Austrian hunter "aims" at Magpie and kills Imperial Eagle! (1 Viewer)

Adam W · Jan 26, 2015

Jonathan may have been a little blunt but that shouldn't detract from the fact that what he says is right. Robins question may well have been a quite reasonable one but as he says himself its the same question he keeps asking over and over again and the reason he keeps asking it is because like Jonathan says even though he keeps being given answers the fact is in Robins mind there is no answer. I'm sure Robin will say that nobody has ever given him a satisfactory answer but I think that the reason for that is that Robin already has his mind made up that there isn't one.
I totally get why some people don't like hunting and I totally get why people can't understand why some people do like hunting but what I don't get is why you have to then assume that it has to be wrong and you must be some kind of sick in the head deranged wierdo. Is it really so much to ask to just accept that there are millions of people in the world that aren't the same as you and do things you don't personally understand but that doesn't have to mean they are wrong or bad people?

saluki · Jan 26, 2015

MJB said:
Jonathan,
This medium we're using doesn't pick up intonation or body language that in face to face discussion modifies our understanding of what's said and our responses.

It would therefore be interesting to poll Bird Forum members who are following this thread to ask them their view of your post. Would they see it as:

a. Measured and well-reasoned?
b. Containing a rude dismissal of the question - "pointless" - and displaying a sense of entitled condescension - You would rather believe your own version of the truth?"
c. Somewhat overstated or understated?
d. After considering the points in my opening sentence, a storm in a tea-cup or simply deflection?

My own opinion of the question is that it is a perfectly reasonable request, but I do recognise that any answer opens the door to arguments of emotion rather than rationality.
MJB

I've been here many times MJB, it really is a pointless question. Nothing I say will change the mind of someone with such entrenched ideas as Robin, I don't really know why he bothers to ask.

Let me tell you how these sort of things usually pan out:

Robin - with no real knowledge of hunting whatsoever - asks why some people hunt, or, as Robin would puts it 'someone who gains pleasure from destroying a living thing for no reason other than because they want to and get gratification from doing so'?

Immediately there are two problems. Firstly, he words his question in a manner guaranteed to get a negative reaction from anyone who has hunted. Secondly, if you ask ten people why they bird you're going to get ten different answers - it's the same with hunting.

Let's ignore the first problem.

So I answer the question truthfully. But Robin doesn't want to accept what I tell him as it doesn't fit in with his stereotype of what a hunter is. He questions me further, we carry on. I'm pretty sure it wouldn't come to a slanging match with Robin, unfortunately there are other people reading the thread who simply want to have a go at someone who has hunted. They have absolutely nothing constructive to say whatsoever, they just want to have a go . . . from the safety of their anonymous keyboards.

It all becomes unecessary, the mods step in and the thread gets closed down. Utterly pointless, as I said.

Sorry if I seem negative MJB, but that has been my experience over many years on Birdforum. I generally can't be bothered getting involved in these threads any more, it's just Robin asks the same question repeatedly.

Cheers
Jonathan

coal tit · Jan 26, 2015

Imperial Eagle.

Adam W said:
Jonathan may have been a little blunt but that shouldn't detract from the fact that what he says is right. Robins question may well have been a quite reasonable one but as he says himself its the same question he keeps asking over and over again and the reason he keeps asking it is because like Jonathan says even though he keeps being given answers the fact is in Robins mind there is no answer. I'm sure Robin will say that nobody has ever given him a satisfactory answer but I think that the reason for that is that Robin already has his mind made up that there isn't one.
I totally get why some people don't like hunting and I totally get why people can't understand why some people do like hunting but what I don't get is why you have to then assume that it has to be wrong and you must be some kind of sick in the head deranged wierdo. Is it really so much to ask to just accept that there are millions of people in the world that aren't the same as you and do things you don't personally understand but that doesn't have to mean they are wrong or bad people?

