Sudbury Butchers window display

[Taff]

Good for them, shame they charge mem.. Think you are slightly wrong there, while for some it may be a hobby, stalking is very much an industry, If a hobby stalker wants to provide his services as a witness for free so be it. By the same token if a professional includes witnessing as part of the service he provides why should he not charge for that service. You are free to make your choice, simple. Oh and I am not an A.W.

I have no problem with people charging for anything, but people should not dress DSC up as deer welfare, it has sparked a good buissness for quite a few people.
​As to stalking being a buissness , yes it is and I made a lot of money out of deer over the years

 

[Taff]

As a novice stalker I thought the DSC1 course was excellent but obviously I cannot say how I would have felt if I had already been stalking for years and years like some of you guys. I know I was lucky to be chosen as a burser but I was already saving up the money to do the course anyway and overall I think it is good value for what you get out of it. I learnt a massive amount and really enjoyed it. I met another fella on site last week who has actually been stalking for a few years and he is going to do it as he thought it was not bad value either. No pressure from anywhere and he doesn't need to, he just thinks he'll learn from it. What I don't agree with is people being forced to do it by certain forces! I'll give you an example based on the course we did. There were 11 of us on it with varying experience and reasons for being there. Mine you all know about. 2 young lads just out of university who do a bit of rabbit shooting and want to branch out into stalking. Neither had shot a CF rifle before, both decided to do it as an entry point into stalking, both passed without a hitch and one of them who I did my shooting test with shot a great group considering he'd never shot full bore before! Speaking to them they enjoyed it as I did and took loads away with them. Onto another 2 fella's late 40's early 50's I'd guess, turned up in an L200 with gear strewn over the back and empty boxes of ammo and cases laying around from foxing the night before. One owned a good chunk of land that backed onto a golf course with Fallow by the dozens that he wanted to shoot. Being in the Met force they both were told they had to do the DSC1 before they would get deer conditioned on their certs, even though they had been shooting foxes with .243 etc for years! They struggled through the written stuff a bit and both failed the shooting test. They did the test just before me with the estate rifle moaning it was off, etc, which I used to punch a 2" group with into the deer silhouette. One of them didn't even pass the zero test! Last chap had been stalking for decades in his late 50's I guess but I never found out why he was doing the course. Very interactive within the group in the classroom, knew a fair bit about deer but openly admitted learning a great deal through the course too. Turned up on the day of the shooting test with his own rifle, roe sack, sticks, the works!! But again he failed the shooting test, once with his own rifle, then with the estate rifle thinking his had been knocked off zero!! On top of this there were another 2 chaps who failed the written assessment, but breezed the shooting test, so 5 out of the 11 failed and all these were experienced 'hunters/shooters'!! Ask each of us in turn and I'd say that most of us on that course learnt a great deal, even the guys that were forced to do it. It does make me wonder though what they would have been like shooting those Fallow had the Met NOT made them do the course, assuming they have now passed the shooting test!! I personally feel the DSC1 is a good thing but alas there will always be the minority that any kind of training will make no difference to one jot!! Stratts

I assume then that the fox shooters never kill any foxes, perhaps the should have done the test in the dark, why were people doing there tests with estate rifles, did you all get to zero the rifle.

 

[bewsher500]

So are you claiming that the FC shot 300 deer in one day/(night?) and all of them badly?

A very high proportion of them, Yes!
Loin, haunch, shots entering at the kidneys and exiting above opposite shoulder blade, rear chest entry exiting through haunch, shots entering very high chest raking the haunch tops on exit etc etc.
far too many to put them down to "a few bad shots"

Many agencies are under pressure to control deer numbers and whether the carcass is fit for human consumption is secondary to the task of numbers reduction.

I suggest that carcase harvest and the subsequent revenue from it is much higher up the agenda than you give it credit for among the "many agencies".
The "pressure" is not always external.

Why else are areas of wholly mature, monoculture, coniferous forests with barely 3-6ft between trunks and no walking space between them, routinely lamped? (and moreover how is the night license issued for such ground!? another probing question!)

No deer I know damages this size of trees . (when asked to produce evidence to a DMG one "agency" showed some trees which look liked they had been scraped by a wagon near the road!)
That is another discussion though!

I agree with the ignorance and indifference though.
I am not against the DSC program at all, what I am against is its blanket acceptance that with it comes wholesale improvement in animal welfare and carcase quality (or indeed stalker proficiency!)......its as step in the right direction but it is not all rose tinted Disney ending.

It is also being used as a rod for our own backs in terms of FAC/condition issuance and access. (the phrase "you better all do it voluntarily or it will become mandatory" springs to mind!)

 

[Monkey Spanker]

I assume then that the fox shooters never kill any foxes, perhaps the should have done the test in the dark, why were people doing there tests with estate rifles, did you all get to zero the rifle.

