Are we hypocrites

howa243

Well-Known Member
This topic has been touched on but I dont think fully explored.

When we talk about deer stalking, an awful lot of time is spent discussing 'best practice' and 'ethics'. We spend hours talking about what is and what is not a fair target, if, when and how a shot should be taken.

I find it rather odd that if I went on a days rough shooting and shot a duck sitting on a pond or a pheasant on foot crossing in front of me at 40 yards, that I would be flung off the shoot with instructions never to return. On the other hand if I shoot a high bird screaming accross me with the wind behind it and at 40 to 50 yards out, there might be some sounds of appreciation from those who saw it.

So with game shooting, the tougher and less certain the shot is, the more 'sporting' it is. With stalking the opposite is true. Why is this. Are they not both living animals, that deserve the same considerations
 
I would say this is because to shoot a duck on the pond is easy where as a teal on a strong wind is hard in a similar way that to just shoot at a deer (not necessarily kill) from where you spot it is the easy option where as to stalk it in to 100 yards or as close as possible is where the skill comes in much like shooting a fast or high game bird. Just my two pence worth.

George
 
Personaly I hunt for food and relaxation. If out rough shooting I would take a shot at birds on the ground as it puts food in the pot with the suraty that you'll dispatch the creature creanly. That may be viewed as unethical by some on here but as you say that would seem hypocritical. For me a clean kill is more important than a great longrange difficult shot that you manage to pull off. I wonder how many on these high fast birds that appear to be missed are pricked and suffer accordingly. If you wouldn't do it to a rabbit, fox or dear, why do it to a bird?
 
I have often wondered this myself.

To start with, i would say that your first example would be more based on safety than on ethics. Shooting anything on the floor is a bit dodgy when there are a lot of people about (similar to shooting a very low bird).

I personally dont shoot at birds that are a long way out (still miss though), they will always be there another time. I also dont tend to shoot at a bird if it has made it past a few guns unshot (i will have a go if it has been hit though)

To answer your question, i have no idea if we are hypocrites but i do know that people on this site put a lot more store on shooting anything (from rabbits to deer) than a lot of people do so i think that the difference in the potential ethics may be more marked

Dan
 
Yes, i believe so at times depending on what suits us at the time. Although i believe not undertaken in this country running boar/deer is common place in europe-sporting!,but is it ethical?? or could it be provided just for someone to make money, perhaps this is why they are more advanced than us in the use of dogs for deer:eek:

Regards cervushunter.
 
Groach1234 is right the skill in stalking is primarily field craft something not needed to shoot pheasants where the challenge is the shot,wildfowling,pigeon,rabbits,foxes would all need a bit of both just the way it is.
 
Hmmm I believe that so far I have shot exactly two Pheasants on the wing. One of which although in a death glide was never recovered as it went right out in the neighbours beet crop. I was not about to go stomping all over his crop of a pheasant. I have shot quiet a few on the ground and more with the .22 L/R than the shotgun. When I go after Pheasant it's purely for the pot. I have also shot more Duck with the .22L/R than with the shotguns. Out back here we get partridge, both Red legged and the English grey, they are left along as they need to increase their numbers. Hares are only taken if their causing us a problem the rabbits however are fair game. Likewise the few Snipe we get in winter are left along. If I am out with the gun and the chance at the Rooks, Crows or Magpies comes along they are shot. Although i have seen a fox on the fields the other side of the road as yet i have never seen one this side. We do it seems now get visits from a Badger as one ran across to our side some weeks back in front of the car and i have found their scat on the filed but have not seen the animal as yet.
 
Doing a bit of game shooting and picking up, I find that many people wound pheasants. This is of course why responsible shooters have access to a team of dogs. I am fortunate to shoot with people who will stop the shoot until a pricked bird is found and dispatched. I practise regularly on clays with a group of mates that I shoot with, in the vain hope that we can keep our shooting up to snuff. For the birds that I prick and do not kill, I bought a labrador which is trained to find and retrieve wounded game. I try to not shoot at anything at extreme range, but I know people who can do it successfully, but they are greatly outnumbered by those that cannot! Having been shooting on a few high bird shoots, and spending some time with the beaters too, the number of high birds hit but not killed can be huge.

And as for deer, I try to exercise the same restraint. I do know people who consider them as nothing more than vermin, needing to be shot anyhow, anytime. Thankfully they are few and far between in my experience. I think the people that boast about shooting a 50/60 yard high pheasant are probably those that will boast about neck-shooting deer at 350 yards or more. I think the commercialisation of shooting has much to do with this attitude. Thankfully, and maybe unknowingly, the DSC1/2 qualifications and the best practise guide have benefited the sport of deer stalking greatly.

And I do agree with Brit (and the late Hugh Falkus) in our belief that sport is different from games.

ft
 
...sport is different from games.

As Ernest Hemingway is reputed to have said, "There are only three sports: bullfighting, motor racing, and mountaineering; all the rest are merely games."