Hi adam yes I agree with you And thou I personally don,t like hunting myself much more than this I hate To think of any pursued, hunted, or shot bird or creature have to suffer in Anyway which we know at times they do If it was a clean kill and as less Suffering as possible it would be more humane to me but we all know thats Not always the case and nobody more so than the hunter themselves.

ChrisKten · Jan 26, 2015

OK, I'm not really well enough ATM, so forgive any lazy grammar (spell checker should be OK though

) Although not a Hunter, I thought I'd try to give an idea of what could be part of the reason for killing, and part of the answer Robin was looking for. A huge generalisation, but:

There is a difference between those that kill and those that never have, but it's the reason for the killing that divides even those that have killed. I'll try and elaborate... only my opinion of course... means very little

I think (I can't know) that those that kill are wired slightly differently from those that don't. However, those that hunt are no different from those that watch Birds or catch Fish; it's still a natural hunting instinct. It's not just the act of killing another animal; it's the act of killing for your own selfish (you're not eating the animal to do it a favour

) reason where the different wiring comes in. I have killed more often than I'd like, but each time it was to euthanase an animal that was suffering. Each time that I killed I had empathy for the animal; I saw it as a living-thinking (loving?) being. I was aware that I was taking it's life, and removing it from it's friends (in a loose sense of the word). Like I said; it was a concious being... didn't look or think like a Human, probably much dumber than a Human, had no idea that I was stopping it's misery... I was just another predator.

The point of all that I just typed? Before killing, I thought carefully about what I was about to do, and there's little difference in how I would have thought, the suffering animal could have been a Bird, a Cat, a Human... it wouldn't be any different to me... all are alive and sentient, and my aim was to end their suffering.

OTOH, as a Hunter killing for "sport" or food; seeing the prey as another living-thinking animal isn't possible... or is it? It'd be a bit like a soldier in war thinking about his target's family... he'd hesitate, maybe miss?

So it's just how our brains work; those that see other animals as individuals, will never understand those that kill for "sport" (but might understand those that kill for food. Although "understanding" doesn't mean agreeing or being willing to do it themselves) or food. Those that kill for sport (assuming I'm correct) can't understand those that see more in most animals than they do. I know this, because as an Angler for over 40 years, I never understood those that saw cruelty in my "sport"... until one day I started to see Fish differently, and I wondered if the potential (I couldn't read the minds of Fish) suffering was justified. I mean, the Fish aren't robots, they're alive... again, maybe really dumb animals, but does that mean it doesn't matter what I (we) do to them? (Yes, if you think about it, there's an argument here about Animal Testing... I don't wish to share my opinion on that; maybe face to face in the Pub, but not anonymously in a forum

)

It's important to say that there's no right or wrong way to be, not everyone is a Vegetarian, and someone needs to be able to kill the food for those that perhaps couldn't imagine doing it themselves. So, as a species, there has to be "Killers"; as there is in the rest of the Animal Kingdom.

I've no idea if I've just typed a load of nonsense, and at this moment, I don't care either

chris butterworth · Jan 26, 2015

Far from being "a load of nonsense" Chris, I found your post both honest and valid. I have, in my younger days, shot ( and eaten what I've shot ). I still enjoy eating game. We come to the thorny question of killing for "sport" ( whether for the "pot" or just for the bag size ). No-one can deny we, in western Europe / North America, do not need to hunt for food ( although all non-farmed fish we eat are wild animals that are hunted ) but I think the pro / anti argument boils down to perception. There are those that are driven by what can only be described as "blood lust" and there are those that are deeply concerned about the welfare, and conservation, of the species they hunt. The former are perceived as constituting all hunters, by many, which is as wrong as the view that all conservationists are "fluffy tree huggers". Personally killing your food by hunting or buying a piece of beef ( from male cattle that are castrated and fed a high protein diet in order to fatten them up for a slaughter man to kill, gut and skin then passed on to a butcher to dismember ). Which is more "moral" / "sensitive" / "right"?

