Any African hunters on here?

[Mynki]

Has anyone on here hunted Africa at all? I've hunted plains game in Namibia and South Africa.

Currently planning a trip back to Namibia next year to combine a photographic safari, hunting a few warthog and oryx plus some tiger fish fishing.Something I've never done and can't wait to try.

[Kev Berry]

Has anyone on here hunted Africa at all? I've hunted plains game in Namibia and South Africa.

Currently planning a trip back to Namibia next year to combine a photographic safari, hunting a few warthog and oryx plus some tiger fish fishing.Something I've never done and can't wait to try.

Why do you want to kill beautiful animals?

[martin(rockape)]

Has anyone on here hunted Africa at all? I've hunted plains game in Namibia and South Africa.

Currently planning a trip back to Namibia next year to combine a photographic safari, hunting a few warthog and oryx plus some tiger fish fishing.Something I've never done and can't wait to try.

Why do you want to kill beautiful animals?

Probably tasty.

Regards

Martin

[Mike J]

Has anyone on here hunted Africa at all? I've hunted plains game in Namibia and South Africa.

Currently planning a trip back to Namibia next year to combine a photographic safari, hunting a few warthog and oryx plus some tiger fish fishing.Something I've never done and can't wait to try.

I had a friend who shot in Africa all his life, he had a complete floor in his home full of his trophies, his wife would never go there and referred to it as 'Dead Africa'.

I can understand why some may enjoy hunting in Africa be it with gun or camera but for me the continenet has enough problems without visitors going there and presenting a lifestyle the locals can never achieve without migration.

This is essentially a pike fishing forum, and Im sure you will find more mileage in posting about when you intend to fish, your methods, hopes and expectations.

[Mynki]

Why do you want to kill beautiful animals?

The tiger fish are not being killed Kev. It's catch and release. I confess the idea of sticking a metal hook in a fishes mouth, pulling it around a body of water for no more than my own entertainment does grate on my conscience regularly. It's far easier for me to justify catching a few trout for the pot.

Unless you meant the warthog? I know beauty is in the eye of the beholder but I've never seen them as 'beautiful'! They're a pest over there causing lots of damage to stock fencing. Landowners in Southern Africa see them as many UK farmers see rabbits. And whereas a UK landowner has legal obligations to control the number of rabbits on their land if they cause issues for others African farmers have similar obligations so it's way easier to justify hunting pigs that end up in the food chain than fishing for tiger fish. And it's enjoyable. Love hunting warthog in fact.

Hang on, you meant the gemsbok didn't you? They live in very large herds so the numerous pairs of eyes on terrain with little vegetation in the Kalahari makes them a challenge and they taste great. Love billtong made from them. Here in the UK I'm a qualified deer stalker. I prefer eating meat I've killed myself rather than supporting factory farming by buying it from supermarkets. It sit better with me from an ethical perspective.

[Mynki]

I had a friend who shot in Africa all his life, he had a complete floor in his home full of his trophies, his wife would never go there and referred to it as 'Dead Africa'.

I can understand why some may enjoy hunting in Africa be it with gun or camera but for me the continenet has enough problems without visitors going there and presenting a lifestyle the locals can never achieve without migration.

This is essentially a pike fishing forum, and Im sure you will find more mileage in posting about when you intend to fish, your methods, hopes and expectations.

Africa certainly does have problems that many could never relate too unless they've been there and seen them with their own eyes. But they need visitors. Certain parts of some countries need tourism. Foreign hunters bring in revenues that help preserve many species which is a very inconvenient fact for the antis.

Kenya for example banned hunting to foreign visitors decades ago. They have since seen a steady decline in many species. Whereas South Africa and Namibia who opened up hunting to foreign hunters have seen large gains in species populations due to them being protected from illegal poaching.

I'm pretty sure this sub forum is titles 'Hunting, Shooting and Pets'. So not a place to discuss pike fishing. You've just quoted me in the 'Food and drink' sub forum without telling me to post elsewhere which speaks volumes! Lots of people are opposed to hunting. It is what it is. Just as many are opposed to angling. People will rarely change their views no matter what facts arepresented to them so I'm not bothered. I just wondered if there were other hunters on here.

[Mynki]

Probably tasty.

Regards

Martin

Mountain reedbuck is the tastiest animal I've ever eaten!

But they're not very big. So after trying it for the first time I set out the next day wanting another!

