasonable, balanced discussion - you wade in fists flying at anyone who may be within reach.
It's like watching an angry drunk in a pub. He knows he's angry, he can't target an individual to vent his fury upon or form coherent and balanced statements to argue his way out. So he roars, kicks over tables and lashes out at anyone who comes near - even, in this case, someone who has put forward a very intelligent and balanced response and even agrees with the drunk on one major point.
So far in this thread there's only been one person making wild accusations, sneering remarks and sweeping 'catch all' statements...
As I said, Anfield. You can do better. I'll never agree with you and you'll never agree with me. But if you come up with balanced argument then at least I can respect your position. But not right now I can't.
"..Anfield how dare you say Farmer is not a fit person to look after livestock if it has happened a few times.".
I think you will find, if you read my posts again, that I never made the comments which you have attributed to myself.
The person who I made the observation about was the person who "..had a fox in a hen house a few times.."
I look forward to reading your modified post.
Blazing Sporrans
21-Feb-11, 17:29
I think you will find, if you read my posts again, that I never made the comments which you have attributed to myself.
When all else fails in reasoned debate, argue over the minutiae just to make it look like you're still interested. Obfuscation at work - better to let the thread dwindle and slip to Page 2 and beyond methinks :)
When all else fails in reasoned debate, argue over the minutiae just to make it look like you're still interested. Obfuscation at work - better to let the thread dwindle and slip to Page 2 and beyond methinks :)
That seems to be Anfields way.
Ignore reasonable questions asked of him.
Ignore explanations of issues provided by people more knowledgeable than himself in said issue.
Nit pick at oversights and ommisions in a bid to belittle the posts of others whilst ignoring the valid points raised.
I like a debate, and I like hearing other viewpoints and reasoning. I even sometimes enjoy being proven wrong and changing my views as a result. But with Anfields lack of ability to provide a reasonable, cohesive account of himself I am sure that is impossible to achieve.
Walter Ego's statement in post #67 is the most accurate assessment of someone I have read in some time.
".. argue over the minutiae just to make it look like you're still interested. Obfuscation at work - better to let the thread dwindle and slip to Page 2 and beyond methinks.. 2
So by me objecting to a statement, which incidentally I never made, is to "argue over the minutiae" in your books.
Therefore it is OK, by your moral code, to tell lies.
You must be a "Sun" reader
Ignore reasonable questions asked of him.
Remind me again of any questions you have asked.
Ignore explanations of issues provided by people more knowledgeable than himself in said issue.
Not one of the posts above has remotely convinced me of the need for retards to be driving around the countryside, in the dead of the night taking pot shots at anything (including their own colleagues) that has two eyes in their lust for blood.
Nit pick at oversights and ommisions in a bid to belittle the posts of others whilst ignoring the valid points raised.
Oversights? You had to apologise for failing to read one of my posts correctly in which I pointed out that the "lampers" who shot their colleagues were licenced firearm holders
I like a debate, and I like hearing other viewpoints and reasoning. I even sometimes enjoy being proven wrong
See above paragraph!
Remind me again of any questions you have asked.
Ok.
Confiscating guns and banning people from using them would definately be appropriate for people deliberately acting dangerously with them. Absolutely. Where have I said otherwise?
....your links give 2 examples of accidents in the last 6 years. I'm sure there are more, and I'm sure you could post them here, just as I could post a hundred links to deaths caused by careless, licenced, drivers.
By what logic would that mean that MOST drivers are not fairly responsible?
I've done a wee bit of off the cuff research here, and, did you realise that all those killings were carried out by MEN!
Do you see that as reason to ban all willies?
How do you define an area with no sheep?
A fox will travel several miles from its den to find food.
I think if you draw a 3 mile radius around all the farmers fields in Caithness there won't be many circles that don't have sheep in them.
And it's not just me you ignore....
"I will bet that the gun lobbyists in Dunblane, Hungerford, Cumbria etc all said the same thing about their comrades in arms amd look what happened"
As mentioned by numerous others already, all walks of society have an unfortunate few who give the 'majority' a bad name. By your response, are you suggesting that every driver have their licence and car removed simply because a few unsafe drivers exist in the world?
Not one of the posts above has remotely convinced me of the need for retards to be driving around the countryside, in the dead of the night taking pot shots at anything (including their own colleagues) that has two eyes in their lust for blood.
