hunting and fishing

[djbombscare]

If you can't tell a hare from a rabbit, may I suggest glasses?

Oh I've met a few that think its a big rabbit

 

[longdog]

Shooting with a bow is illegal for the very good reason that it's cruel. The only sure way to kill an animal with a bow is to hit it bang on in the heart. Anything less and the animal is going to bleed to death very slowly.

Although it's legal I would never try to kill any animal (except maybe a rat) with an air rifle, they just don't have the 'stopping power'. Non FAC air rifles in this country are limited to 12ft/lb compared to a .22LR firearm at 60-100ft/lb. For comparison a 12 bore is about 1500ft/lb

Lots and lots of hunters inflict non lethal wounds with rifles.

In the UK hunters tend to be a bit more committed as it's a major feat in itself to find land over which you can get permission to shoot (which may well be subject to police approval). Once you get that permission you can apply for a Firearm Certificate to get a rifle and you will have to show that the gun you intend to use is suitable for the terrain. If you have permission to shoot over a thousand acres of land you stand a better chance of being issued a licence for a .222 than if you only have ten acres.

We also have The Deer Act which dictates you can only take deer with a rifle of .24 calibre or greater and a muzzle energy of 1700ft/lb or greater.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

It depends on the animal, I would say. You can kill vermin, but you can't torture them. You can't stab dogs, really, or cats. You could stab a rat if you could catch one but it would have to be an instant death stab, behind the ears or somesuch. No just stabbing like a loon, that would be bad.

Most people couldn't deliver the instant death stab; it would take a couple of attempts.

In Britain, are you allowed to throw live lobsters into the boiling pot?

 

[longdog]

Oh....

If you want to hunt rabbits get a dog. Preferably a nice little longdog or a whippet.

If you're after hare or small deer you need either one or a pair of greyhounds*, or a lurcher or longdog with a quick turn (and a get out of jail free card).

For anything larger like roe or red deer you need a large greyhound or two, a powerful lurcher or one of the bigger varieties of longdog (deerhound x greyhound) or the like. Purebreed deerhounds are great if they are from working stock but 'show' dogs might not be up the job in the same way that a racing greyhound will often make a great hunter where a show dog just isn't built the same and has neither the speed or the ingrained chase instinct.

Hunting deer with dogs is of course quite illegal and in my opinion rightly so. Small game die almost instantly when a dog gets a hold of them and gives the old 'shake of death' breaking their necks. Large deer die from having their throats ripped out and that's not very nice at all.



*Personally I don't approve of hunting with two dogs at the same time. There's a good chance the prey will end up being ripped to apart rather than a (near) instantaneous death at the hands of single hound.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

In the UK hunters tend to be a bit more committed as it's a major feat in itself to find land over which you can get permission to shoot (which may well be subject to police approval). Once you get that permission you can apply for a Firearm Certificate to get a rifle and you will have to show that the gun you intend to use is suitable for the terrain. If you have permission to shoot over a thousand acres of land you stand a better chance of being issued a licence for a .222 than if you only have ten acres.

We also have The Deer Act which dictates you can only take deer with a rifle of .24 calibre or greater and a muzzle energy of 1700ft/lb or greater.

Yes, I'm sure that going through the licencing process, means that British hunters are better marksmen than North American hunters...

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

Oh....

If you want to hunt rabbits get a dog. Preferably a nice little longdog or a whippet.

If you're after hare or small deer you need either one or a pair of greyhounds*, or a lurcher or longdog with a quick turn (and a get out of jail free card).

For anything larger like roe or red deer you need a large greyhound or two, a powerful lurcher or one of the bigger varieties of longdog (deerhound x greyhound) or the like. Purebreed deerhounds are great if they are from working stock but 'show' dogs might not be up the job in the same way that a racing greyhound will often make a great hunter where a show dog just isn't built the same and has neither the speed or the ingrained chase instinct.