[Mike J]

Why do you want to kill beautiful animals?

The tiger fish are not being killed Kev. It's catch and release. I confess the idea of sticking a metal hook in a fishes mouth, pulling it around a body of water for no more than my own entertainment does grate on my conscience regularly. It's far easier for me to justify catching a few trout for the pot.

Unless you meant the warthog? I know beauty is in the eye of the beholder but I've never seen them as 'beautiful'! They're a pest over there causing lots of damage to stock fencing. Landowners in Southern Africa see them as many UK farmers see rabbits. And whereas a UK landowner has legal obligations to control the number of rabbits on their land if they cause issues for others African farmers have similar obligations so it's way easier to justify hunting pigs that end up in the food chain than fishing for tiger fish. And it's enjoyable. Love hunting warthog in fact.

Hang on, you meant the gemsbok didn't you? They live in very large herds so the numerous pairs of eyes on terrain with little vegetation in the Kalahari makes them a challenge and they taste great. Love billtong made from them. Here in the UK I'm a qualified deer stalker. I prefer eating meat I've killed myself rather than supporting factory farming by buying it from supermarkets. It sit better with me from an ethical perspective.

Your post is a defence.
There isnt any need to defend what you do.

But you can never say controlling a species can in anyway be classed as enjoyable or sport, it's all about numbers and efficiency, nothing else.



.

[Bob Watson]

Why do you want to kill beautiful animals?

The tiger fish are not being killed Kev. It's catch and release. I confess the idea of sticking a metal hook in a fishes mouth, pulling it around a body of water for no more than my own entertainment does grate on my conscience regularly. It's far easier for me to justify catching a few trout for the pot.

Unless you meant the warthog? I know beauty is in the eye of the beholder but I've never seen them as 'beautiful'! They're a pest over there causing lots of damage to stock fencing. Landowners in Southern Africa see them as many UK farmers see rabbits. And whereas a UK landowner has legal obligations to control the number of rabbits on their land if they cause issues for others African farmers have similar obligations so it's way easier to justify hunting pigs that end up in the food chain than fishing for tiger fish. And it's enjoyable. Love hunting warthog in fact.

Hang on, you meant the gemsbok didn't you? They live in very large herds so the numerous pairs of eyes on terrain with little vegetation in the Kalahari makes them a challenge and they taste great. Love billtong made from them. Here in the UK I'm a qualified deer stalker. I prefer eating meat I've killed myself rather than supporting factory farming by buying it from supermarkets. It sit better with me from an ethical perspective.

Your post is a defence.
There isnt any need to defend what you do.

But you can never say controlling a species can in anyway be classed as enjoyable or sport, it's all about numbers and efficiency, nothing else.





.

I read it as a justifiable explanation Mike and a pretty good one at that! If someone calls you out or questions your ethics, a reasoned response has to be a defence, does it not?

When I used to go ratting and rabbiting I enjoyed it and shooting is a sport

[Mynki]

Your post is a defence.
There isnt any need to defend what you do.

But you can never say controlling a species can in anyway be classed as enjoyable or sport, it's all about numbers and efficiency, nothing else.

.

I'm not being defensive. I have no issues with lawful hunting methods when undertaken for the right reasons.

I disagree with your efficiency comments though. For example, shooting a sika / red hybrid deer is enjoyable because it's an achievement. By eradicating them you are doing your bit to help maintain the integrity of the UK red deer gene pool, you're in effect helping to conserve that species.

Shooting an invasive muntjac will also have a positive impact on native flora and fauna. That's rewarding and enjoyable to me. If it was just numbers and efficiency it wouldn't be as attractive.

[Kev Berry]

Why do you want to kill beautiful animals?

The tiger fish are not being killed Kev. It's catch and release. I confess the idea of sticking a metal hook in a fishes mouth, pulling it around a body of water for no more than my own entertainment does grate on my conscience regularly. It's far easier for me to justify catching a few trout for the pot.

Unless you meant the warthog? I know beauty is in the eye of the beholder but I've never seen them as 'beautiful'! They're a pest over there causing lots of damage to stock fencing. Landowners in Southern Africa see them as many UK farmers see rabbits. And whereas a UK landowner has legal obligations to control the number of rabbits on their land if they cause issues for others African farmers have similar obligations so it's way easier to justify hunting pigs that end up in the food chain than fishing for tiger fish. And it's enjoyable. Love hunting warthog in fact.