ChrisKten · Jan 26, 2015

chris butterworth said:
Far from being "a load of nonsense" Chris, I found your post both honest and valid. I have, in my younger days, shot ( and eaten what I've shot ). I still enjoy eating game. We come to the thorny question of killing for "sport" ( whether for the "pot" or just for the bag size ). No-one can deny we, in western Europe / North America, do not need to hunt for food ( although all non-farmed fish we eat are wild animals that are hunted ) but I think the pro / anti argument boils down to perception. There are those that are driven by what can only be described as "blood lust" and there are those that are deeply concerned about the welfare, and conservation, of the species they hunt. The former are perceived as constituting all hunters, by many, which is as wrong as the view that all conservationists are "fluffy tree huggers". Personally killing your food by hunting or buying a piece of beef ( from male cattle that are castrated and fed a high protein diet in order to fatten them up for a slaughter man to kill, gut and skin then passed on to a butcher to dismember ). Which is more "moral" / "sensitive" / "right"?

Yeah I agree about the perception that all those in each individual camp are the same, Chris; and that it's the extremes of each that are thought of as the majority, which they're not.

And to address your last point; I'd imagine that an Animal would prefer a "wild" existence before death... maybe one day in the future we'll be able to ask them... then everything will change

Jos Stratford · Jan 26, 2015

An interesting comparison between levels of fines between Lithuania and Austria.

Austrian average salary is over four times higher than that in Lithuania. But...

- Austrian hunter shoots an endangered Imperial Eagle - gets 3000 euro fine and 'may' get his hunting license revoked.

- Lithuanian hunters in last couple of years illegally shooting deers - effective punishment approaching 40,000 euro (this includes not only the actual fine, but also the confiscation of weapons and the cars used by hunters [deemed as equipment used for the illegal activity]. Additionally, banned from hunting from 5 years to (I think) life.

Good to see at least one country sending out a real message.

chris butterworth · Jan 26, 2015

Jos Stratford said:
- Lithuanian hunters in last couple of years illegally shooting deers - effective punishment approaching 40,000 euro (this includes not only the actual fine, but also the confiscation of weapons and the cars used by hunters [deemed as equipment used for the illegal activity]. Additionally, banned from hunting from 5 years to (I think) life.

Good to see at least one country sending out a real message.

Totally agree Jos. Punishment is meant to act as a deterrent and €40, 000 plus the possibility of a lifelong ban sends the right message.

Robin Edwards · Jan 26, 2015

Well some interesting responses and yes, I recognise this is a contentious and emotive question that some may believe has no point. Maybe like trying to fathom why some individuals are drawn to left wing politics and others to the right or the countless flavours in between.

The individual responses warrant specific answers but as I'm on the move right now these might have to wait. What is really evident is that it is incredible that some seem to think they know my motives for asking said contentious question. I admit to not being a fun- hunter but I'm not saying I'm right and someone else is wrong.

Another poll which might be interesting.... If everyone in Britain were pro hunting within the law, do we think that fauna & ecosystems would benefit?

MJB · Jan 26, 2015

chris butterworth said:
Far from being "a load of nonsense" Chris, I found your post both honest and valid. I have, in my younger days, shot ( and eaten what I've shot ). I still enjoy eating game. We come to the thorny question of killing for "sport" ( whether for the "pot" or just for the bag size ). No-one can deny we, in western Europe / North America, do not need to hunt for food ( although all non-farmed fish we eat are wild animals that are hunted ) but I think the pro / anti argument boils down to perception. There are those that are driven by what can only be described as "blood lust" and there are those that are deeply concerned about the welfare, and conservation, of the species they hunt. The former are perceived as constituting all hunters, by many, which is as wrong as the view that all conservationists are "fluffy tree huggers". Personally killing your food by hunting or buying a piece of beef ( from male cattle that are castrated and fed a high protein diet in order to fatten them up for a slaughter man to kill, gut and skin then passed on to a butcher to dismember ). Which is more "moral" / "sensitive" / "right"?