Hunting deer with dogs is of course quite illegal and in my opinion rightly so. Small game die almost instantly when a dog gets a hold of them and gives the old 'shake of death' breaking their necks. Large deer die from having their throats ripped out and that's not very nice at all.



*Personally I don't approve of hunting with two dogs at the same time. There's a good chance the prey will end up being ripped to apart rather than a (near) instantaneous death at the hands of single hound.

You'll hunt with a dog, but you're against bow hunting?

 

[longdog]

In Britain, are you allowed to throw live lobsters into the boiling pot?

Yes but so what. There are as many differing opinions on how to humanely kill a lobster as there are chefs cooking them. Some say boil them, some say freeze them, some say chop them in half length ways. Can't say it bothers me that much cos I don't like shellfish. There's a reason it comes in a hard shell, it's natures way of saying 'not worth eating'.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

Yes but so what. There are as many differing opinions on how to humanely kill a lobster as there are chefs cooking them. Some say boil them, some say freeze them, some say chop them in half length ways. Can't say it bothers me that much cos I don't like shellfish. There's a reason it comes in a hard shell, it's natures way of saying 'not worth eating'.

I see it another way: it's nature's way of saying "what's in here is so delicious that it has to be encased in a hard shell, or else everything and everybody would instantly be eating it, at first sight."

 

[longdog]

You'll hunt with a dog, but you're against bow hunting?

Absolutely.

I don't see the problem with that. Done with a bit of thought and care hunting small (edible) game with a single dog is relatively humane. My last greyhound was a great hunter, when she caught a hare ( or a cat ) she'd shake it once, throw it in the air and it'd come down dead. No messing, no bleeding to death and no long drawn out death.

Shooting an animal with an arrow is just plain cruel. Guns kill by the action of hydrostatic shock (that is why The Deer Act mandates the use of soft or hollow point bullets). Sticking an arrow through an animal is nine times out of ten going to mean it is going to die from internal hemorrhage, basically it's remote stabbing, there simply isn't enough energy in an arrow and even where there is from high draw weight bows an arrow is specifically designed for penetration not transferring the energy rapidly to the the target.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

Absolutely.

I don't see the problem with that. Done with a bit of thought and care hunting small (edible) game with a single dog is relatively humane. My last greyhound was a great hunter, when she caught a hare ( or a cat ) she'd shake it once, throw it in the air and it'd come down dead. No messing, no bleeding to death and no long drawn out death.

Shooting an animal with an arrow is just plain cruel. Guns kill by the action of hydrostatic shock (that is why The Deer Act mandates the use of soft or hollow point bullets). Sticking an arrow through an animal is nine times out of ten going to mean it is going to die from internal hemorrhage, basically it's remote stabbing, there simply isn't enough energy in an arrow and even where there is from high draw weight bows an arrow is specifically designed for penetration not transferring the energy rapidly to the the target.

There is dispute over whether the bullet shockwave does in fact cause tissue damage.

 

[longdog]

Yes, I'm sure that going through the licencing process, means that British hunters are better marksmen than North American hunters...

Is that a good American marksman or a once a year weekend in the woods with a keg of beer, an assault rifle and a group of 'good 'ol boys'?

You're undermining you own argument to be fair. You start off saying people mis-shoot animals and now you're trying to paint them in their best light.

The fact is that hunting with a rifle in the UK demands a lot more dedication than in the US (I don't know about Canada). We don't have wilderness areas where you can buy a permit and blaze away. All the shooting rights are in private hands* and it's a shit load of work to get the rights and the rifle. It needs dedication and by the time you've jumped through the hoops the chances are you can shoot a gnat's cock off at 100m.

Also we have a general attitude of 'if you can't kill it don't pull the trigger'. I've seen people thrown of a rough shoot for taking a 40yd shot a pigeon and wounding it. Unfortunately that attitude doesn't seem to extend to the toffs and their pheasant shooting. Most of those cunts couldn't hit the side of a barn if they were in it and there has to be someone around to put the poor fuckers out of their misery.