Hang on, you meant the gemsbok didn't you? They live in very large herds so the numerous pairs of eyes on terrain with little vegetation in the Kalahari makes them a challenge and they taste great. Love billtong made from them. Here in the UK I'm a qualified deer stalker. I prefer eating meat I've killed myself rather than supporting factory farming by buying it from supermarkets. It sit better with me from an ethical perspective.

I have no problem shooting for the pot so long as its viable to do so.
Your initial post sounded like you were one of the fat yanks who shoot things just because they can
I have quite a few South African customers who tell me stories about "back home", none of them mentioned oryx being so plentiful. They did tell me that porcupine are a bit of a pest, one of them tried to sell me 10,000 quills

[Mynki]

I have no problem shooting for the pot so long as its viable to do so.
Your initial post sounded like you were one of the fat yanks who shoot things just because they can
I have quite a few South African customers who tell me stories about "back home", none of them mentioned oryx being so plentiful. They did tell me that porcupine are a bit of a pest, one of them tried to sell me 10,000 quills

I always think that you can only have a meaningful discussion on hunting if you're taking into consideration the species being hunted, the location of where you're hunting (populationscan be plentiful in one areas but struggling in others), method (rifle being more humane than dogs etc) and motivation. It's a very complex subject after all.

I might be carrying a few extra pounds but no, I'm not a fat yank who's only interested in large horns and antlers and getting my name in SCI or Rowland Ward record books etc.

Oryx are not plentiful in South Africa as they don't originate there. The Oryx in South Africa have been stocked to be hunted in the same way that a UK fishery would stock rainbow trout. They are however very plentiful in the Namibian Kalahari and are culled for food in large numbers. Whereas we see beef, pork and lamb for sale in our supermarkets they see oryx, kudu and other game as well as beef etc.

Never heard negativity about porcupines out there only warthog and bush pig. I sat out for four nights there once night hunting bush pig before being successful taking a very large male animal. Later on we went to a party held by a group of Afrikaans farmers with our hosts. Three farmers shook my hand for killing a pig which I thought was a but weird. They clearly hated them though!

It turns out that the bush pig will enter their pineapple and sweetcorn field and take just one bite out of each pineapple causing them big financial losses which was why they're hated so much. That thing made really good eating too. Really tasty pork.....

[Mike J]

Your post is a defence.
There isnt any need to defend what you do.

But you can never say controlling a species can in anyway be classed as enjoyable or sport, it's all about numbers and efficiency, nothing else.

.

I'm not being defensive. I have no issues with lawful hunting methods when undertaken for the right reasons.

I disagree with your efficiency comments though. For example, shooting a sika / red hybrid deer is enjoyable because it's an achievement. By eradicating them you are doing your bit to help maintain the integrity of the UK red deer gene pool, you're in effect helping to conserve that species.

Shooting an invasive muntjac will also have a positive impact on native flora and fauna. That's rewarding and enjoyable to me. If it was just numbers and efficiency it wouldn't be as attractive.

Like you I have no problems with someone admitting to the pleasure they get from a good shot or successful stalk but it shouldn't be dressed up as controlling a species or anything like.
Eradication of a species with firearms simply isn't possible in an open access countryside, localised management yes, but eradication nationally is unachievable.

Munjac did not invade our coutryside they were deliberately introduced.
Eradication of the species has been attempted several times within the secure the Park where they were first released and failed each time. Their insticts will almost certainly ensure they will populate the whole country and the fact they are the oldest surviving deer on the planet is an indication they will probably be here long after we have departed. Remove some for food by all means but best not to mention they have no closed season protection.

Claiming a positive effect on flora and fauna assumes you/we know what should historically be present, but such a claim is impossible as no baseline exists.


This UK Red Deer gene pool you mention, where exactly are these deer you talking about?


.

[Andrew]

Your post is a defence.
There isnt any need to defend what you do.

But you can never say controlling a species can in anyway be classed as enjoyable or sport, it's all about numbers and efficiency, nothing else.

.

I'm not being defensive. I have no issues with lawful hunting methods when undertaken for the right reasons.

I disagree with your efficiency comments though. For example, shooting a sika / red hybrid deer is enjoyable because it's an achievement. By eradicating them you are doing your bit to help maintain the integrity of the UK red deer gene pool, you're in effect helping to conserve that species.