The sad fact is Taff, that many of those that fail the DSC 1 are the so called 'experienced' types that turn up having not even read the manual with an assumption that they already know everything!
When placed under assessment conditions, it is then blatantly apparent that they are deficient in some areas! Some aren't, some admit it, others blame everything and everyone other than themselves (especially rifles!). DSC 1 is a level playing field and a good benchmark to either begin from or even return to. Maybe you should just turn up for the assessment and see which category you fall into?
MS

 

[Monkey Spanker]

A very high proportion of them, Yes!
Loin, haunch, shots entering at the kidneys and exiting above opposite shoulder blade, rear chest entry exiting through haunch, shots entering very high chest raking the haunch tops on exit etc etc.
far too many to put them down to "a few bad shots"



I suggest that carcase harvest and the subsequent revenue from it is much higher up the agenda than you give it credit for among the "many agencies".
I agree with the ignorance and indifference though.
I am not against the DSC program at all, what I am against is its blanket acceptance that with it comes wholesale improvement in animal welfare and carcase quality (or indeed stalker proficiency!)......its as step in the right direction but it is not all rose tinted Disney ending.

It is also being used as a rod for our own backs in terms of FAC/condition issuance and access. (the phrase "you better all do it voluntarily or it will become mandatory" springs to mind!)

Could it also be a reflection on the fact that contract deer culling is generally paid per carcass? Maybe if it were paid as a percentage of money received from venison sale the shot placement may improve slightly?
There will never be a Disney ending with any of it, but may I remind you that Bambi's mum was indeed culled and most probably entered the food chain!
MS

 

[stratts]

I assume then that the fox shooters never kill any foxes, perhaps the should have done the test in the dark, why were people doing there tests with estate rifles, did you all get to zero the rifle.

Don't know what you mean by the fox shooters comment mate?

The chap who's rifle it was and who took the course zero'd it in and checked it prior to us using it. No idea why the two fella's used it when they travelled down on the day and not their own? The two young lads never had their own rifles and it was the 1st time they'd shot one. I was camping for the week and moving onto holiday elsewhere straight from the DSC which is why I used it and not my own. The other fella only used it coz he failed 1st time with his own. In fact I think only 3 out of the 11 took their own rifle!!

It worked ok for me!



Back on track a bit I remember speaking to the local game dealer earlier this year before I was going to do the DSC1 about whether I could take Muntjac carcasses to them without a hunter number. This was when I had 22-250 on ticket for fox & AOLQ and was initially talking to the farmer about shooting them on my permission. They said as long as I took the pluck in with the carcass so they could inspect it I could take as many as I like and they would pay £15 each. Looking back I would have had no idea about a gralloch, inspecting the glands, etc, which I know now and that animal would have entered the food chain! And most likely there are plenty of others that already do.

So as you guys say, unless the game dealers, butchers, etc, do their bit properly and refuse dodgy carcasses you'll not change certain aspects of how the deer are shot and presented to them!

I am happier in myself now I have done the course though and am 100% confident in what I can achieve,

Stratts

 

[Taff]

Shall I explain my comment about the fox shooters, If they could not hit a 4 inch target in day light, they had no hope of hitting a fox at night, and if they could hit a fox at night perhaps they should have taken the shooting test a night.
As to who zeroid the rifle, we all hold a rifle differently, so point of impact can differ between people, I assume this was explained at the DSC course you were on, All my scopes are on a slight angle so everyone tells me, and when I look through there's I think the same of there's .
Did you tell the game dealer you did not know how to gralloch, and if you had turned up with a dirty carcass he mos probable told you where to go with you're bag of crap.

 

[Tackleberry270]

I could shoot lots of them when I'm mucking around the woods, but I fear that letting of shots at them will ruin my chances of creeping up on proper game. Wash your mouth out,

Shall I explain my comment about the fox shooters, If they could not hit a 4 inch target in day light, they had no hope of hitting a fox at night, and if they could hit a fox at night perhaps they should have taken the shooting test a night. As to who zeroid the rifle, we all hold a rifle differently, so point of impact can differ between people, I assume this was explained at the DSC course you were on, All my scopes are on a slight angle so everyone tells me, and when I look through there's I think the same of there's . Did you tell the game dealer you did not know how to gralloch, and if you had turned up with a dirty carcass he mos probable told you where to go with you're bag of crap.

Taff sorry mate but this is sounding increasingly like a drunken rant. I think most of us would agree that different quarry species offer different challenges and each species should be given respect. My previous points still stand. Your point about rifle zeroing doesn't really work. Point of impact might differ very slightly (inches). Not enough to fail a test and it does not account for poor grouping that stratts describes. As for a scopes at different angles?! There are different ways to mount a scope but none of them include a crosshair at an angle (if this is what you mean?) Differing eye relief and a rail with elevation for long distance. Apart from that a scope needs to be level otherwise the rifle will be canted and you will have problems the further you are shooting (I admit this is at long distance).

