Blue-winged Teal...shot... (1 Viewer)

[kristoffer]

We (humans) does not need to eat meat, people just do it because they like the taste and are usually used to eating it from the childhood.

In the genesis of the human ape we ate alot of vegetables and meat once a week or every other week. But we dont live on the savanna any more, we live in towns. Soya, quorn etc. emulates the taste of meat and comes without opressing animals and destroying our climate. Also we simply dont have enough agricultare land to produce meat for everyone. Production of meat is huge loss in terms of energy and water that we can´t afford. If whole of China and India also want meat, we run out of land.

Same with hunting, it is a remain from a darker time and twitching should provide enough "hunting" for anyone. The spread of lead from hunters bullets in Sweden kills vasts numbers of eagles eating cadaver and affect the ecosystem badly. Same with hunters who can´t tell the difference between great comorant, european shag etc etc. Hunters like to claim their interest in wildlife but I know what the interest is, killing the same wildlife I like to observe.

 

[Barred Wobbler]

The key to conservation isn't whether birds are shot (or not), but do they have somewhere to live and something to eat.

Britain is impoverished as far as birds go, not because of shooters, not altogether because of lack of anywhere to go, but (I believe) because the poor sods have nothing to eat when they get there.

Small (or even not so small) isolated reserves dotted around in arable deserts almost devoid of food, whether vegetable or insect are not the way to have a healthy population, and if reserves are provided intentionally, or even accidentally by shooters that benefit the quarry species and spin-offs (such as finches and buntings flocking in game crop in the winter), then good.

An example.

I had a trip to Portugal earlier this month and chose (by accident) a Sunday to go looking for bustards and other stuff in the plains east of Castro Verde.

It didn't take long to find our first great bustards, two flew over the road after a couple of miles of stopping and watching. A mile further on another three came over. A possible reason for our first bustards being seen in flight was they they may have been disturbed by some of the literally dozens of partridge shooters that we were to encounter for the rest of the day. It was, as I said, Sunday. Every farm had a shooting party out, with lines of guns with dogs walking up partridges and hares with a couple of standing guns placed towards the end of the drive to intercept anything that came their way. We sat by the road and watched them for a while.

If the shooters weren't on the ground, they were in small convoys of pick-ups and cars moving from one drive to the next. There were dozens.

And guess what? Was the area devoid of wildlife because of this intensive attention and the sound of frequent shots we heard coming from any direction of the compass?

It was not.

In addition to the partridges and hares that we spotted disturbed by the hunters and the bustards that may or may not have been put to flight by them we saw other bustards on the ground in the flields, black-bellied sandgrouse in flight and on the ground, dozens of shovelers and other duck on a large pool we came across, with snipe on the edges - and raptors.

Sparrowhawk, black-shouldered kite, many buzzards and red kites, up to five red kites together in one place, ravens. Larks of several species were all over the place and "much, much more".

The place was probably more heavily shot than any equivalent area in this country, yet it was heaving with life.

The difference is, it wasn't intensively farmed (although it was farmed - ploughing was going on in some fields while we were there) and there was food in the form of insects and seeds for the birds. The shooters could have as much sport as they liked and there was plenty left to ensure healthy populations.

 

[alan_rymer]

I have to ask though - why shoot a rarity like blue-winged teal? Surely this is only going to antagonise birdwatchers and fray what is qiuite possibly already an uneasy relationship?

I'm curious, How easy is it to identify a Blue winged Teal from a Teal ( Male/Female ) given 10 seconds flyover time without Bins?

I ask having never ( to my knowledge ) seen a Blue winged Teal.

 

[kristoffer]

No hunter can/should/is allowed to pull the trigger before he is certain of what he aims at.

I'm curious, How easy is it to identify a Blue winged Teal from a Teal ( Male/Female ) given 10 seconds flyover time without Bins?

I ask having never ( to my knowledge ) seen a Blue winged Teal.

 

[Adam W]

No hunter can/should/is allowed to pull the trigger before he is certain of what he aims at.

Technicaly correct but totally impractical and unrealistic in practice.