However, I did read somewhere that he also said "Bullfighting is not a sport. It is a tragedy."

Edit - Found the acual lines. From 'Death in the Afternoon' (1932)

The bullfight is not a sport in the Anglo-Saxon sense of the word; that is, it is not an equal contest or an attempt at an equal contest between a bull and a man. Rather it is a tragedy; the death of the bull, which is played, more or less well, by the bull and the man involved and in which there is danger for the man but certain death for the animal.

So, where does that leave stalking? Is it sport or a tragedy?
 
Last edited:
Anyone who treats vermin or game or deer differently I would say is a Hypocrite.
However, I would happily 'Texas heart shoot' a fox up the 'chocolate starfish' whereas I wouldn't dream of it with a deer (unless it was the only way to finish a wounded one). It's still a humane dispatch but does it make me a hypocrite? I'm not sure?!:confused:
Most of us will happily lamp rabbits or foxes with a rifle, but not deer - whats the difference?
 
Last edited:
Anyone who treats vermin or game or deer differently I would say is a Hypocrite.
However, I would happily 'Texas heart shoot' a fox up the 'chocolate starfish' whereas I wouldn't dream of it with a deer (unless it was the only way to finish a wounded one). It's still a humane dispatch but does it make me a hypocrite? I'm not sure?!:confused:
Most of us will happily lamp rabbits or foxes with a rifle, but not deer - whats the difference?

If the shot kills the animal without undue suffering then it is irrelevant were the bullet is placed. We may have other reasons for avoiding pushing a bullet up the arse of a deer but that doesn't necessarily make it the less ethical option.

We don't lamp deer because it isn't allowed and we are all good and faithful subjects who uphold the law of the land. Seemples! Were it allowed, then no, I believe it would be no different in terms of moral reasoning to shooting those species we currently are allowed to shoot by the light of a lamp.
 
Last edited:
This topic has been touched on but I dont think fully explored.

When we talk about deer stalking, an awful lot of time is spent discussing 'best practice' and 'ethics'. We spend hours talking about what is and what is not a fair target, if, when and how a shot should be taken.

I find it rather odd that if I went on a days rough shooting and shot a duck sitting on a pond or a pheasant on foot crossing in front of me at 40 yards, that I would be flung off the shoot with instructions never to return. On the other hand if I shoot a high bird screaming accross me with the wind behind it and at 40 to 50 yards out, there might be some sounds of appreciation from those who saw it.

So with game shooting, the tougher and less certain the shot is, the more 'sporting' it is. With stalking the opposite is true. Why is this. Are they not both living animals, that deserve the same considerations



Mr Howa !,

You do have a point mate, to a point !!! One of the main differences between driven shotgunning and stalking as I see it, is this : A reared (and then driven)pheasant is essentially in a contrived situation, there are variables. It would not be there in it's idyllic bio-diverse semi-haven if it were not for the forethought and hard work of the humans who put it there in those artificially favourable surroundings. They have been reared to provide sport and not food specifically, even though they are brought into the human food chain... and are tasty too . Let's face it if they weren't shot for sport they'd all be in dark amonia stenched sheds . True so far ? Like you, I shoot for the pot. As well as the love for the outdoors, guided by the primeaval instinct to 'hunt' that we share. Personally, I started mainly to provide food for the family while my Dad was on strike as a miner in the eighties. I would go out before school (and then later work) to bag whatever was edible, from duck to squirrel. If truth be told we ate like kings (no, swan was not on the menu before you ask !!!!), better then than when Dad eventually went back down't pit ! If it was legal and sat, shat or flapped it was bagged, regardless. A pheasant is regarded differently to say, a red grouse for instance, when you think about it ! Because grouse have never been successfully reared artificially they are regarded as a highly prized commodity, and so are given more consideration to realistic execution of 'efficient shooting methods' than a lowly pheasant !!!$!!! To produce a brace of them takes a lot of very hard work and considerable financial commitment. Still true ? Human nature being what it is there will always be competition between shots, and shoots though. Would you Stalk if it were easy, personally I doubt it. That goes for driven pheasant shots too, the difference here is that there is always a team of man and dog specifically tasked with collecting any bird which appears wounded in any way. They too have codes of practice and standards. No shot (in either field) is ever taken with the intent to wound the creature concerned, a safe and efficient demise is always commonly our first concern. Lately there is a greater trend towards showing 'higher' birds, there is also a a trend with manufacturers to provide the tools to carry this off efficiently...longer barrels,tighter chokes and cartridges that maintain pattern density and energy to deal with these sky rockets. There was a trip I went on to the Solway years ago after Pinkfeet, part of the deal was to have a morning at driven pheasant. Being a pot hunter I ended up only shooting 3 brace (which I took home), turning down the other thirty or so birds that went over me because they were 'too close'. I would have smashed them with the 32g 6's I was using. Why don't we go back to a longbow made from yew ? We use a high powered weapon and the latest optics, with ammunition designed to kill in the most efficient way, as do driven shots ! The skill is two fold in stalking, one aspect as Groachy said, is getting within range of the beast to execute a clean kill. The other is putting the shot in the most appropriate place with the right tools, with the skill and the knowledge to do this efficiently to achieve and gain the desired end result because you might not get another chance (we've all been there goddammit). There are similarities, would you agree ??? The difference as I see it between the two - one is (essentially, not always) reared for a purpose and PROVIDED "artificially" for sport in natural surroundings. The other is (mostly, not always) wild, SOUGHT and "harvested" in natural surroundings. There is common ground between both. The differences are that, before this happens "Get orff moi Larnd, don't shoot it on the deck cos oi've gone to a lot of trouble frr that buugggrrr" - the pheasant shot provides the opportunity for the bird to fly another day by not executing it in a Blackadder stylee ReadyAimFire rant, because it was put there for the purpose testing skill and not pot hunting. It is though frowned upon to take a shot that is clearly out of range. The birds are presented on drives that have been carefully selected and conceived to provide shots a 'set' difficulty level within the restrictions of normal humane shotgun ranges. The stalker on the other hand is often guided by natural variances and fluctuations in population, weather conditions, and more often than (in other words almost NEVER) not, cannot rely on a beast presenting itself exactly at the required 'set zero' distance for his rifle. So we use our own judgement with each individual shot taken (or not) and then talk endlessly about it afterwards to anybody who will listen. And rightly so, two or more heads are better than one, experience shared is knowledge gained ! If you were to talk to a head keeper and ask him why he/she presented a drive in a particular way, he/she would no doubt tell you his considerations. But because he does not broadcast it on a forum does not mean they dont exist. IT IS STILL DOWN TO EACH INDIVIDUAL TO JUDGE WHETHER THEY DO HAVE A SHOT WITHIN THE CAPABILITY OF THEIR KIT, AND THEIR ABILITY !