No, not even expert witness testimonies from people who are actually involved in animal rearing. But you know better...........
Oversights? You had to apologise for failing to read one of my posts correctly in which I pointed out that the "lampers" who shot their colleagues were licenced firearm holders
Indeed. I did indeed apologise. I wonder if you would in the same situation.
No, my answer to the original poster was to have a word with them.
It looks like you didn't apologise for that oversight on your behalf, or were you deliberately misquoting me?
That statement seems to blow yours out the water.
You didn't even acknowledge that. Ignoring the facts that don't suit you.
And you STILL fail to acknowledge the vast majority of RESPONSIBLE licence holders or agree, that by your logic, driving should be banned to all. Which one is it?
See above paragraph!
Exactly my point. Taking statement out of context and twisting them to suit yourself, without actually addressing the issues at hand.
Blazing Sporrans
21-Feb-11, 19:01
So by me objecting to a statement, which incidentally I never made, is to "argue over the minutiae" in your books.
Therefore it is OK, by your moral code, to tell lies.
You must be a "Sun" reader
There are several leaps in logic here - no, not 'leaps' - bounds of gargantuan proportion would be more appropriate. orkneycadian was accused of being an unfit and improper person to look after livestock (but only in your opinion and with very little information apparent for you to make an informed judgement rather than a wild accusation) and not Farmer. That was Wellies misunderstanding and not mine, nevertheless it can at best be described as exactly that; a misunderstanding and not "lies". You have insufficient information to gauge my moral code, yet you attempt to judge me all the same. In my opinion the standards observed by you in this debate are more in keeping with the tabloid/comic you try to associate me with. I stick by my assertion that you argue over minor detail to avoid the thrust of the main topics of debate in this thread. I await your reasoned and structured reply to the principal point that destruction of foxes is a necessary requirement for those involved in rearing sheep as part of a crofting or farming lifestyle. And try not to wander too far off topic, there's a good chap...
DeHaviLand
21-Feb-11, 20:31
I await your reasoned and structured reply to the principal point that destruction of foxes is a necessary requirement for those involved in rearing sheep as part of a crofting or farming lifestyle. And try not to wander too far off topic, there's a good chap...
Be prepared for a lengthy wait, reasoned replies are just not his style.
More than you it would appear! If you coop them up 24/7, they get bored and peck each others feathers out. And Supermarket lemmings don't get the "Free Range" eggs they want. You need to let them out. As it gets dark, they make their way back to the hen house under their own steam, then when they are all in, you shut the door. If the fox gets there before you, you might as well not shut the door. Foxes don't have the reputation for being cunning for nothing....
You are priceless! They certainly don’t breed them like you anymore, thank God.
p.s. when you park your car do you check that there is not a thief hiding underneath seat before locking it up?
I have never disputed the fact that foxes kill livestock, I have had a fox take two of our geese, but after that incident I made sure that they could not gain entry into poultry shed (are you reading Orkneycadian)
What I am disputing is the number of livestock which has been proven to be killed by fox predation.
[QUOTE=farmer;821026 Talking of Proven evidence - We are yet to find any evidence that any other species killed the lambs in question. No dogs have been spotted roaming the area, and so I feel it safe to assume this is not the cause of death. Sometimes assumptions have to be made based on the best available evidence (namely a mauled carcus, taken for a post mortem, and having trained professionals stating that this is highly likely to be the work of a fox, along with numerous sightings of foxes roaming in the local area at the time of death)
Both the sentences above “assume” that your livestock has been killed by a fox, I am very surprised that “trained professionals” not being able to distinguish between an animal killed by a dog and one killed by a fox.
Last week in Lancashire there was an incident in which 40 sheep were killed and more than 50 injured ( http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-lancashire-12506924) the police confirmed that this was a result of a dog attack. I wonder what your “trained professionals” would have made of it.
And put these tragedies into context against the numbers of law-abiding citizens who hold firearms for genuine and legitimate reasons and will live a lifetime without offending, never mind going on a rampage in such examples as you cite. Michael Ryan killed people using an automatic assault rifle in August 1987 as I recall; Thomas Hamilton killed children and their teacher using a handgun in March 1996 and Derrick Bird went on his rampage in June 2010. Hungerford and then Dunblane rightly saw fundamental changes in firearms legislation, banning automatic weapons and handguns. I haven't done any research but I wonder how many instances of fatal stabbings there have been in that same period? And yet we still haven't banned knives. .