*Except some foreshore but that's a different and confusing legal minefield.

 

[longdog]

There is dispute over whether the bullet shockwave does in fact cause tissue damage.

Handgun FMJ maybe but then who in their right minds hunts with a handgun?

Hollow / soft point no dispute just look at the exit wounds or lack thereof.

Have you ever seen the episode of Mythbusters about hiding from bullets, even FMJ under water? It illustrated beautifully the way in which supersonic bullets from a .223 to a .50BMG disintegrate on impact, even with something as soft as water. As fine an example as I've ever seen of the way in which a correctly chosen round will dump its energy.

 

[djbombscare]

.177 or .22

Now there is a debate that has been going on ever since the dawn of man about which one os best. In fact I wrote an article for Airgunner mag about it a short while ago. And TBH you aint never gonna get an answer. Its a case of each to there own.

Without getting too much into physics a drag co-efficent etc I'll keep it simple.

22 is bigger and heavier than 177. As a result 22 pellets lob, and a 177 flies straighter, further.

Lob means it arcs more.

And thats it.

The advantage of a 22 for hunting is because of it weight and size it hits harder and has more of a "thump" a 177 has less thump.

because of this historically 22 was used by hunters and 177 cos it flew straighter was used for target shooting and competions. However in this day and age pellets ahev sort of mingled and there are light 22's and heavy 177 so it really doesn't matter so much now. Neither is more effective than the other and as much as one person will fight one side someone else will fight the other side just as hard.

I shoot both, and find no real difference at all. as long as you zero a rifle in properly at a specific range, and pretty much stick to that sort of distance.

How do you zero in a rifle ?

A paper target which will show where the pellets are hitting, you leaning on somthing sturdy so that the gun doesn't shake when you aim, and rattling through pellets untilthey hit exactly where you are aiming.

And if you change to a different type of pellet you will have to zero in again.

Now as long as you shoot roughly within that distance the pellet will go where you shoot, Always taking wind into account as well

Theres also .20 and .25 about BUT they're not THAT common and your limiting your choices of pellets and guns here.

So while were on about zero-ing an all that we better mention sights.

You can use open sights. Not really gonna be taht effective though and you'll be better off with telescopics.

Shed load of them out there, with different crosshairs, maginifications and stuff. Now you dont need to be able to see a gnats eyeball at 4 miles. You only need to be able to see clearly enough to be able to make a clean head shot at range. Superduper maginfication will magnify your wobble as well so worth taking that into consideration.

If you use a scope on a springer it will move with the recoil, its called scope creep .So you'll need to make sure the mounts are tight, maybe fit a block behind the mount and make sure that the scope will take it. So regularly check its zero'd in and if your missing loads its needs adjusting.

Other than that the rest is sort of optional.

If your planning on shooting at night you need a gun mounted lamp really. You'll also need some coloured filters as its doesn't take them long to learn that the light means sudden death.

Camo wise I personally swear by my old pre-issued 1982 DPM's that I got for a tenner or a bit of Flecktarn. Pre-issued army surplus stuff is cheap as chips You can go for RealTree style gortex stuff and spend a fortune. Choice is yours. All Camo is meant to do is break up outlines they both do that.

You will need to get is a slip or case for the gun for transporting it. Its illegal to do it uncovered so get a dealer to throw one in if your buying a load of kit.


Its all up to you what you spend. You can buy second hand or new, Dealers offer deals on gun and scope deals although there was new regs coming in about buying them mail order so you may have to go there in person.

For peace of mind you are better off buying form a dealer, firstly becaue if you got stopped by the police and the gun was over the limit you have some comeback. You brought it form the delaer and its is Illegal for them to sell you a gun that is over the limit. If you do not have a FAC for over the limit Air rifles the police will seize it and any other rifle you have. And you'll lose them.