Take for example a situation where 1000 pinkfeet are coming into a field in the half light at dawn,they are clearly recognisable by there calls and the fact that you know they have been using the field you shoot at a goose visible against a patch of light sky only to discover there must have been one Barnacle in the middle of the 999 pinkfeet. The only way you could criticise someone for doing that is if you just dont like shooting anyway,which is a different argument altogether.

 

[kristoffer]

That is illegal, in Sweden atleast. You have to be certain what you shoot, or take the consequence.

Technicaly correct but totally impractical and unrealistic in practice.

Take for example a situation where 1000 pinkfeet are coming into a field in the half light at dawn,they are clearly recognisable by there calls and the fact that you know they have been using the field you shoot at a goose visible against a patch of light sky only to discover there must have been one Barnacle in the middle of the 999 pinkfeet. The only way you could criticise someone for doing that is if you just dont like shooting anyway,which is a different argument altogether.

 

[Adam W]

That is illegal, in Sweden atleast. You have to be certain what you shoot, or take the consequence.

As i said technicaly it would be illegal here but i was trying to demonstrate how easy it would be to make a genuine mistake which no reasnable person would criticise someone for.

Anyone with any knowledge of what shooting actually involves will know that it is impossible to always be 100% certain what you are shooting at for various reasons such as weather and light conditions,the fact that different species dont always stay seperate from each other and more often than not a very short space of time in which to make a descision.

I think its very harsh to criticise the occasional genuine mistake especially in the case of the Blue winged Teal a bird which nobody would have expected to be there.

 

[Monahawk]

We (humans) does not need to eat meat, people just do it because they like the taste and are usually used to eating it from the childhood.

In the genesis of the human ape we ate alot of vegetables and meat once a week or every other week. But we dont live on the savanna any more, we live in towns. Soya, quorn etc. emulates the taste of meat and comes without opressing animals and destroying our climate. Also we simply dont have enough agricultare land to produce meat for everyone. Production of meat is huge loss in terms of energy and water that we can´t afford. If whole of China and India also want meat, we run out of land.

Same with hunting, it is a remain from a darker time and twitching should provide enough "hunting" for anyone. The spread of lead from hunters bullets in Sweden kills vasts numbers of eagles eating cadaver and affect the ecosystem badly. Same with hunters who can´t tell the difference between great comorant, european shag etc etc. Hunters like to claim their interest in wildlife but I know what the interest is, killing the same wildlife I like to observe.

Kristoffer. Your arguments on this thread baffle me. Just what has meat eating v vegetarianism got to do with hunting/wildfowling? Nothing as far as I can see. This thread is more to do with the reaction of others to the shooting of a certain species of duck and so it ignited a debate on pro hunting or anti hunting sentiments, not the eating habits of humans. There are other forums that deal with that issue. You are not the only one who has deviated from this theme.

When you do get on to the correct subject, you say hunting belongs to a darker time. What is that supposed to mean? I suppose you mean hunting should should be wiped out in these modern times and the world will be a happier place. In your next posting you say hunters should not pull the trigger unless they are absolutely sure of what they are aiming at. To me this means it's ok to hunt so long as you don't make a mistake!

I can see you are on the anti hunting side of the fence and I respect your view, it's just the perspective of your argument that I find rather confusing.

 

[kristoffer]

I dont find it harsh at all to demand that if you are going to kill someone, you make sure what you aim at first. Many times you can see what you aim at. The other times when you are not certain you just dont take the shot. If its too hard, stop shooting animals.

 

[xmeecosmic]

Kristoffer, I totally agree with you.
Que lastima/what a pity that It seems that some hunters care more about the "reward" (whatever that may be) than in terms of the "risk" (to the non-target sentient beings).

Les

 

[Adam W]

I dont find it harsh at all to demand that if you are going to kill SOMEONE, you make sure what you aim at first. Many times you can see what you aim at. The other times when you are not certain you just dont take the shot. If its too hard, stop shooting animals.

Nobdy mentioned killing people!


What you say would be true in most cases for example pheasant or pigeon shooting which would always be done in daylight,but as i hope you will be aware wildfowl are often most active at dawn and dusk(flying to and from feeding grounds) so to have any success as a shooter those are the times of the day when you would normally shoot. These conditions obviously make it slightly more likely that a mistake could be made.