As far as I am aware it is illegal to sell knives to people under the age of 18, the same age that you are legally allowed to buy an air rifle.
I am sure that the victims of Dunblane, Hungerford Cumbria and all other victims of gun crime did not really give a second glance at the type of weapon which was used to kill/maim them.
It is an irrefutable fact that people who own guns have been responsible for the killing large numbers of people. Reduce the number of guns by banning all private individuals from owning one and see a fall in the number of gun deaths. Hardly rocket science is it
”..That seems to be Anfields way. Ignore reasonable questions asked of him..”
You mean reasonable questions like:
”..Would you consider sheep dipping as killing fleas for sport..”
Or do you mean this one;
“..Do you see that as reason to ban all willies?..”
(incidentally I did answer the above post, and I agreed with you to castrate all men who shoot animals for “sport” sorry “conservation” )
Nit pick at oversights and ommisions in a bid to belittle the posts of others whilst ignoring the valid points raised.
The problem I have with these “oversights” is that there appear to be an awful lot of them, three on this thread alone that I can think of
Is it a case of people making genuine mistakes, or is it part of the course for animal abusers trying to undermine other peoples contempt for their “sport”
”.. I await your reasoned and structured reply to the principal point that destruction of foxes is a necessary requirement for those involved in rearing sheep as part of a crofting or farming lifestyle. And try not to wander too far off topic, there's a good chap...”
For the seemingly 99% of people, with less than “adequate” IQ ‘s, who like killing animals for sport I will make it very simple:
“Thou Shall Not Kill”
You mean reasonable questions like: ”..Would you consider sheep dipping as killing fleas for sport..”
Yes, like that one. Your viewpoint is that killing a pest to livestock is wrong, and not only that but a sport. What are your views on sheep dipping? It's the same type of livestock, just a different pest.
Or do you mean this one; “..Do you see that as reason to ban all willies?..”
Not so much. But you found a connection that 4 murderers were all "linked" by gun ownership, I found a connection that they were all male. Is it the gun licence or the genetalia that makes a murderer?
Is it possible that the answer is neither?
I do however, wish you'd answer this:
I could post a hundred links to deaths caused by careless, licenced, drivers.
By what logic would that mean that MOST drivers are not fairly responsible?
(incidentally I did answer the above post, and I agreed with you to castrate all men who shoot animals for “sport” sorry “conservation” )
There you go again! Where did I suggest that?
I never.
You're either deliberately misquoting me of it's an oversight on your behalf.
For someone who has such a problem with "oversights" on this thread, you really should be more careful.
For the seemingly 99% of people, with less than “adequate” IQ ‘s, who like killing animals for sport I will make it very simple:
“Thou Shall Not Kill”
Thanks for that.
But for those of us with adequate IQ's............
What about the fleas?
Blazing Sporrans
23-Feb-11, 19:24
As far as I am aware it is illegal to sell knives to people under the age of 18, the same age that you are legally allowed to buy an air rifle.
I am sure that the victims of Dunblane, Hungerford Cumbria and all other victims of gun crime did not really give a second glance at the type of weapon which was used to kill/maim them.
As I'm sure all the many hundreds of victims of stabbings will have asked their attacker if they are old enough to buy a knife... :roll:
It is an irrefutable fact that people who own guns have been responsible for the killing large numbers of people. Reduce the number of guns by banning all private individuals from owning one and see a fall in the number of gun deaths. Hardly rocket science is it
You've quoted three examples (and yes, I am aware there are more), but what about the many thousands of gun owners (of which I am not one) who abide by the law? Are you just waiting for them all to blow their fuses in the hope it validates your argument?