Shooting an invasive muntjac will also have a positive impact on native flora and fauna. That's rewarding and enjoyable to me. If it was just numbers and efficiency it wouldn't be as attractive.

Like you I have no problems with someone admitting to the pleasure they get from a good shot or successful stalk but it shouldn't be dressed up as controlling a species or anything like.
Eradication of a species with firearms simply isn't possible in an open access countryside, localised management yes, but eradication nationally is unachievable.

Munjac did not invade our coutryside they were deliberately introduced.
Eradication of the species has been attempted several times within the secure the Park where they were first released and failed each time. Their insticts will almost certainly ensure they will populate the whole country and the fact they are the oldest surviving deer on the planet is an indication they will probably be here long after we have departed. Remove some for food by all means but best not to mention they have no closed season protection.

Claiming a positive effect on flora and fauna assumes you/we know what should historically be present, but such a claim is impossible as no baseline exists.


This UK Red Deer gene pool you mention, where exactly are these deer you talking about?


.

I dont think he was dressing it up at all or explaining what he does as pest control. just trying to show a parallel to our own country where people enjoy hunting "pests", so people didnt think he's out there killing elephants. ffs

[Mynki]

Like you I have no problems with someone admitting to the pleasure they get from a good shot or successful stalk but it shouldn't be dressed up as controlling a species or anything like.
Eradication of a species with firearms simply isn't possible in an open access countryside, localised management yes, but eradication nationally is unachievable.

Munjac did not invade our coutryside they were deliberately introduced.
Eradication of the species has been attempted several times within the secure the Park where they were first released and failed each time. Their insticts will almost certainly ensure they will populate the whole country and the fact they are the oldest surviving deer on the planet is an indication they will probably be here long after we have departed. Remove some for food by all means but best not to mention they have no closed season protection.

Claiming a positive effect on flora and fauna assumes you/we know what should historically be present, but such a claim is impossible as no baseline exists.


This UK Red Deer gene pool you mention, where exactly are these deer you talking about?


.

I think you're way off the mark with some of your assumptions there Mike.

Of course deer management is just that. The management of a species. That's why it's so easy to accept from a moral perspective whereas fox hunting much less so. For example, my syndicate have contracts with privately owned forestry companies and the Forestry Commission to control the number of deer. After an annual assessment a number of species and sexes are decided upon for an annual cull depending on the individual piece of ground concerned. There are many factors that decide cull targets well beyond the scope of this forum but they are achieved both to protect forestry and other species. In essence they're shot to prevent them eating newly planted pine tree crops (we all need paper and cardboard) and native hardwoods, the latter providing habitat for native species. Right now the Scottish government have massive plans to remove fallow and sika from Scotland (Good luck with that) and massively reduce the number of native reds and roe as there has never been so many deer there in recorded history.

Muntjac are a very real problem. Though why would I avoid the fact that they don't have a close season? They consume many plant species, thus there's less habitat for insect life which has a direct impact on our native bird populations. But no, I doubt they'll ever be eradicated but that's a moot point as they do need controlling regardless. Besides just like pheasants, rainbow trout and carp that don't belong in the UK either they offer financial benefit to some so in some areas there's more emphasis on keeping them around. BASC state that there is no close season obviously but then advise their membership that under ethical grounds not to shoot heavily pregnant females despite them having a high rate of fecundity for an ungulate....

Red deer (Cervus elaphus) hybridize regularly with the invasive sika deer (Cervus nippon). The genetic integrity of our red deer has been affected in areas of the UK where both species co exist. In fact in Scotland it's now unlawful to keep sika on any of the Scottish Islands to protect the genetics of the reds there. So yeah, taking a hybrid is pleasing for that reason alone regardless of the stalk. I'm not sure about your good shot remarks though Mike. If you can't shoot competently consistently you have no business hunting in the first place in my opinion. The actual short is very much an anti climax to the whole thing.


Mike There is much naivety in your post.

[Mike J]

All this protection your providing, for what exactly is natural.

Commercial forestry is an artificial environment, such forestry requires the management of wildlife that could damage the final product and profits.
But many of those species being managed were not natural to the area before the trees were planted, they have been attracted by the forestry, remove the forests and much of the wildlife would move elsewhere or die out.

Deer can be fenced in or out of a block of forestry thus eliminating the need for deer culls.
But the costs of material, erection and maintenance must be met by the forestry company and that isn't good business if there is a revenue potential from sporting rights.