I agree, Chris. It's the kind of response that I can understand, and had hoped for earlier in the thread. I may not agree with everything Jos said, but I can respect the views expressed, because they're not unthinking, nor are they reflexive. These views are not too distant from the animist concepts of the Iban, or those of the 'original peoples' in Australia in that they are based on a connection with the prey hunted for food.
MJB

dantheman · Jan 26, 2015

100, 200, 300 years ago we all would have killed animals on a regular basis as required - no room for any qualms there. Just because most of us now have no need to doesn't really change anything - that length of time is not long enough for any kind of evolving of humankind to 'not kill'.

What may have changed is the attitude of some to killing - either through personal choice, choices of those influential in childhood, or other 'nurturing' influences. But everyone is different, and so you get widely differing perspectives and attitudes to killing (in all the ways/forms in which it can occur) - what is 'wrong' is only a matter of personal choice/perspective. Certainly not 'evil' or anything like that (although that can of course have an influence)

coal tit · Jan 26, 2015

Jos Stratford said:
An interesting comparison between levels of fines between Lithuania and Austria.

Austrian average salary is over four times higher than that in Lithuania. But...

- Austrian hunter shoots an endangered Imperial Eagle - gets 3000 euro fine and 'may' get his hunting license revoked.

- Lithuanian hunters in last couple of years illegally shooting deers - effective punishment approaching 40,000 euro (this includes not only the actual fine, but also the confiscation of weapons and the cars used by hunters [deemed as equipment used for the illegal activity]. Additionally, banned from hunting from 5 years to (I think) life.

Good to see at least one country sending out a real message.

Yes Any news like this one is good news to me pity you don,t see it more to Send A real message out to those willing to flout the law and their will be those That always will if they can get away with it.

saluki · Jan 27, 2015

Robin Edwards said:
The individual responses warrant specific answers but as I'm on the move right now these might have to wait. What is really evident is that it is incredible that some seem to think they know my motives for asking said contentious question. I admit to not being a fun- hunter but I'm not saying I'm right and someone else is wrong.

Your words angered me somewhat, perhaps that's why my post was a little terse. I have no objection to people asking why I hunted so long as it's done with a little respect, not with a pious, holier-than-thou attitude, which was the feeling I got from your posts Robin.

Cheers
Jonathan

saluki · Jan 27, 2015

ChrisKten said:
OK, I'm not really well enough ATM, so forgive any lazy grammar (spell checker should be OK though ) Although not a Hunter, I thought I'd try to give an idea of what could be part of the reason for killing, and part of the answer Robin was looking for. A huge generalisation, but:

There is a difference between those that kill and those that never have, but it's the reason for the killing that divides even those that have killed. I'll try and elaborate... only my opinion of course... means very little

I think (I can't know) that those that kill are wired slightly differently from those that don't. However, those that hunt are no different from those that watch Birds or catch Fish; it's still a natural hunting instinct. It's not just the act of killing another animal; it's the act of killing for your own selfish (you're not eating the animal to do it a favour ) reason where the different wiring comes in. I have killed more often than I'd like, but each time it was to euthanase an animal that was suffering. Each time that I killed I had empathy for the animal; I saw it as a living-thinking (loving?) being. I was aware that I was taking it's life, and removing it from it's friends (in a loose sense of the word). Like I said; it was a concious being... didn't look or think like a Human, probably much dumber than a Human, had no idea that I was stopping it's misery... I was just another predator.

The point of all that I just typed? Before killing, I thought carefully about what I was about to do, and there's little difference in how I would have thought, the suffering animal could have been a Bird, a Cat, a Human... it wouldn't be any different to me... all are alive and sentient, and my aim was to end their suffering.

OTOH, as a Hunter killing for "sport" or food; seeing the prey as another living-thinking animal isn't possible... or is it? It'd be a bit like a soldier in war thinking about his target's family... he'd hesitate, maybe miss?