For the seemingly 99% of people, with less than “adequate” IQ ‘s, who like killing animals for sport I will make it very simple:
“Thou Shall Not Kill”
I have a very respectable IQ thanks, and I'm sure I keep referring to the 'necessary' destruction of predators in order to combat fox predation in sheep and lambs. I haven't once mentioned shooting for sport. Do keep up, there's a good chap.
orkneycadian
23-Feb-11, 19:27
I have had a fox take two of our geese, but after that incident I made sure that they could not gain entry into poultry shed (are you reading Orkneycadian)
Ah yes, the good old intesive poultry farming technique where you coop them up in a building and deny them access to the outside world. Whats worse, killing a fox with a clean shot or keeping poulty in un-natural conditions all their lives?
I would post some pictures of fox killed lambs on here, but would probably get banned, and somefolk might not have had their tea yet. Try putting these words into Google and search for images....
For the seemingly 99% of people, with less than “adequate” IQ ‘s, who like killing animals for sport I will make it very simple:
“Thou Shall Not Kill”
Please go try telling that to the fox as it doesn't seem to understand you....
This is now getting completely ridiculous!
Firstly - You talk - Anfield - of my lack of 'proven evidence' as to who killed my livestock, which I then went on to explain to you as clearly as possible, given all of the evidence available to me at the time. You (as predicted) rubbished this as un-trustworthy evidence. You then go on to talk of loosing geese yourself to a fox. Do you have proven evidence of this being a fox, which is more trustworthy than my own? If you do, I'd be intereested to know what it is, as I wasn't aware that foxes left 100% evidence of thier DNA or individual pawprints at the scence of the crime. How can you claim to know your geese were killed by a fox, yet belittle me for making a similar claim?
Secondly - you rubbish the professional opinion of someone who (I assume) is more knowledgeable in carrying out animal post mortems than yourself. (If you are a qualified vet or have a qualification in forensic pathology, then I apolgise in advance). I never said that the professional in question 'couldnt distinguish' between a fox and a dog, as you are claiming I have said. I have simply stated that we were told the predator was a fox, and therefore, i believe their professional opinion. I am not in the habit of disagreeing with those more highly qualified than myself on a given subject, and due to their knowledge and position, tend not to argue unneccessary points (unlike some pople, who seem to like arguing simply for the sake of it, with little or no regard to those who may actually know better than themselves on a given subject......)
Blazing Sporrans
23-Feb-11, 19:47
Do you have proven evidence of this being a fox, which is more trustworthy than my own? If you do, I'd be intereested to know what it is, as I wasn't aware that foxes left 100% evidence of thier DNA or individual pawprints at the scence of the crime. How can you claim to know your geese were killed by a fox, yet belittle me for making a similar claim?
It must be easy to do when you possess such an elevated IQ.... :lol:
orkneycadian
24-Feb-11, 14:28
I know for sure it was a fox that did in my hens. For it got greedy and came back for more and got shot. On inspecting the carcase, it was most definitely a fox, not a dog. No more lost hens after that, even though there were plenty of dogs around that place.
An apparently healthy lamb being chased
http://www.flickr.com/photos/zoot42/3513913968/in/photostream/
Linky here to a fox attacking a domestic cat (which doesn't happen apparently) http://www.terrierwork.com/pestcontrol.htm
The ingineuity of foxes - check out what this one is actually doing
http://pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/abglogo/abg-en-100c-000000.png
And a happy pic - dogs and deer - how cute!!! http://www.dogcentral.info/bloodthirsty-fox-hounds-adopted-deer/
http://www.dogcentral.info/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/Bloodthirsty-Fox-Hounds-1.jpg
Edit - annoying; new forum doesn't seem to img link the same...
I do however, wish you'd answer this:
“..And you STILL fail to acknowledge the vast majority of RESPONSIBLE licence holders or agree, that by your logic, driving should be banned to all. Which one is it?
The analogy you use between car owners and gunmen is preposterous but I will give it a go:
I am sure you will agree that there are many more times the amount of cars on the road than there are guns in this country. According to a BBC article in 2009, there were 29.6 million cars (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8007798.stm) in the UK on the road in the UK , which I would say is a hell of a lot more than the number of guns (all types)
Whilst I am sure that there have been cases of people deliberately aiming their cars at other road users and pedestrians in an attempt to injure/kill them, it is not the weapon of choice for criminals.
The vast majority of deaths on the road are caused by accidents, of which human error is the major contributing factor.
Death by guns however are different, in that the vast majority of deaths are not accidental, they are pre-meditated.
”..Ah yes, the good old intesive poultry farming technique where you coop them up in a building and deny them access to the outside world..”