Any responsible shooter will rightly not fire if there is any doubt but as in the example i gave earlier there would be no doubt until it was too late.It is most likely that the person who shot the Blue winged Teal was 100% convinced they were shooting a Teal until the bird was retrieved, even if the blue patches on the wing were visible most people(birdwatchers included) would probably think of Shoveler a legal quarry species in the split second you have to make a decision.

As i said earlier it is very harsh to criticise someone for this and doing so shows a very narrow minded and naive view.

 

[kristoffer]

I just responded to earlier threads. I don´t think it is your place to decide what we can discuss "on this forum". In my opinion there are not many more important issues right now then meat consumption.

Yes, I think hunting should be outlawed and I think we should be able to get thrills without killing animals. But at the same time I understand that hunting is legal and since it is I believe that those who shoot animals should be certain what they kill, before they do it.

Kristoffer. Your arguments on this thread baffle me. Just what has meat eating v vegetarianism got to do with hunting/wildfowling? Nothing as far as I can see. This thread is more to do with the reaction of others to the shooting of a certain species of duck and so it ignited a debate on pro hunting or anti hunting sentiments, not the eating habits of humans. There are other forums that deal with that issue. You are not the only one who has deviated from this theme.

When you do get on to the correct subject, you say hunting belongs to a darker time. What is that supposed to mean? I suppose you mean hunting should should be wiped out in these modern times and the world will be a happier place. In your next posting you say hunters should not pull the trigger unless they are absolutely sure of what they are aiming at. To me this means it's ok to hunt so long as you don't make a mistake!

I can see you are on the anti hunting side of the fence and I respect your view, it's just the perspective of your argument that I find rather confusing.

 

[Monahawk]

Aye to that Adam. Although I'm not a shooter myself and would not indulge in the pastime. I remain quite neutral on the subject and am willing to read constructive arguments from both sides and I think as a shooter yourself you have stood your ground well and presented your side of the argument quite ably. I just wish some of the anti hunting fraternity here could be more constructive rather than being wishy washy and sentimentalist and jumping on the meat eater versus vege, how to farm properly bandwagon to back up their arguments which quite frankly, as I have said before, do not tie in with this this thread. Agree or disagree?

 

[kristoffer]

I don´t want to use the word "something", it sounds like dead matter to me. I am don´t have English as my native language so I don´t know the proper word for killing animals.

You can name call me all you want, but it is my opinion that if you want to kill a certain duck you should be totally sure before you take the shot or take the penalty for killing a protected species. I fail to see any reason to give hunters any clemency considering the effects hunting cause on animals and birds. Look at lead poisoned eagles in Sweden, or poisoned eagles/raptors in Sweden from hunters who don´think raptors are entitled to take preys in order to survive. They "steal" kills from the hunters.

Nobdy mentioned killing people!


What you say would be true in most cases for example pheasant or pigeon shooting which would always be done in daylight,but as i hope you will be aware wildfowl are often most active at dawn and dusk(flying to and from feeding grounds) so to have any success as a shooter those are the times of the day when you would normally shoot. These conditions obviously make it slightly more likely that a mistake could be made.

Any responsible shooter will rightly not fire if there is any doubt but as in the example i gave earlier there would be no doubt until it was too late.It is most likely that the person who shot the Blue winged Teal was 100% convinced they were shooting a Teal until the bird was retrieved, even if the blue patches on the wing were visible most people(birdwatchers included) would probably think of Shoveler a legal quarry species in the split second you have to make a decision.

As i said earlier it is very harsh to criticise someone for this and doing so shows a very narrow minded and naive view.

 

[redeyedvideo]

We (humans) does not need to eat meat, people just do it because they like the taste and are usually used to eating it from the childhood.

Kristoffer. Your arguments on this thread baffle me. Just what has meat eating v vegetarianism got to do with hunting/wildfowling?

You may wish to read post no. 36 again instead of jumping on Kristopher which read;

"It don't make it wrong either. I am sorry to find myself on the opposite side of the fence from you Jos, but eating meat is natural to humans. We are just another mammal.