So it's just how our brains work; those that see other animals as individuals, will never understand those that kill for "sport" (but might understand those that kill for food. Although "understanding" doesn't mean agreeing or being willing to do it themselves) or food. Those that kill for sport (assuming I'm correct) can't understand those that see more in most animals than they do. I know this, because as an Angler for over 40 years, I never understood those that saw cruelty in my "sport"... until one day I started to see Fish differently, and I wondered if the potential (I couldn't read the minds of Fish) suffering was justified. I mean, the Fish aren't robots, they're alive... again, maybe really dumb animals, but does that mean it doesn't matter what I (we) do to them? (Yes, if you think about it, there's an argument here about Animal Testing... I don't wish to share my opinion on that; maybe face to face in the Pub, but not anonymously in a forum )

It's important to say that there's no right or wrong way to be, not everyone is a Vegetarian, and someone needs to be able to kill the food for those that perhaps couldn't imagine doing it themselves. So, as a species, there has to be "Killers"; as there is in the rest of the Animal Kingdom.

I've no idea if I've just typed a load of nonsense, and at this moment, I don't care either

I agree on most of you points Chris. I'm sure it's the act of actually killing rather than hunting per se that people object to, so perhaps I should concentrate on that.

As in birding, there are many reasons why people hunt. Perhaps there are some who enjoy the act of actually killing a living creature (I've met two people who you could, perhaps, put in that category), the rest see killing as a necessary part of the hunt, not the main reason to hunt. It takes a fraction of a second to pull a trigger, if I enjoyed inflicting pain and suffering on a creature I would simply buy a pet rabbit and a hammer and slowly smash the poor creature to pieces.

I can appreciate entirely why some people find hunting so totally alien to them. I was brought up in a hunting family however, initially it never entered my head to question whether what we did was morally right or wrong. We were also poor, so everything we caught or shot was eaten. Oddly perhaps, my sister - who was brought up in exactly the same environment - is opposed to hunting. Her son shoots, she accepts it but does not like it.

For me, actually shooting a living creature was not where the moral dilemma occurred. If you're hunting then the end product is going to be a dead animal, you made that decision hours ago when you first picked up your gun. Usually you don't really have time to think, you simply pull the trigger and whatever you've aimed at is dead. When this happens then, personally, I think it's a far better death than any slaughterhouse could provide. The problem comes when you wound something, you then have to look that creature in the eye and physically kill it. It's not pleasant, but from the moment you picked up that gun you have to accept the fact that you may have to do it.

Some people can't. Many years ago I took a guy out shooting duck. He told me he was a reasonably experienced shot. I put him on a stubble field, he had a few shots and I saw a Mallard fall. Later, when I walked back over to him, he told me the duck was wounded and he couldn't kill it. I killed the duck, gave him a few choice words and never took him out again. I'm not blaming the guy for not being able to kill the wounded bird, but I do blame him for firing at something he wasn't prepared to kill.

This sounds awful, but killing does become easier with practice. For me, once I stopped hunting, it became very difficult to kill anything. I bird regularly around a landfill site, it's not unusual to find dying gulls or corvids in the area. Any I find I check them over and either release or kill them (I'm not a big fan of animal 'sanctuaries'), if I find anything less common then I usually rehab it myself (last one was a Swift knocked into a lake by a Hobby!). It is no longer straight forward for me to kill anything, even though I'm undoubtedly causing the bird to suffer less. Whether this means I now have more empathy with the creature, I wouldn't like to say.

Cheers
Jonathan

ChrisKten · Jan 27, 2015

saluki said:
I agree on most of you points Chris. I'm sure it's the act of actually killing rather than hunting per se that people object to, so perhaps I should concentrate on that.