I don’t want to rain on your parade, but our poultry (which are all pets) have the free run of my property throughout the day and are protected from the millions of foxes which seem to inhabit Northern Scotland by our dogs.
Post them for I can think of at least two psychos who frequent this forum who would get off on them.
[QUOTE=Blazing Sporrans;823173]As I'm sure all the many hundreds of victims of stabbings will have asked their attacker if they are old enough to buy a knife... :roll:
You've quoted three examples (and yes, I am aware there are more), but what about the many thousands of gun owners (of which I am not one) who abide by the law? Are you just waiting for them all to blow their fuses in the hope it validates your argument?
Do you mean like the incident in Strathclyde yesterday when 11 children were shot?
This is now getting completely ridiculous! Firstly - You talk - Anfield - of my lack of 'proven evidence' as to who killed my livestock, which I then went on to explain to you as clearly as possible, given all of the evidence available to me at the time. You (as predicted) rubbished this as un-trustworthy evidence. You then go on to talk of loosing geese yourself to a fox. Do you have proven evidence of this being a fox, which is more trustworthy than my own? If you do, I'd be intereested to know what it is, as I wasn't aware that foxes left 100% evidence of thier DNA or individual pawprints at the scence of the crime. How can you claim to know your geese were killed by a fox, yet belittle me for making a similar claim?
Well Farmer the answer is that I have magic powers!
When I was born GOD gave me two apertures, just above my nose, which I call eyes. From these “eyes” I saw the fox disappearing over a stone wall dragging remains of the goose .
I know it was a fox, as opposed to another mammal with a bushy tail frequently called a squirrel, because I remembered it from my I-Spy books from yesteryear. Also I spent over 15 years trying to stop blood thirsty huntsmen from seeing them ripped to bits by baying hounds.
Secondly - you rubbish the professional opinion of someone who (I assume) is more knowledgeable in carrying out animal post mortems than yourself. (If you are a qualified vet or have a qualification in forensic pathology, then I apolgise in advance). I never said that the professional in question 'couldnt distinguish' between a fox and a dog, as you are claiming I have said. I have simply stated that we were told the predator was a fox, and therefore, i believe their professional opinion. I am not in the habit of disagreeing with those more highly qualified than myself on a given subject, and due to their knowledge and position, tend not to argue unneccessary points (unlike some pople, who seem to like arguing simply for the sake of it, with little or no regard to those who may actually know better than themselves on a given subject......)
Because I disagree with you, you clam that I “rubbish” the professional opinion of someone.
You fail to state what profession these “trained professionals” are engaged in, hence my hesitation in accepting the evidence that your lambs were killed by a fox.
An apparently healthy lamb being chased
Aah, Leanne. The person who was put off hunting by seeing a fox ripped to bits… at a drag hunt meeting!
Sorry to disappoint you Leanne but you (or someone else)tried same stunt with this photo last year.
It turns out that this fox was actually a pet fox and used to play with other lambs.
Better luck next year eh.
Metalattakk
24-Feb-11, 16:35
Anfield, you have the reasoning and debating skills of a five year old. Instead of cherry-picking the questions you want to answer, why not address the many valid points you seem to have skimmed over.
If you can't or won't do that, then the validity of your input is negligible. And the people will see it as so.
Aah, Leanne. The person who was put off hunting by seeing a fox ripped to bits… at a drag hunt meeting!
Incorrect again. Again misquoting someone.
It turns out that this fox was actually a pet fox and used to play with other lambs.
Seems you are incorrect again - the description of the photo states the fox was chasing the lamb for the kill. I did search and see if the photo had been ripped off another person but was unable to find it replicated on the net. Judging from the other photos taken I believe the poster was the owner of the image therefore I trust their statement rather than you secondhand, unsubstantiated claims.
You repeatedly disagree with people and state why but I am yet to see any evidence to substantiate your claims. without the backup to the big shouties you are just going to continue to get laughed at.
To quote the bard - it is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing...
Incorrect again. Again misquoting someone.
Ahem Leanne, do you not recall the following posts you made?
"..As stated before - I was anti. Now I'm looking for sustainable alternatives. I have done some real research... more than most I have debated with..