Your comments regarding Muntjac damage are not supported in the area where the species have populated the longest, there nationally rare plants and invertebrates abound and the understory thrives with natural regeneration.
If Muntjac where not killed at all there would be no need to avoid killing a pregnant female or leave a fawn to starve because its Mother had been shot.

Our truly indigenous Red Deer, this gene pool you said your protecting, is in truth probably all but none existent.
There has been so many releases/escapes and (sporting) improvements eg; Wapati that whatever remains in the original gene pool could only be determined by a detailed study.
(Perhaps something for the BDS to fund)?

Claims for protecting our woodlands have no foundation because nobody knows what species lived in our woodlands even 200 years ago.
The truth is our natural environment is continuously evolving, we humans just want to stop its evolution and keep it as it is, its just gardening but on a grander scale with different tools.

If you still think I am naive or have a need to assume please continue.

[Stewlaws]

Fascinating subject and altogether emotive for some, read a report on a study between 2 estates in the Highlands, one was unshot the other was managed intensively, the stags shot averaged 12stone on the unmanaged estate along with poor health, liver fluke, high tick infestation..the managed estate was averaging 24 stone and in fine health.
This was under the BDS iirc.

[Mynki]

All this protection your providing, for what exactly is natural.

Commercial forestry is an artificial environment, such forestry requires the management of wildlife that could damage the final product and profits.
But many of those species being managed were not natural to the area before the trees were planted, they have been attracted by the forestry, remove the forests and much of the wildlife would move elsewhere or die out.

Deer can be fenced in or out of a block of forestry thus eliminating the need for deer culls.
But the costs of material, erection and maintenance must be met by the forestry company and that isn't good business if there is a revenue potential from sporting rights.

Your comments regarding Muntjac damage are not supported in the area where the species have populated the longest, there nationally rare plants and invertebrates abound and the understory thrives with natural regeneration.
If Muntjac where not killed at all there would be no need to avoid killing a pregnant female or leave a fawn to starve because its Mother had been shot.

Our truly indigenous Red Deer, this gene pool you said your protecting, is in truth probably all but none existent.
There has been so many releases/escapes and (sporting) improvements eg; Wapati that whatever remains in the original gene pool could only be determined by a detailed study.
(Perhaps something for the BDS to fund)?

Claims for protecting our woodlands have no foundation because nobody knows what species lived in our woodlands even 200 years ago.
The truth is our natural environment is continuously evolving, we humans just want to stop its evolution and keep it as it is, its just gardening but on a grander scale with different tools.

If you still think I am naive or have a need to assume please continue.

There's actually thousands of individuals from private individuals to organisations such as Natural England, DEFRA, BDS, Forestry Commission, Forestry Commission for Scotland.many NGO's and other government departments all involved. UK deer management is a far bigger operation than you seem to realise. You appear to be essentially saying there is no point in conserving our existing flora and fauna because it was different previously. We're all entitled to our opinion but thankfully there are many who don't want to see existing species dying off.

Many have learned from mistakes we humans have made and don't want complacency to set in.

Your statement that claims for protecting woodlands have no foundation is an interesting and disappointing one. Flora and fauna is continually evolving, that goes without saying but allowing species to die off because things are changing is thankfully an opinion many will disagree with. Just imagine if a disease arrived in the UK which started to devastate pike populations across the land. People would put bio security measures in place to protect them. Then imagine if someone came along on this forum and said "f**k the pike, they're not important. We can let them die off because they probably weren't even here a long time ago". I can imagine the replies.

Whilst true commercial forestry block is unnatural you need to understand that there is legislation ensuring that a percentage of new forestry contains native hardwoods to ensure habitat for native species. Very few bird species for example nest in super sitka. If those hardwoods are not protected then there isn't the habitat for species that many people do believe are worth protecting. Newly planted saplings are like sweeties in a sweetie shop to kiddies as far as deer are concerned which is the main purpose of deer management.

The BDS have undertaken many studies on deer genetics as have other organisations for decades now. So yes, I can see it's a subject you're unfamiliar with. But you're hardly alone.

P.S We actually have two species of truly native deer. Google is your friend. :shake:

[Mynki]

Fascinating subject and altogether emotive for some, read a report on a study between 2 estates in the Highlands, one was unshot the other was managed intensively, the stags shot averaged 12stone on the unmanaged estate along with poor health, liver fluke, high tick infestation..the managed estate was averaging 24 stone and in fine health.
This was under the BDS iirc.