Batten Down The Hatches Lads...Incoming !!!

food for thought though, good question Howa

cheers

Ade



P.s. What about driven boar ! Would you, or wouldn't you ???????
 
Ha Ha, I have this vision of Howa sitting at his desk, slightly bored, thinking "what topic shall I start today that will get them all going?" Then he just leans back and waits for his day's entertainment to unfold. Quite a skill really.
 
Anyone who treats vermin or game or deer differently I would say is a Hypocrite.
However, I would happily 'Texas heart shoot' a fox up the 'chocolate starfish' whereas I wouldn't dream of it with a deer (unless it was the only way to finish a wounded one). It's still a humane dispatch but does it make me a hypocrite? I'm not sure?!:confused:
Most of us will happily lamp rabbits or foxes with a rifle, but not deer - whats the difference?
Etiquette ie rules of behaviour,so you would happily shoot a fox up the chocolate star fish ?you do no this is an open forum any member of the public can read your thread,personally I dont think its ethical.
 
Etiquette ie rules of behaviour,so you would happily shoot a fox up the chocolate star fish ?you do no this is an open forum any member of the public can read your thread,personally I dont think its ethical.

I use either a 25.06 with Ballistic Tips or a 30.06. Believe me, if I hit a fox centre of mass from any direction, it isn't going to know much about it!;) The fox is humanely killed and therefore the shot is ethical surely? It's not as if it is going to enter the food chain as a deer might.
Next you'll be saying that you wouldn't shoot a rabbit running/facing away from you as it isn't ethical!:rolleyes:
If the shot is instantly lethal, then it must be humane and therefore 'ethical'.
MS
 
I shoot vermin to kill them. I shoot to kill, but moreover, I shoot to eliminate. I use enough gun so that usually a hit from any angle will be fatal. I have hit prairiedogs that have made it to their hole before being finished off and while I regret the lack of a quick kill, I lose no sleep over it. They are vermin. I want them dead -quickly as possible- but in the end, just dead. To that end, I have no regard for their "welfare".

Big game, animals I choose to visit in their habitat (unlike vermin who invade mine) get an entirely different treatment. I cannot hunt as much as you folks do. I get maybe 1 month of overlapping seasons in two states. I practice off hand every week, all year long, to hone my shooting skills for the one or two shots I make on deer during the year. That is the ethical basis I apply to my hunting life. When I do shoot, I will be as prepared as I can possibly be to deliver the bullet to make the kill. The man who can repeatedly make the high passing shot isn't doing anything unethical. It's the man who can't, but tries anyhow, that is being unethical. It's the hunters themselves who decide their ethical stature.

The most ethical hunter I know isn't a hunter at all. This man likes recreational shooting but (honestly) states that he isn't good enough to hunt live game of any kind. He'd like to hunt but lacks the skill so he stays home. How many people have we met who would excuse their lack of skill and head afield anyhow?? To these people, any further argument or discussion about "ethics" is moot. They shouldn't be in the field to begin with.~Muir
 
Back
Top