Nah, that's what my hunting crop is for. Long enough to do it from cover.
EU crying wolf,,,,
- Thread starter Foxyboy43
- Start date
timbrayford
Well-Known Member
Precisely why Richmond would be so suitable, it's rich in sanctimonious metropolitan Guardian readers for the apex predators to feast on.Am aware of how stupid the general public can be with the wild animals we have, a couple of good maulings would soon give the countryside a breather from the general public win win.
Heym SR20
Well-Known Member
If it pays it stays. How it works in many other parts of the world.
Top Predators and Tourists - in Namibia all lodges, game viewing enterprises etc pay a tax into the local community for every sighting of iconic species such as Leopard,Lion Cheetah, Rhino etc. It soon adds up.
Hunting Licences. The Game department issues licences for specific areas and for specific animals. These are bought, bid for or granted to hunters, safari operators, land owners etc. The grant is very much dictated by population of the species and whether they need controlling or can sustain a harvest.
Problem Lion, Elephant etc are issued for rogue animals. These often offer a much affordable solution for a visiting hunter, whereas the old animals off long term sustainable income. And we are talking tens of thousands of dollars and there is large queue of hunters willing to pay such monies*.
All of which pays for conservation and supporting locals in the community. Especially it pays for compensation to loss of livestock.
The above, combined with intensive looking after of livestock means that predators and man can live more closely together.
If we are going to have predators in close proximity, the prized horse can’t be left outside over night, nor can the sheep. There will need to be a change in mindset plus a change in revenue models.
Whilst the above is probably unpopular with both Guardian Readers and many on SD its how many parts of the world successfully live alongside big bitey animals.
Top Predators and Tourists - in Namibia all lodges, game viewing enterprises etc pay a tax into the local community for every sighting of iconic species such as Leopard,Lion Cheetah, Rhino etc. It soon adds up.
Hunting Licences. The Game department issues licences for specific areas and for specific animals. These are bought, bid for or granted to hunters, safari operators, land owners etc. The grant is very much dictated by population of the species and whether they need controlling or can sustain a harvest.
Problem Lion, Elephant etc are issued for rogue animals. These often offer a much affordable solution for a visiting hunter, whereas the old animals off long term sustainable income. And we are talking tens of thousands of dollars and there is large queue of hunters willing to pay such monies*.
All of which pays for conservation and supporting locals in the community. Especially it pays for compensation to loss of livestock.
The above, combined with intensive looking after of livestock means that predators and man can live more closely together.
If we are going to have predators in close proximity, the prized horse can’t be left outside over night, nor can the sheep. There will need to be a change in mindset plus a change in revenue models.
Whilst the above is probably unpopular with both Guardian Readers and many on SD its how many parts of the world successfully live alongside big bitey animals.
Last edited:
Rasputin
Well-Known Member
I know the UKs rapidly descending down the ranks into a third world shithole but using African model where life’s cheap as roadmap is even more mental than having bears.
Christ you can’t cut a hedge or tree down without some do gooder objecting.
Heym SR20
Well-Known Member
Actually you will find the African model is directly based on the original British model when they set up the Game Departments in most of Africa. Its also the model used in North America and much of Europe. In many places they call licences “Tags” but it’s the same basis.
Rasputin
Well-Known Member
Obviously it’s our colonial model but you’re dealing with hundreds of thousands of acres untapped wilderness not comparatively small pockets like we have in the UK so it’s a moot point.
It’s completely impractical on every level especially economically. The eco mentalists will have a real loan with the traffic driving hundreds of miles up to the highland so maybe we should do it.
Ah well, a small but important step today; two third’s of the EU vote went for allowing EU countries to chose for themselves if they wish to lawfully kill wolves as a measure to manage wolf numbers.
I very much doubt that Germany will implement this freedom in the near future. However, other more enlightened countries will , and i hope that they light the path for the rest of the idiots who cannot see for the sh1t in their eyes.
Kindest regards, Olaf
I very much doubt that Germany will implement this freedom in the near future. However, other more enlightened countries will , and i hope that they light the path for the rest of the idiots who cannot see for the sh1t in their eyes.
Kindest regards, Olaf
Bavarianbrit
Well-Known Member
Amendment - if in doubt shoot the wolf.
The German Federal Ministry of the Environment decides on simplified shooting of wolves. Every time a sheep is killed, the hunt for wolves is open for 21 days. Is hunting wolves more important than protecting the forests?
Wolves are back in Germany. That’s good news. Unfortunately, the Federal Ministry for the Environment has decided to make it easier to shoot them. “The return of wolves to Germany has been leading to conflict and challenges,” says Steffi Lemke, Federal Minister for the Environment and member of the Green Party. In December, the conference of the State Ministers of the Environment decided that whenever livestock is killed, wolves may be shot for 21 days in a surrounding area of 1 kilometer from the site.