"..The fox managed to stop for a pee along the way and was caught by the lead hound and dispatched by having its throat torn out (this is what I didn't like)
It later emerged in thread that Leanne had been to one fox hunt meeting. When asked which hunt it was she replied:
Not sure I see the relevance but - it was the East Cheshire Hunt.
This pack of hounds is actually a drag hunt i.e. they chase a man who runs across the countryside with a scent.
Our self acclaimed "well researched" Leanne has also seen a fox shot by a farmer...
On the other side I have seen a fox shot by a farmer but not killed, just mortally wounded. It got away but who knows how long it lasted for before it finally died. Shooting isn't always the quick and painless option...
Also shows that shooting foxes is not that reliable, and if farmer saw that he did not make a clean kill, why did he not take a second shot?
So much for the old adage of shooting "ensures that animals suffer no pain"
For more of the sometimes hilarious dialogue between Leanne and other members of this forum, take a look at this thread (http://forum.caithness.org/showthread.php?110812-Foxes/page4)
(http://forum.caithness.org/showthread.php?110812-Foxes/page4)
Blazing Sporrans
24-Feb-11, 21:32
Do you mean like the incident in Strathclyde yesterday when 11 children were shot?
By some teenagers with an air rifle. Air rifles that don't have to be licensed unless their pressure by specification takes them into the category of Section 1 firearms. But don't worry - seeing Westminster won't ban them unless held by licence, Holyrood will as soon as they get the fully devolved power to do so. We must be more responsible citizens north of the border :)
Hugely irresponsible and potentially lethal but not in the same category as Hungerford, Dunblane and Cumbria.
Do you know something? This is starting to get reallllllyyy boring now!!!!
I enjoy seeing people make a valid point about an issue which they genuinely have a strong opinion on, but when arguments are continued and prolonged by those with no clear opinion,(or an opinion which seems to change with the wind direction) it quite simply gets boring. I wish certain people would make up their mind on their views about the given topic, stick to them, and clearly state these to the forum instead of arguing with everyone simply for the sake of trying to 'catch others out'. It really appears to be a rather pathetic tactic.
Is it just me, or is this ongoing thread simply starting to make some people look foolish?
I, for one, am getting decidedly bored.....
"..By some teenagers with an air rifle...
"Hugely irresponsible and potentially lethal but not in the same category as Hungerford, Dunblane and Cumbria.."
Phew thats a relief, I am sure that victims are very pleased to know that.
Have you got your excuses ready for the next time innocent people are maimed and killed by gunmen.
"..I enjoy seeing people make a valid point about an issue which they genuinely have a strong opinion on, but when arguments are continued and prolonged by those with no clear opinion,(or an opinion which seems to change with the wind direction) it quite simply gets boring.
I still await your reply to a very pertinent question i.e. what was the profession of these “trained professionals” who "assumed" that animals were killed by foxes.
"..I wish certain people would make up their mind on their views about the given topic, stick to them, and clearly state these to the forum.."
My views on the killing of foxes by "Lampers" have not changed at all in this whole thread, who else are you referring to?
What makes you think I am talking about you Anfield?
Are you getting paranoid?
Blazing Sporrans
27-Feb-11, 15:39
Phew thats a relief, I am sure that victims are very pleased to know that.
How obtuse is it possible for one person to be? I'm genuinely quite certain that the victims and their families are delighted it was an air rifle and not a high powered rifle or sawn-off shotgun! Although there are well publicised tragedies associated with air weapons, they do not cause anything like the damage associated with higher velocity weapons. Try reading about cavitation and hydrostatic shock and their association with gunshot wounds.
So to answer my own question, in the case of Anfield the answer seems to be "very". :confused
orkneycadian
27-Feb-11, 19:18
With airguns, you might as well throw a stone at somebody if you are trying to do them some damage. More likely to hurt more. Theres even some catapults (slingshots) out there that claim to have more power than airguns.
An airgun is fine for popping off rats in the barn at close range, where you don't want to do too much collateral damage, but anyone seriously going on a "shotting spree" as suggested above in Strathclyde would need to bring something other than an airgun!
Sure, in exceptional circumstances, airguns can cause injury to humans (more so than a bruise) or even be fatal, but if they were to get banned, then the same would have to go for the more powerful catapults, crossbows, stones, etc etc....
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.