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

peter.jones said:

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.

Click to expand...

We can only write from our own experiences. Concerning wildlife issues, mine have been very different to the vast majority of Birdforum members. I go birding every day, I could write about those experiences, but who would it really interest, bar those few people who lived in the area I was birding? I save such posts for more local forums. So I post mainly about hunting issues on Birdforum simply because I hope it gives others a different perspective perhaps. I accept that this is going to wind people up at times, it isn't intentional but we're discussing matters that are very emotive so it's bound to happen from time to time.

If Peter thinks I'm a troll then so be it. I do find his attitude quite sad however as personally I think it takes a particularly narrow mind to believe that one cannot ever benefit from other people's opinions.

Cheers
Jonathan

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.

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

Click to expand...

I cannot agree; this conversation and the thoughts of a hunter are, surely, relevant to the appreciation and enjoyment of wild birds. Hunters have an impact on wild bird conservation; sometimes good; often bad, so I was glad to see the question asked and answered.

Jonathons answer, apart from being honest and clearly answering the points put forward in other posts, displayed the sentiment he felt when having to kill something to end its suffering, a perfectly human feeling. Far to many people confuse sentiment with mawkish, twee sentimentality, a totally different kettle of fish.

I sometimes think there is only a subtle difference in motivation between shooting birds and photographing them: for me, there is great satisfaction in staking out a bird, using field craft, experience and knowledge to stalk it and finally 'pulling the trigger'. My trophy is a photograph...

I have never hunted and never would (I've been a vegetarian for 35 years) but feel I do understand why someone might shoot a goose or duck for the pot. I can't really understand why someone (whether hunter or gamekeeper) would kill something inedible as a trophy, however.

Apologies - I asked a contentious question and then haven't responded as I've been away on business. I considered letting the thread end but thought of adding some further clarity because I actually agree with a lot more than some seem to think. I can also appreciate the considerations of all posters including Jonathan and thank him for his honesty. My question was not intended in the way it was taken and no I'm not a vegan and yes I do drive a car (although I will always try to avoid impact with animals )

So, there is hunting in many forms and although I choose not to hunt simply because I feel no urge to do so, I recognise that not all forms are necessary damaging and some will like to shoot for their pot. I would also clarify that I'm not asking my question from a stand-point of sentimentality as I myself own a gun and will reluctantly remove species where I feel there is no other option. I don't enjoy it and never have/will.

So my fascination is that I think many birders have similar instincts to those that hunt, ring birds or photograph birds, spot trains, collect stamps etc. I don't consider myself quite as obsessive as others but I do concede to being a collector of sorts - to try and tick all the species in my old Heinzel, Fitter & Parslow acts as an incentive and I'm guessing we're all sharing hunter gatherer genes that make us what we are and what we like doing. I sometimes ask whether there were individuals amongst our hunter-gatherer ancestors who lived from the land who also chose not to hunt by choice?

So setting aside any dimesion of being anti-killing or over-sentmental, I guess the thing that I will probbaly never stop trying to ask and reconcile is why some of us like to try to protect what we enjoy whilst others will want to destroy the very same, not for food or pest control, but just because it allows the individual to use his/her gun for pleasure. In my mind, a good example would be trophy or canned killing of rare and threatened species to fill a gap on the trophy wall whilst organisations are simultaneously spending scarce resources on trying to protect them from their demise. It might be business but those businesses only exist because there are individuals who feel it is acceptable to collect dead animals they have shot.
Some on this forum will know that in the UK I am against the law that allows seasonal shooting of Golden Plover, Snipe and Woodcock, again not borne from sentimentatlity but simply because the species are in decline and don't in my view need to be killed for food or fun. This is something I would like to see NGOs campaigning more to bring about a more frequent review of the species that can be lawfully shot in UK.

On my flight home yesterday, I was coincidently reading the chapter in Dr Avery's Message from Martha that discusses the four horsemen of the ecological apocalypse where horseman 3 is overexploitation. Now I know we're not talking about Passenger Pigeons here but the four main forces that drive extinction and extirpation include taking out more than the species can sustain given the other three negative forces. What I don't see enough of (just see what Shooting Times spout on about on social media to know an example what I mean) is corporate responsibility to deter negative impact of their sport. They prefer to think it's more black & white, you're either pro-shooting or you're a tree-hugging, lettuce-eating anti! No mid ground there then!

So back to our Austrian friend who claims he mistook an Imperial Eagle for a Magpie should that ever be possible. I have no sentimentality towards the Magpie necessarily however I don't ever see a reason to want to kill an Eagle and would suggest that if it's possible to truly make such a mistake then it begs the question why any nation would allow sporting gun licences for the myopic?

Been away for a week. Didn't expect this thread to take off like it has.
I don't hunt but I know I could/would if I had to. I understand why some people hunt, but I don't like the idea of just killing something for the fun of it, though I have known people who really do. I used to fish (trout with dry fly) about a half century ago, but got weary of killing fish I didn't really need to kill, so I filed the barbs off the hooks of my flies. Made it MUCH harder to bring something in, and when I did, a little twist of the wrist and the fish was off again, perhaps a bit wiser. That satisfied my "natural hunting instinct".... for a while, then I gave that up too. Now I hunt birds, but with a 600mm telescope with a camera attached. Not totally dissimilar to hunting, me thinks, except for the birds.
As far as the guy here and his Imperial Eagle/Magpie is concerned.... that is simply a case of plain stupidity, through and through, and I sometimes find it distressing to think how many guns are in the hands of really stupid people.