 

[stratts]

Shall I explain my comment about the fox shooters, If they could not hit a 4 inch target in day light, they had no hope of hitting a fox at night, and if they could hit a fox at night perhaps they should have taken the shooting test a night. Ah I see I agree

As to who zeroid the rifle, we all hold a rifle differently, so point of impact can differ between people. Really, I never knew that (Insert tongue in cheek smiley here!!) I assume this was explained at the DSC course you were on, Yep all explained and if it didn't feel right for me, eye relief, true cross hairs, etc, I'd have insisted on setting it up meself. Lucky for me and the others it was spot on! All my scopes are on a slight angle so everyone tells me, and when I look through there's I think the same of there's. Me and my shooting buddy say this about each others rifles all the time.

Did you tell the game dealer you did not know how to gralloch, and if you had turned up with a dirty carcass he mos probable told you where to go with you're bag of crap. I should have said gralloch properly checking all the glands for the correct diseases. I would never have turned up with a carcass that was not fit, but at the time I never knew just how much emphasis is on it being clean and uncontaminated. This is where the DSC1 is very good, unless you've been mentored well and know the score already

Stratts

 

[Taff]

Jez you need to take a pill, on days I hunt for squirrels that is my quarry, what the hell s proper game.
"inches"so in a four inch circle you could get some outside with a strange gun. I have never set a scope with a level, there again I never shoot a inch high at 100.

 

[Monkey Spanker]

Hey Naseby! Looks like you owe H4H a Tenner!!!!
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...stop-displaying-meat-game-townies-object.html
As for the story, I don't think it was just the 'townies' that forced the issue! They were clearly breaking just about every Food Hygiene law in the book, as well as supporting Wildlife Crime!!
Whilst I'm one for supporting consumption of game meat, it must be done properly and hygienically. Some old traditions will unfortunately not pass the test of modern views??
Cough up Naseby!
MS

 

[Tackleberry270]

They had a short debate on this (creatures in fur/feather on display) on Radio 2 at lunchtime. Robin Page on form as always. He is always entertaining especially when opposite a vegan talking bunny hugging nonsense.

Food Hygiene aside I can't make my mind up on it. He has certainly got himself some publicity.

 

[Monkey Spanker]

Whichever way you look at it, they support wildlife crime. It is a legal requirement for us all to store game below certain temperatures which clearly isn't happening here. It is also a requirement to inspect the head glands (if possible) before entering an animal into the food chain. I doubt that he had any traceability before this - but I bet he has now! What is the point of us all playing the game if it all falls apart at the final retailer?
MS

 

[Tackleberry270]

Whichever way you look at it, they support wildlife crime. It is a legal requirement for us all to store game below certain temperatures which clearly isn't happening here. It is also a requirement to inspect the head glands (if possible) before entering an animal into the food chain. I doubt that he had any traceability before this - but I bet he has now! What is the point of us all playing the game if it all falls apart at the final retailer?
MS

I'm with you on that. The Radio 2 debate was on how much you put on display in the window. It's good that people are reminded where there food comes from but I'm not sure I would put so much in the window even if you could do it within the Hygiene regs!

 

[Blackdog]

I know, its one of our local butchers. That's the first time he has had a deer in there though. The locals seem most upset about the white bunnys!
Steve

 

[Monkey Spanker]

Well, it's all gone a bit quiet from the doubting fraternity hasn't it!
Hoax! Photoshop! Kangaroos head!
MS

 

[Paul 600]

Maybe, cause doubting Thomas is a supplier!

 

[Blackdog]

Its in Sudbury and still had loads of stuff in the fur in there this afternoon, less any deer carcasses

 

[Monkey Spanker]

Its in Sudbury and still had loads of stuff in the fur in there this afternoon, less any deer carcasses

The sad thing is, this was effectively handed to the FSA and the Wildlife Crimes on a plate! Photographic evidence as shown. However, by the time they inspected, guess what? No evidence whatsoever!
Now it would appear that they are still operating outside of the law and even getting some great publicity out of it! May as well just hang a couple of swans and badgers up as it would seem that the authorities are willing to ignore any wrongs!
MS

 

[The deer man]

Here’s a good one for debate!
I was sent this picture by a friend of mine who is also a fellow stalker as well as working in the meat wholesale industry. This was taken this weekend (Sat 12[SUP]th[/SUP] Oct) in a butcher shop in East Anglia. (that’s as much as needs to be said!).
View attachment 33493
.......
MS

Did I see this on Newsnight with Jeremy Paxman this evening about the butcher shop in Sudbury that had to take down it's window dressing?

P.S. The rabbits look like New Zealand Whites.