The League Against Cruel Sports once claimed that deer culling was not required. In an attempt to stop it they bought up land to prevent deer stalking activities.

As a result the deer on their sanctuary subsequently fell ill with TB and many starved. Sadly I can't find the video I once saw of some very sick deer but there plenty of press articles showing how unhealthy their deer herds became through no culling.

They now do employ a qualified stalker when required though don't advertise the fact!

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews ... tuary.html

[John Milford]

Fascinating subject and altogether emotive for some, read a report on a study between 2 estates in the Highlands, one was unshot the other was managed intensively, the stags shot averaged 12stone on the unmanaged estate along with poor health, liver fluke, high tick infestation..the managed estate was averaging 24 stone and in fine health.
This was under the BDS iirc.

Interesting comparison Stew.

I suppose that is because the deer's natural predators have all been eliminated, so there is no natural thinning out of the weak and sick in the 'unshot' herd?

[Mynki]

That's exactly it.

[Jason Skilton]

Has anyone on here hunted Africa at all? I've hunted plains game in Namibia and South Africa.

Currently planning a trip back to Namibia next year to combine a photographic safari, hunting a few warthog and oryx plus some tiger fish fishing.Something I've never done and can't wait to try.

Don't mind shooting with the camera and had a lovely time in Sri Lanka, but not with

[Stewlaws]

James Barrington and Richard Course were former executive members of the league against cruel sports, LACS .... Both ended their tenure as they were opposed to outright bans on hunting, both went on to be advocates for hunting and management of species within the countryside, they were fed up of the infiltration of extremists within their organisation.

The land the Lacs manage is based on an unworkable utopian attitude, reality is sickly animals and starving beasts, the truth is unpalatable for their agenda, shameful in the least, but the truth wouldn't fill their coffers or extreme views.

I'm not in any way saying fieldsports isn't without its issues but on the whole I'm comfortable with fully supporting and being an advocate of all fieldsports.

[Bob Watson]

James Barrington and Richard Course were former executive members of the league against cruel sports, LACS .... Both ended their tenure as they were opposed to outright bans on hunting, both went on to be advocates for hunting and management of species within the countryside, they were fed up of the infiltration of extremists within their organisation.

The land the Lacs manage is based on an unworkable utopian attitude, reality is sickly animals and starving beasts, the truth is unpalatable for their agenda, shameful in the least, but the truth wouldn't fill their coffers or extreme views.

I'm not in any way saying fieldsports isn't without its issues but on the whole I'm comfortable with fully supporting and being an advocate of all fieldsports.

I think as an angler you have to be Stewart

We're all flying the same banner IMO!

[Mynki]

James Barrington and Richard Course were former executive members of the league against cruel sports, LACS .... Both ended their tenure as they were opposed to outright bans on hunting, both went on to be advocates for hunting and management of species within the countryside, they were fed up of the infiltration of extremists within their organisation.

The land the Lacs manage is based on an unworkable utopian attitude, reality is sickly animals and starving beasts, the truth is unpalatable for their agenda, shameful in the least, but the truth wouldn't fill their coffers or extreme views.

I'm not in any way saying fieldsports isn't without its issues but on the whole I'm comfortable with fully supporting and being an advocate of all fieldsports.

The one wildlife charity I support and raise money for more than any other is Save The Rhino International.

https://www.savetherhino.org/

There are a few reasons why. They pay their staff market rate salaries with their execs not taking the p**s. Their accounts are in the public domain and I like their clear and transparent approach.

The accept that hunting does make a positive contribution to conservation directly and indirectly.

They take a very pragmatic approach by supporting reserves where rangers are tasked with shooting to kill poachers killing rhinos illegally. The reality is that such extreme measures are required as a deterrent. In short, they don't dick about in making difficult and controversial decisions.

LACS and similar organisations are not really doing anything of tangible value from what I can see

[davelumb]

Fascinating subject and altogether emotive for some, read a report on a study between 2 estates in the Highlands, one was unshot the other was managed intensively, the stags shot averaged 12stone on the unmanaged estate along with poor health, liver fluke, high tick infestation..the managed estate was averaging 24 stone and in fine health.
This was under the BDS iirc.

Interesting comparison Stew.

I suppose that is because the deer's natural predators have all been eliminated, so there is no natural thinning out of the weak and sick in the 'unshot' herd?