But what exactly counts as an “area of increased numbers of sheep killed” is determined by the federal states. Also, it is no longer necessary to give DNA evidence for wolf bites, which means that wolves may be shot without further ado. The local authorities then have to find out afterward – through clues and expert knowledge – if the reason for a sheep’s death may have been a wolf.
Lemke says that the time to obtain a shooting permission took too long in the past. After all, as wolf populations grow, the number of killings increase.
This, however, is highly speculative: Just because there are more wolves does not mean that they attack livestock immediately. This is too simple an assessment of the situation, as Lemke fails to take forests as factor into consideration: If there were sufficient woodland areas for the wolves to roam their territory, humans and their livestock would never catch sight of a wolf. But humans are diminishing the wolves’ territories considerably.
Certainly, it should be the responsibility of farmers and livestock owners to protect their property by putting up fences and checking them routinely.
As the amendment is passed, it is now legal to kill all wolves surrounding a dead sheep for a period of three weeks – including whole packs of wolves, cubs and adult animals passing by at random. And what happens if the wrong wolf is shot?
Klaus Hackländer, head of the Institute for Wildlife Biology and Hunting at the BOKU University of Natural Resources and Life Sciences in Vienna and president of the Deutsche Wildtier Stiftung (English: German Wildlife Foundation), says in an interview for GEO magazine that the number of single wolf shootings in Germany per year must be regulated by the government. This number should be calculated by two factors: the state of preservation should not deteriorate, and its achievement should not be at risk.
Lemke claims that wolves were part of “our landscape” – but there is one significant flaw: The place for wolves is the forest, their natural habitat. With forest areas shrinking, wolves become increasingly dangerous to humans and sheep. The Federal Ministry for the Environment, however, prefers hunting wolves over protecting the forests.
There are currently 184 packs of wolves in Germany – more than at the previous census. According to the Federal Agency for Nature Conservation (BfN), 47 wolf couples and 22 sedentary individual wolves were confirmed for 2022/2023.
In some cases, wolves may even protect sheep and shepherds. In 2019, I wrote a report on Frank Neumann, a shepherd from the Lusatia area in eastern Germany, and his flock of 1000 sheep. His herd lived in a wolf territory and were protected by electric fences. The adult wolves had to learn to keep clear of the sheep the hard way – and passed their knowledge on to their cubs who refused to go anywhere near the flock. Neumann says the cubs learned from their parents that “sheep hurt”. In consequence, the younger wolves are no longer interested in any sheep, whether they are fenced in or not.
“The only potentially dangerous situation for sheep and livestock on the farm,” said Neumann, “are young individuals who have left the pack recently, roaming the area unaware of the electric fence.” This is why Neumann took many years to establish a system – with the help of a family of wolves. Roaming individuals recognize the territory of a functional family by scratch and urine markings and howling. Then they do not settle down, but they leave the area quickly – or do not enter in the first place. This system only works if there is enough forest area available for wolves to establish different territories.
The newly passed shooting amendment could also backfire drastically and destroy the natural balance. If a wolf is shot from a family, in the worst case the alpha male, the entire family breaks up. If a mother wolf is killed, the cubs can no longer be nourished – meaning they either starve or desperately search for the next prey to kill.
And if a family of wolves breaks up, roaming wolves may enter the territory established by the family and mate with females and offspring. “This disrupts the balance of the whole territory,” says Neumann. “The wolves monitor themselves. They don’t need humans to do it.” Meanwhile, Neumann does not have any sheep anymore – an open-cast lignite mine has been built on his former 2500 hectares in Lusatia. He was compensated, the sheep were slaughtered, and the wolves were driven away. This, as a matter of fact, was not regulated by nature – but by humans.
The German Federal Ministry of the Environment decides on simplified shooting of wolves. Every time a sheep is killed, the hunt for wolves is open for 21 days. Is hunting wolves more important than protecting the forests?
Wolves are back in Germany. That’s good news. Unfortunately, the Federal Ministry for the Environment has decided to make it easier to shoot them. “The return of wolves to Germany has been leading to conflict and challenges,” says Steffi Lemke, Federal Minister for the Environment and member of the Green Party. In December, the conference of the State Ministers of the Environment decided that whenever livestock is killed, wolves may be shot for 21 days in a surrounding area of 1 kilometer from the site.
But what exactly counts as an “area of increased numbers of sheep killed” is determined by the federal states. Also, it is no longer necessary to give DNA evidence for wolf bites, which means that wolves may be shot without further ado. The local authorities then have to find out afterward – through clues and expert knowledge – if the reason for a sheep’s death may have been a wolf.
Lemke says that the time to obtain a shooting permission took too long in the past. After all, as wolf populations grow, the number of killings increase.