Following that line of argument I am certainly prepared to hold all vegetarians and vegans in the wrong by saying that vegetable monoculture (on which their world view depends) is a far worse and less diverse habitat than even "improved grassland" on which beef and mutton are raised."

 

[Adam W]

Aye to that Adam. Although I'm not a shooter myself and would not indulge in the pastime. I remain quite neutral on the subject and am willing to read constructive arguments from both sides and I think as a shooter yourself you have stood your ground well and presented your side of the argument quite ably. I just wish some of the anti hunting fraternity here could be more constructive rather than being wishy washy and sentimentalist and jumping on the meat eater versus vege, how to farm properly bandwagon to back up their arguments which quite frankly, as I have said before, do not tie in with this this thread. Agree or disagree?

Thanks Monahawk, nice to know there are some people out there willing to be open minded and listen to both sides before making a judgement.

I also agree that some posts have strayed some what from the original point.

 

[Adam W]

I don´t want to use the word "something", it sounds like dead matter to me. I am don´t have English as my native language so I don´t know the proper word for killing animals.

You can name call me all you want, but it is my opinion that if you want to kill a certain duck you should be totally sure before you take the shot or take the penalty for killing a protected species. I fail to see any reason to give hunters any clemency considering the effects hunting cause on animals and birds. Look at lead poisoned eagles in Sweden, or poisoned eagles/raptors in Sweden from hunters who don´think raptors are entitled to take preys in order to survive. They "steal" kills from the hunters.

I appreciate that English is not youre first language and its alot better than my Swedish but 'something' would be the correct word or perhaps you might say to shoot 'Game'.

I dont think i was name calling just stating what i believe i as fact, that youre view shows a certain naivity on the subject.

I never said i would not accept the punishment if i were to ever accidently shoot a non-quarry species, that would be my fault and i'd accept that the same as i would if i broke any other law relating to anything else in life. I was just making the point that it would be harsh for someone else to criticise when it was clearly a genuine mistake i didnt mean that you should not expect to face the consequences of youre actions.

 

[Farnboro John]

I've done legality and morality on this thread, so I'm not terribly interested in responses to this thought based on either of them, but here is an idea based on pragmatism.

The bloke who shot the Blue-winged Teal must have known after it was picked up that he had something different. Either he knew what it was, or he wanted it identified. Either way, assuming (I think safely from previous posts) that he was a responsible shooter, he probably knew he had shot something he shouldn't.

At that point he had a number of options.

Keep quiet and keep it out of sight, ID it from books if poss and eat it himself without saying anything.

Bury it and pretend it never happened.

Tell somebody, knowing he'd committed an offence but wanting to know what the bird was AND believing that even dead, it was better going into the scientific record than not.


This isn't about right and wrong, we've killed that already. This is about better or worse - shades of grey if you like. If we want the scientific record to be as complete as possible, genuine accidents have to be glossed over. After all, the Baikal Teal in Scandinavia that led to BOU acceptance of a British record due to isotope analysis was a shot corpse if I remember correctly.

If we want the data, its provision has to be safe for the provider.

I have no doubt there will be opinions out there....

John

 

[Monahawk]

It is always tempting to stray off the beaten path so to speak, especially on an intense debate like this. However, stray off it too often and the whole thing becomes a shambles and boring and the original debate loses its momentum. On this thread you are either for, against or neutral on the subject of HUNTING/WILDFOWLING and not keep dwelling on the moral issues of what we should eat or how farmers should do their jobs. Surely its that simple?

Personally I would like to meet the person who shot that Blue Winged Teal, then show him what a minefield he has created on this Forum. I wonder what he would think?

 

[alan_rymer]

I'm still curious how difficult it would be to ID a Blue winged teal flying over in a flock of Teal? When I see common Teal, quite often ( depending on the light ) the green on the wing looks blue.
O.K. Its got a large extra blue bit, just looked it up in my Collins. If its sitting on a pond its easy to tell the difference.
If its a silhouette in flight it looks identical. Its a regrettable but understandable mistake.