As in birding, there are many reasons why people hunt. Perhaps there are some who enjoy the act of actually killing a living creature (I've met two people who you could, perhaps, put in that category), the rest see killing as a necessary part of the hunt, not the main reason to hunt. It takes a fraction of a second to pull a trigger, if I enjoyed inflicting pain and suffering on a creature I would simply buy a pet rabbit and a hammer and slowly smash the poor creature to pieces.

I can appreciate entirely why some people find hunting so totally alien to them. I was brought up in a hunting family however, initially it never entered my head to question whether what we did was morally right or wrong. We were also poor, so everything we caught or shot was eaten. Oddly perhaps, my sister - who was brought up in exactly the same environment - is opposed to hunting. Her son shoots, she accepts it but does not like it.

For me, actually shooting a living creature was not where the moral dilemma occurred. If you're hunting then the end product is going to be a dead animal, you made that decision hours ago when you first picked up your gun. Usually you don't really have time to think, you simply pull the trigger and whatever you've aimed at is dead. When this happens then, personally, I think it's a far better death than any slaughterhouse could provide. The problem comes when you wound something, you then have to look that creature in the eye and physically kill it. It's not pleasant, but from the moment you picked up that gun you have to accept the fact that you may have to do it.

Some people can't. Many years ago I took a guy out shooting duck. He told me he was a reasonably experienced shot. I put him on a stubble field, he had a few shots and I saw a Mallard fall. Later, when I walked back over to him, he told me the duck was wounded and he couldn't kill it. I killed the duck, gave him a few choice words and never took him out again. I'm not blaming the guy for not being able to kill the wounded bird, but I do blame him for firing at something he wasn't prepared to kill.

This sounds awful, but killing does become easier with practice. For me, once I stopped hunting, it became very difficult to kill anything. I bird regularly around a landfill site, it's not unusual to find dying gulls or corvids in the area. Any I find I check them over and either release or kill them (I'm not a big fan of animal 'sanctuaries'), if I find anything less common then I usually rehab it myself (last one was a Swift knocked into a lake by a Hobby!). It is no longer straight forward for me to kill anything, even though I'm undoubtedly causing the bird to suffer less. Whether this means I now have more empathy with the creature, I wouldn't like to say.

Cheers
Jonathan

Interesting to read, Jonathan... not an easy thing to share on this forum. I hope that it helps dispel the myth that all Hunters are mindless idiots that enjoy killing.

Adam W · Jan 27, 2015

Excellent post that Jonathan, I think you're right that the wounded bird situation is probably the most difficult part of shooting and is probably the reason that has made a lot of people give up shooting. That said I think its a fine balance,obviously if dispatching wounded birds bothers you too much too often you'll have to end up giving up shooting but I think it's very important that it should bother you a bit so you retain a respect for the quarry and always do everything possible to keep any suffering to a minimum.
Certainly every shooter I know has had those moments when you pick up a wounded bird, it looks you in the eye and you think to yourself ''what the **** am I doing '' any shooter that hasn't thought that is probably the type of person we can do without in the shooting world.

pppppvvvv · Jan 27, 2015

saluki said:
I agree on most of you points Chris. I'm sure it's the act of actually killing rather than hunting per se that people object to, so perhaps I should concentrate on that.

As in birding, there are many reasons why people hunt. Perhaps there are some who enjoy the act of actually killing a living creature (I've met two people who you could, perhaps, put in that category), the rest see killing as a necessary part of the hunt, not the main reason to hunt. It takes a fraction of a second to pull a trigger, if I enjoyed inflicting pain and suffering on a creature I would simply buy a pet rabbit and a hammer and slowly smash the poor creature to pieces.

I can appreciate entirely why some people find hunting so totally alien to them. I was brought up in a hunting family however, initially it never entered my head to question whether what we did was morally right or wrong. We were also poor, so everything we caught or shot was eaten. Oddly perhaps, my sister - who was brought up in exactly the same environment - is opposed to hunting. Her son shoots, she accepts it but does not like it.