If you buy them secodn hand form a private individual they could be over the limit as its not toooo diffiicult to "fiddle" with them and turn them up. My mate got a Theobon Rapide, that the bloke said he'd "adjusted" a tiny bit, whne we put it one th chrono it was over 20ft-lb,

Air rifles do fluctuate a little bit every now and then so you'll get away with maybe 13ft-lb and some pellets will put an on the limit rifle over the limit. There are some out there that are called Piledrivers that are notorious for doing it

Now there loads there to read so hopefully it help.

I dunno where you are but if you are ever around my neck of the woods let me know and I can take you shooting to see how you get on with it and have a taster. There may be some local clubs to you that you might be able to have a go at as well.

And if you want any more info let me know, There is an urban equivalent BB in the airgun world I can PM to you or finally there is a magazin or two out there (one of which I write for now and again )

Anyway hope that helps and if you've got any question fire em over

 

[pogofish]

I have to admit that I have no idea why you are not allowed to shoot small furries with bows and crossbows. I would guess that it would be down to velocity and wind effect meaning that its not as safe or accurate as smaller projectiles.

It had more to do with the brief fad for small cheap crossbows & the like back in what, the 80s? There were a number of cases of domestic pets & utterly unsuitable wild animals severely injured by the things & the tabloids got on the case. The hunting ban was brought-in instead of the outright ban they clamoured for.

 

[djbombscare]

Although it's legal I would never try to kill any animal (except maybe a rat) with an air rifle, they just don't have the 'stopping power'. Non FAC air rifles in this country are limited to 12ft/lb compared to a .22LR firearm at 60-100ft/lb. For comparison a 12 bore is about 1500ft/lb

Actaully thats not true, you can kill with a single shot, Rabbits squirrels, rats, all legal birds and anything other than foxes and deers that it is legal to shoot in the UK with an Air rifle and one as low as about 9ft-lb.

You would have to get it in a range of about 40 yards max. Although I have taken a rabbit at what I later found was just over 60 yards. I wouldn't take anything without being able to take a clean headhsot and wouldn't rely on anything other than that to dispatch it.

 

[djbombscare]

Yes, I'm sure that going through the licencing process, means that British hunters are better marksmen than North American hunters...

N American marksmen are so good they can wear this as camo

Some might say it was about frienldy fire an all that

 

[pogofish]

Yes, I'm sure that going through the licencing process, means that British hunters are better marksmen than North American hunters...

The licencing process has more to do with seeing that the risk to others is minimised. On general farmland, the number of permitted guns is strictly limited - usually to just the landowner, immediate residents/family & maybe just a couple of permitted shooters. Depends on the size of the holding & encroachment of roads/rights of way etc. Anywhere looking for more than a small number of guns is going to have to be remote, large & meet the extra restrictions for sporting estates or be operated under strictest regulation by a gun club, with trained & licenced rangemasters in charge at all times when shooting is allowed. One of the reasons it can now be so difficult to get permission is that the average farmer/landowner also becomes subject to inspection to see that they are not abusing their right to permit hunting.

Also bear in mind that the average UK hunter will have spent considerable time shooting/training under supervision or on a range & demonstrated compentence & safe-practice before they are even in a position to ask permission & apply for their own firearms certificate. For deer stalking, the big estates round here will simply not let anyone on the hill without an experienced marksman shadowing each shot until they have demonstrated a very significant degree of skill.

About the only exception is grouse shooting - Yes, each season does indeed produce few incidents of people, particularly beaters, being injured. Mostly minor peppering with shot but very occasionally, more serious injuries occur.

In fact I can only think of one estate in this part of the world ever being stripped of its shooting rights due to mismanagement/safety issues & that was one bought-over by an American TV mogul & his ex-pornstar wife, who then turned it into a bit of a pot-shot paradise let the deer population rise to utterly unsustainable levels. Although they escaped coviction (found someone on their staff to carry that), they sold-up shortly after.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

Is that a good American marksman or a once a year weekend in the woods with a keg of beer, an assault rifle and a group of 'good 'ol boys'?

