Joke???

[BenBhoy]

First time ever I had some problems last year, new lady moaning about lamb's noise at weaning. When I explained why they were making noise she said "oh that's a bit mean". Next day my Mrs found she'd started a "petition" on FB about it!! Thankfully every single person told her to stop being a tw@t.

 

[bobt]

we had a new guy in the village down the road going door to door with a petition to close the farm in the village, over the road from the pub,
he was told to P off back to town,

 

[Cootmeurer]

Follow that viewpoint to its logical conclusion and we would still be keeping pigs, poultry and cattle in New York City.
Its been banned, because it was recognised that keeping livestock in urban areas negatively affected a lot of residents.
As the area morphs from rural to urban in character the urban residents will campaign for changes to zoning and land use, and they’ll get it. It may take a while, but they’ll get the change.

That’s an awkward one, I would blame the authorities who approved housing developments within the 80 -120Db noise contour.
That area should be zoned for sterilisation or industrial development only. It’s also not usual to develop the area immediately under or adjacent to the arrival and departure paths for high density residential use.
We are far more cognisant of the environmental impact of developments like airports and pig farms now than we were in the 70’s - 80’s, thats one reason why we have zoning regulations.
In the 50’s no one cared, you could do what like, you could even get on an aircraft with a gun in your hand luggage and a knife in your pocket.
Try that now.

In the US was have the 5th Amendment found in the Bill of Rights - forbids taking of private property or property rights without compensation.

As much as I don’t like it - when rural land becomes suburban via compensated conversion (often when the old farmer dies and the heirs are offered a large sum from a developer) that is a normal and proper exercise of the rights of everyone involved.

However, when an individuals rights to make a living or income from traditionally accepted methods are threatened with no recompense - that runs afoul of the takings clauses of the 5th Amendment. Perhaps what should be factored is when a developer or the lot buyers purchase they should offer to compensate the farmer. Maybe X amount of money to switch to row cropping or something less aromatic, or 2X to buy out the livestock farming rights

But that doesn’t often happen.

 

[Longstrider]

There's a very nice house that stands alone right next to one of the biggest fields on one of my shooting permissions. About 300 yds away from the house is a small group of trees in the middle of the crop .. the perfect place for a pigeon hide.
Having delayed my start time to 9am so as to be 'neighbour friendly' I had a cracking day there on the wheat drilling with the hide the far side of the trees in the underbrush and facing outwards away from the house,

The next day saw the (pretty recently moved-in) owner of the house knocking on the farmers door to complain about the noise that "woke us all up and went on to ruin our Sunday".

The farmer (bless him) asked quietly if the family ate bread at all. When the answer was along the lines of "Well, yes, of course we do" the farmer said "Well, unless you to be paying a tenner for a loaf in future you better let us keep the F$%*&ing pigeons under control before they eat the damned wheat before it's even grown !"

The folks that moved in to that house a few months later are f-a-r more understanding, but they would be ... they both grew up in the village

 

[Ratel]

We had one in a Cotswold village when I was a keeper there. She demanded to know who gave permission for the Hounds to meet at the village pub. Needless to say she was impolitely asked to breed elsewhere by most of the village and her family were not welcome in the pub. She went.
A classic was a friend who had a city dweller move in next to his land where he kept horses and pigs. He erected a post and rail fence to keep the horses away from their hedge and his pigs were green pigs in one field adjacent to their property. They moaned about everything so he erected a five foot high tin sheet fence all newly galvanised on the pig side. He then proceeded to feed the pigs at 5.30am every morning so that they got used to it and squealed a lot if he was late. It went up for sale and he did a deal with the prospected buyers to change things when they came.

 

[purdeydog]

What’s your point with this post. People ask extremely politely for a fav. Do or don’t but why mug them off on here. Weary.

 

[Dunwaters]

In the US was have the 5th Amendment found in the Bill of Rights - forbids taking of private property or property rights without compensation.

As much as I don’t like it - when rural land becomes suburban via compensated conversion (often when the old farmer dies and the heirs are offered a large sum from a developer) that is a normal and proper exercise of the rights of everyone involved.