This, however, is highly speculative: Just because there are more wolves does not mean that they attack livestock immediately. This is too simple an assessment of the situation, as Lemke fails to take forests as factor into consideration: If there were sufficient woodland areas for the wolves to roam their territory, humans and their livestock would never catch sight of a wolf. But humans are diminishing the wolves’ territories considerably.
Certainly, it should be the responsibility of farmers and livestock owners to protect their property by putting up fences and checking them routinely.
As the amendment is passed, it is now legal to kill all wolves surrounding a dead sheep for a period of three weeks – including whole packs of wolves, cubs and adult animals passing by at random. And what happens if the wrong wolf is shot?
Klaus Hackländer, head of the Institute for Wildlife Biology and Hunting at the BOKU University of Natural Resources and Life Sciences in Vienna and president of the Deutsche Wildtier Stiftung (English: German Wildlife Foundation), says in an interview for GEO magazine that the number of single wolf shootings in Germany per year must be regulated by the government. This number should be calculated by two factors: the state of preservation should not deteriorate, and its achievement should not be at risk.
Lemke claims that wolves were part of “our landscape” – but there is one significant flaw: The place for wolves is the forest, their natural habitat. With forest areas shrinking, wolves become increasingly dangerous to humans and sheep. The Federal Ministry for the Environment, however, prefers hunting wolves over protecting the forests.
There are currently 184 packs of wolves in Germany – more than at the previous census. According to the Federal Agency for Nature Conservation (BfN), 47 wolf couples and 22 sedentary individual wolves were confirmed for 2022/2023.
In some cases, wolves may even protect sheep and shepherds. In 2019, I wrote a report on Frank Neumann, a shepherd from the Lusatia area in eastern Germany, and his flock of 1000 sheep. His herd lived in a wolf territory and were protected by electric fences. The adult wolves had to learn to keep clear of the sheep the hard way – and passed their knowledge on to their cubs who refused to go anywhere near the flock. Neumann says the cubs learned from their parents that “sheep hurt”. In consequence, the younger wolves are no longer interested in any sheep, whether they are fenced in or not.
“The only potentially dangerous situation for sheep and livestock on the farm,” said Neumann, “are young individuals who have left the pack recently, roaming the area unaware of the electric fence.” This is why Neumann took many years to establish a system – with the help of a family of wolves. Roaming individuals recognize the territory of a functional family by scratch and urine markings and howling. Then they do not settle down, but they leave the area quickly – or do not enter in the first place. This system only works if there is enough forest area available for wolves to establish different territories.
The newly passed shooting amendment could also backfire drastically and destroy the natural balance. If a wolf is shot from a family, in the worst case the alpha male, the entire family breaks up. If a mother wolf is killed, the cubs can no longer be nourished – meaning they either starve or desperately search for the next prey to kill.
And if a family of wolves breaks up, roaming wolves may enter the territory established by the family and mate with females and offspring. “This disrupts the balance of the whole territory,” says Neumann. “The wolves monitor themselves. They don’t need humans to do it.” Meanwhile, Neumann does not have any sheep anymore – an open-cast lignite mine has been built on his former 2500 hectares in Lusatia. He was compensated, the sheep were slaughtered, and the wolves were driven away. This, as a matter of fact, was not regulated by nature – but by humans.
FrenchieBoy
Well-Known Member
tackb
Well-Known Member
i'll support this with the reintroduction of handguns because if i am in bear country i want my S&W mod 29 back !
Smellydog
Well-Known Member
I'd like a 29 when I'm in town today!
Foxyboy43
Well-Known Member
Smellydog
Well-Known Member
Sometimes, not always but just occasionally I hate you!Nah - 686 everytime!
Did I mention we still have them over here……
But yes a 686 absolutely.
Heck I'd settle for a SAA Colt!
tackb
Well-Known Member
i also had a 686 but for bear i'd want my 29 !Nah - 686 everytime!
Did I mention we still have them over here……
Foxyboy43
Well-Known Member
Shame we had/have such a spineless reactionary government.
I should maybe consider an SD members’ former pistol club owners convention in NI!
Bavarianbrit
Well-Known Member
Your on.Shame we had/have such a spineless reactionary government.
I should maybe consider an SD members’ former pistol club owners convention in NI!
tackb
Well-Known Member
they stole off meShame we had/have such a spineless reactionary government.
I should maybe consider an SD members’ former pistol club owners convention in NI!
22rf buckmark
9mm glock 17
357 686
44mag mod29 8-3/8''
45lc jp sauer and sohn single action
455 wobbley but a delightful 4'' with birds head grip , really annoyed about this one as its a little piece of history cut up and gone forever !
Foxyboy43
Well-Known Member
Disgusting!
I well remember talking with an RFD Durham way who told me the night before he handed his 11 pistols in he put a half inch drill down each barrel - for him some satisfaction at least…
Similar threads