You're undermining you own argument to be fair. You start off saying people mis-shoot animals and now you're trying to paint them in their best light.
.

I didn't say that they mis shoot them intentionally. I'm saying that the reality of shooting things in the woods often means that the shot you get off isn't a clean kill shot. I can't imagine that it's any different in UK.

I'm not sure how they do it in the US, but here, most hunters are fairly serious and responsible. I think this has gotten better over the years, through gun laws that mandate training, enforcement of hunting regs etc. Most people don't want to waste their expensive moose or deer or bear tags by going out drunk on the open days, not to mention facing the task of hauling a 500 or 1000 pound dead animal a few kilometers out of the woods back to the truck, while drunk or hung over.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

Handgun FMJ maybe but then who in their right minds hunts with a handgun?

Hollow / soft point no dispute just look at the exit wounds or lack thereof.

Have you ever seen the episode of Mythbusters about hiding from bullets, even FMJ under water? It illustrated beautifully the way in which supersonic bullets from a .223 to a .50BMG disintegrate on impact, even with something as soft as water. As fine an example as I've ever seen of the way in which a correctly chosen round will dump its energy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dr._Martin_Fackler

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

N American marksmen are so good they can wear this as camo

Some might say it was about frienldy fire an all that

I think you'll find that more hunters around here look like this.

http://www.bowhuntingoutfitters.com/list/mountain_goat/mountain_goat.html

Bird hunting is a lot bigger on the prairies, where the bird migratory flyways are located, and hunters there, out in Autumn, are more likely to wear red caps, etc.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

The licencing process has more to do with seeing that the risk to others is minimised. On general farmland, the number of permitted guns is strictly limited - usually to just the landowner, immediate residents/family & maybe just a couple of permitted shooters. Depends on the size of the holding & encroachment of roads/rights of way etc. Anywhere looking for more than a small number of guns is going to have to be remote, large & meet the extra restrictions for sporting estates or be operated under strictest regulation by a gun club, with trained & licenced rangemasters in charge at all times when shooting is allowed. One of the reasons it can now be so difficult to get permission is that the average farmer/landowner also becomes subject to inspection to see that they are not abusing their right to permit hunting.

Also bear in mind that the average UK hunter will have spent considerable time shooting/training under supervision or on a range & demonstrated compentence & safe-practice before they are even in a position to ask permission & apply for their own firearms certificate. For deer stalking, the big estates round here will simply not let anyone on the hill without an experienced marksman shadowing each shot until they have demonstrated a very significant degree of skill.r.

http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/pasb/fw_permreg.html

http://www.cba.org/BC/public_media/criminal/242.aspx

http://www.firearmstraining.ca/licences.htm

We have licencing and educational requirements also. You're right that there are definite differences: much of our hunting, in BC at least, takes place on Crown land. It's probably different on the prairies, where much of the land is comprised of privately owned farms.

I think the other big difference is the nature of what's being hunted. It sounds like a lot of your hunting is bird hunting, or maybe some small animals.

There's bird hunting on the prairies, but here, it's mostly large game: deer, elk, bear, etc. Depending on the size of the animal, and the weapon being used, it can be difficult for even an expert marksman to cleanly kill with the first shot, although from what I'm told, that's what they strive for.

 

[pogofish]

I didn't say that they mis shoot them intentionally. I'm saying that the reality of shooting things in the woods often means that the shot you get off isn't a clean kill shot. I can't imagine that it's any different in UK.

It happens of course but the hunting culture in the UK is seriously against any non-kill shot. Especially with the larger prey. Equally, for safety's sake - the line "if you can't identify it, don't shoot it" is drummed into just about everyone venturing outdoors with a gun from the very beginning.

If its any sort of guide, round here a professional stalker bringing-in more than a very few beasts per year with with more than one wound is probably going to be looking for a new career soon. I think both the Cowdrays & Farquharsons, who own huge tracts of sporting land in my area allow each stalker/keeper 4-6 beasts like this per season (out of a good couple of hundred shot on average) before they would be looking for a very good explanation or to let someone go. They would also be expecting the same standard from anyone permitted to shoot independantly on their lands.