However, when an individuals rights to make a living or income from traditionally accepted methods are threatened with no recompense - that runs afoul of the takings clauses of the 5th Amendment. Perhaps what should be factored is when a developer or the lot buyers purchase they should offer to compensate the farmer. Maybe X amount of money to switch to row cropping or something less aromatic, or 2X to buy out the livestock farming rights

Where do those rights end?
Suppose you have a hog farm, or a skeet range and the adjacent property is developed as a hospice and respite facility for terminally ill kids and their parents?
Are you going to insist on your constitutional right to continue to stink up and pollute the neighbourhood?
Suppose that the development is a golf course or a shopping mall?
Where do you draw the line?
At some stage the answer has got to be, “ you can’t do that here anymore now **** off and do it somewhere else”.

But that doesn’t often happen.

 

[Husky]

Where do those rights end?
Suppose you have a hog farm, or a skeet range and the adjacent property is developed as a hospice and respite facility for terminally ill kids and their parents?
Are you going to insist on your constitutional right to continue to stink up and pollute the neighbourhood?
Suppose that the development is a golf course or a shopping mall?
Where do you draw the line?
At some stage the answer has got to be, “ you can’t do that here anymore now **** off and do it somewhere else”.

If you were there first, why should you have to change ?
The developers would have known what you did when they had their ideas for the neighbouring property.

 

[Dunwaters]

If you were there first, why should you have to change ?
The developers would have known what you did when they had their ideas for the neighbouring property.

You need to change because everything else has.
They can and will force you to change precisely because everything else has changed.
It’s called “progress”, and one selfish, intransigent little shite wont be allowed to stop it.
It works on the same principle all over the planet, get over it.

 

[Taff]

So we have to change because everything else has ? I look forward to the day you lose your firearms, you don’t, need them, times have changed. There is no need for you to hunt deer or any other animal, we have supermarkets now.
Culling of wildlife is not required, they will find there own levels through feast and famine.

 

[Husky]

You need to change because everything else has.
They can and will force you to change precisely because everything else has changed.
It’s called “progress”, and one selfish, intransigent little shite wont be allowed to stop it.
It works on the same principle all over the planet, get over it.

It's not called progress, it's called money and the developers want more of it.

 

[Dunwaters]

It's not called progress, it's called money and the developers want more of it.

So do I.

 

[Taff]

So do I.

Sad , ok money will not bring you happiness but it can help. As someone who has and is still working hard to keep my head above water, seen highs and lows, and probably the best of hunting times, I can say I do not regret one day of it.
The main objective in life is that one day someone Will say” he was a good bugger”

 

[Mr. Gain]

"stop being a tw@t."

The most woefully underused phrase of our century, and possibly every other.

 

[Mr. Gain]

selfish, intransigent little shite

In the spirit of the playground:

"Miss! Farty Dunwater's calling people names, Miss!"

 

[BenBhoy]

In the spirit of the playground:

"Miss! Farty Dunwater's calling people names, Miss!"

I instantly feel that you & I went to very different schools!!

 

[Dunwaters]

In the spirit of the playground:

"Miss! Farty Dunwater's calling people names, Miss!"

No name calling, just evidence based fair comment.

 

[long_range_rob]

In a wood I’m involved with stands a lovely old house, it was the FC rangers house till it was sold in the ‘80s. It’s now owned by some wazzock who has replaced the fence all round and stolen 2m of land on the entire boundary, he wanted all shooting stopped on the commercial forestry that surrounds his hovel and then has the audacity to demand the neighbouring land owner to the south fells five acres so his pool is no longer in the shade.

 

[User00056]

It's the same attitude as those who buy property near a clay shooting ground and then try to get it closed.

Happened beside me when I lived near Auchterhouse shooting ground. New houses went up, people bought them. Then complained bitterly about the sound of gunfire. That they knew about

 

[Cootmeurer]

Where do those rights end?
Suppose you have a hog farm, or a skeet range and the adjacent property is developed as a hospice and respite facility for terminally ill kids and their parents?
Are you going to insist on your constitutional right to continue to stink up and pollute the neighbourhood?
Suppose that the development is a golf course or a shopping mall?
Where do you draw the line?
At some stage the answer has got to be, “ you can’t do that here anymore now **** off and do it somewhere else”.

When you take something of tangible value, without paying for it, that is not progress. That is thievery.