For me, actually shooting a living creature was not where the moral dilemma occurred. If you're hunting then the end product is going to be a dead animal, you made that decision hours ago when you first picked up your gun. Usually you don't really have time to think, you simply pull the trigger and whatever you've aimed at is dead. When this happens then, personally, I think it's a far better death than any slaughterhouse could provide. The problem comes when you wound something, you then have to look that creature in the eye and physically kill it. It's not pleasant, but from the moment you picked up that gun you have to accept the fact that you may have to do it.

Some people can't. Many years ago I took a guy out shooting duck. He told me he was a reasonably experienced shot. I put him on a stubble field, he had a few shots and I saw a Mallard fall. Later, when I walked back over to him, he told me the duck was wounded and he couldn't kill it. I killed the duck, gave him a few choice words and never took him out again. I'm not blaming the guy for not being able to kill the wounded bird, but I do blame him for firing at something he wasn't prepared to kill.

This sounds awful, but killing does become easier with practice. For me, once I stopped hunting, it became very difficult to kill anything. I bird regularly around a landfill site, it's not unusual to find dying gulls or corvids in the area. Any I find I check them over and either release or kill them (I'm not a big fan of animal 'sanctuaries'), if I find anything less common then I usually rehab it myself (last one was a Swift knocked into a lake by a Hobby!). It is no longer straight forward for me to kill anything, even though I'm undoubtedly causing the bird to suffer less. Whether this means I now have more empathy with the creature, I wouldn't like to say.

Cheers
Jonathan

I would say this kind of conversation has absolutely no place on Birdforum. It's totally irrelevant to the appreciation of wild birds, and the enjoyment of wild birds, birding, totally alien. Not saying it's wrong, not saying i'm in a holier place, I just think it's just totally irrelevant on here.

Also, read the site guidelines. It's black and white in there.

Which is why I'll add you to my ignore list, and not waste my time reading anything more of a similar nature.

saluki · Jan 27, 2015

peter.jones said:
Which is why I'll add you to my ignore list, and not waste my time reading anything more of a similar nature.

Probably for the best mate. Someone asked a question, I answered it as honestly as I could.

Like I said in my original post - an utter waste of time . . .

Cheers
Jonathan

Jos Stratford · Jan 27, 2015

peter.jones said:
I would say this kind of conversation has absolutely no place on Birdforum. It's totally irrelevant to the appreciation of wild birds, and the enjoyment of wild birds, birding, totally alien. Not saying it's wrong, not saying i'm in a holier place, I just think it's just totally irrelevant on here.

Also, read the site guidelines. It's black and white in there.

If BirdForum is the wrong place for the reply by Saluki, then surely you should also have expressed similar sentiment to the posting of the question to which he answered.

The question was why do people want to hunt, only a hunter can provide this answer, and that is exactly what Saluki tried to do in an honest way.

I don't think it is very reasonable to criticize someone on BirdForum for simply answering a question posed on the forum - if we can't have the answer, don't ask the question!

pppppvvvv · Jan 27, 2015

I did say this "conversation" to be fair, and it was only practical to quote the most recent post.

Everyone on here will post something that you find irrelevant, poor taste, or offensive from time to time. And you notice people here just to troll or wind people up too. (I'm not saying Saluki was all of those things to me)

So, then I look at their "previous posts".. If that is full of the same, then it is best to ignore. reading their posts is very unlikely to benefit me.

The chap who posted the question often posts interesting things. I wouldn't ignore him.

Austrian hunter "aims" at Magpie and kills Imperial Eagle! (1 Viewer)

Well-known member

Well-known member

COAL TIT

It's true, I quite like Pigeons

aka The Person Named Above

It's true, I quite like Pigeons

Eastern Exile

aka The Person Named Above

Well-known member

Well-known member

Bah humbug

COAL TIT

Well-known member

Well-known member

It's true, I quite like Pigeons

Well-known member

Guest

Well-known member

Eastern Exile

Guest

Similar threads

Users who are viewing this thread