 

[pogofish]

Yup - Those licencing regs look a lot less strict than the regs here. Which lso tend to be interpreted to the fullest extent as well. They also seem directed more to limit the number of animals taken, where our regs are aimed at limiting access to firearms first with the animal restrictions/quotas coming second. I don't know how long your training lasts but a few years back, I looked into rejoining a gun club after a lapse of nearly 20 years & they were taling about 2-3 years of regular attendance & training before I would be in a position to go it alone for a certificate/permission outside their range/land. One of the primary conditions of any UK firearms cert is that you use your weapons for the licenced purpose regularly - it is no longer a case of get it & forget.

Crown Land is also prime hunting/sporting territory here as well - Indeed, over the last 20 years or so, they have greatly increased their acerage. Partly by taking smaller tracts of land, rivers & woodland in lieu of death duties/taxes & by the purchase & consolidation of a number of formerly private sporting estates. This is pretty-much all managed on a fully commercial basis for hunting now & is subject to exactly the same restrictions as everywhere else.

Yup, for folk of normal means, small animals & vermin are the main quarry. Effectively pest control, although the likes of foxes are now largely taken by licenced pest-control operators, not amateurs. Many hunters trade their services part-time as beaters/underkeepers etc on the estates for limited access to the otherwise expensive game-bird shoots. If you can afford membership of a field-sports club, things are better but the biggest quarry - Red Deer is still very much reserved for the rich or professional (meat/skins/culling) hunters.

 

[longdog]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dr._Martin_Fackler

The exact mechanics are rather irrelevant. A properly chosen soft / hollow nose bullet still has more stopping power than a FMJ.

 

[longdog]

Actaully thats not true, you can kill with a single shot, Rabbits squirrels, rats, all legal birds and anything other than foxes and deers that it is legal to shoot in the UK with an Air rifle and one as low as about 9ft-lb.

You would have to get it in a range of about 40 yards max. Although I have taken a rabbit at what I later found was just over 60 yards. I wouldn't take anything without being able to take a clean headhsot and wouldn't rely on anything other than that to dispatch it.

Yeah, I suppose your right but I still wouldn't shoot bunnies with an air rifle. Just a personal thing I suppose.

 

[longdog]

It had more to do with the brief fad for small cheap crossbows & the like back in what, the 80s? There were a number of cases of domestic pets & utterly unsuitable wild animals severely injured by the things & the tabloids got on the case. The hunting ban was brought-in instead of the outright ban they clamoured for.

I thought hunting with crossbows had been illegal since way back.

 

[pogofish]

Maybe I'm thinking just Scotland then but it was surprisingly recently here - they banned all forms of bow-hunting at that time.

 

[chymaera]

I thought hunting with crossbows had been illegal since way back.

I thought I would be able to quote chapter and verse on when hunting with a bow was made illegal in England.
(I have not known it to be legal in my lifetime)
However I can't find a reference in any of my books on wildlife law or on the internet. I have e-mailed some-one who should know and when they reply I will put the answer here.

 

[longdog]

I thought I would be able to quote chapter and verse on when hunting with a bow was made illegal in England.
(I have not known it to be legal in my lifetime)
However I can't find a reference in any of my books on wildlife law or on the internet. I have e-mailed some-one who should know and when they reply I will put the answer here.

I couldn't find anything on Google that gave a date either

I thought, very possibly erroneously that the ban went back to the days when taking the king's deer was a capital crime and only the nobility were allowed greyhounds or hawks.

It maybe that it's just common law which would explain the lack of any specific date for the law.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

If its any sort of guide, round here a professional stalker bringing-in more than a very few beasts per year with with more than one wound is probably going to be looking for a new career soon. .

What do you mean, 'bringing in'?