Nothing to do directly with hunting, but related as it concerns ideological unmanaged 'rewilding'. Google Oostvaardersplassen.

[John Milford]

Fascinating subject and altogether emotive for some, read a report on a study between 2 estates in the Highlands, one was unshot the other was managed intensively, the stags shot averaged 12stone on the unmanaged estate along with poor health, liver fluke, high tick infestation..the managed estate was averaging 24 stone and in fine health.
This was under the BDS iirc.

Interesting comparison Stew.

I suppose that is because the deer's natural predators have all been eliminated, so there is no natural thinning out of the weak and sick in the 'unshot' herd?

Nothing to do directly with hunting, but related as it concerns ideological unmanaged 'rewilding'. Google Oostvaardersplassen.

Interesting. Especially the dilemma of human 'intervention' raising the philosophical question of whether or not humans are actually an inseparable part of 'nature'.

[davelumb]

Fascinating subject and altogether emotive for some, read a report on a study between 2 estates in the Highlands, one was unshot the other was managed intensively, the stags shot averaged 12stone on the unmanaged estate along with poor health, liver fluke, high tick infestation..the managed estate was averaging 24 stone and in fine health.
This was under the BDS iirc.

Interesting comparison Stew.

I suppose that is because the deer's natural predators have all been eliminated, so there is no natural thinning out of the weak and sick in the 'unshot' herd?

Nothing to do directly with hunting, but related as it concerns ideological unmanaged 'rewilding'. Google Oostvaardersplassen.

Interesting. Especially the dilemma of human 'intervention' raising the philosophical question of whether or not humans are actually an inseparable part of 'nature'.

Well, hominids have altered the environments they inhabit since at least the invention/discovery of tools. How far back do we draw the line at not being a part of nature?

[John Milford]

Fascinating subject and altogether emotive for some, read a report on a study between 2 estates in the Highlands, one was unshot the other was managed intensively, the stags shot averaged 12stone on the unmanaged estate along with poor health, liver fluke, high tick infestation..the managed estate was averaging 24 stone and in fine health.
This was under the BDS iirc.

Interesting comparison Stew.

I suppose that is because the deer's natural predators have all been eliminated, so there is no natural thinning out of the weak and sick in the 'unshot' herd?

Nothing to do directly with hunting, but related as it concerns ideological unmanaged 'rewilding'. Google Oostvaardersplassen.

Interesting. Especially the dilemma of human 'intervention' raising the philosophical question of whether or not humans are actually an inseparable part of 'nature'.

Well, hominids have altered the environments they inhabit since at least the invention/discovery of tools. How far back do we draw the line at not being a part of nature?

I wouldn't set too much store by that criteria Dave. Even worms alter the environment they inhabit.

(In a good way if you're a plant, but pretty disastrously if you happen to be an anaerobic bacteria).

Who is to say it is not our designated role in nature to fcuk things up for everything else?

(I'm only half joking. Perhaps we are nature's ploy to extend life beyond earth, once we've consumed everything useful on this planet? ).

[davelumb]

Fascinating subject and altogether emotive for some, read a report on a study between 2 estates in the Highlands, one was unshot the other was managed intensively, the stags shot averaged 12stone on the unmanaged estate along with poor health, liver fluke, high tick infestation..the managed estate was averaging 24 stone and in fine health.
This was under the BDS iirc.

Interesting comparison Stew.

I suppose that is because the deer's natural predators have all been eliminated, so there is no natural thinning out of the weak and sick in the 'unshot' herd?

Nothing to do directly with hunting, but related as it concerns ideological unmanaged 'rewilding'. Google Oostvaardersplassen.

Interesting. Especially the dilemma of human 'intervention' raising the philosophical question of whether or not humans are actually an inseparable part of 'nature'.

Well, hominids have altered the environments they inhabit since at least the invention/discovery of tools. How far back do we draw the line at not being a part of nature?

I wouldn't set too much store by that criteria Dave. Even worms alter the environment they inhabit.

(In a good way if you're a plant, but pretty disastrously if you happen to be an anaerobic bacteria).

Who is to say it is not our designated role in nature to fcuk things up for everything else?

(I'm only half joking. Perhaps we are nature's ploy to extend life beyond earth, once we've consumed everything useful on this planet? ).

Evolution is all just random s**t if you ask me. Humans won't last as long as the dinosaurs did. And they fecked off eventually!