The UK's Finest Independent Forum for Shooters and Gun Owners. Est 2010.

Thought the hunters amongst us would be interested in this newsletter the NRA send me from time to time.

http://blog.nraoutdoors.com/upland-hunt ... m-bradley/

Cannot understand shooting mountain lions or any other animal just for fun and not the pot though............Nothing against hunting, just killing for sake of killing.

I can't see our useless NRA doing anything similar, if you don't shoot Target Rifle at Bisley you don't exist in their eyes!

I'd be more interested in BASC's view on it.

dodgyrog wrote:I can't see our useless NRA doing anything similar, if you don't shoot Target Rifle at Bisley you don't exist in their eyes!

That's Just Bull-S Dog - The NRA of GB's charter has nothing to do with hunting, that Dromia suggests that is more the domain of BASC, but it does not stop a member/club using a hunting rifle to practice or zero etc & there is the running boar / deer ranges next to Melville gallery range. & as for TR only - How often do you shoot there? are you even a member? the investment in the last year into Butt 19's 100 & 200yds FP's, Shorts Siberia, the 85yds Butt Zero, 50m Cheylesmore range & Winans 25yds & now Melville gallery outstrips anything spent on TR & rightly so as lots of members are using them.

The NRA Shooting Club has one or two TR shooters attending its 30+ strong meets if that, & its actively promoting & training scoped / bipoded, CSR & classic service rifles & more recreational styles of shooting. Not to mention the growing popularity of CSR events organised & supported by NRA.


........ & I also just don't get wanting to shoot various wild / exotic (well exotic to GB anyway!) animals just for the thrill of it, especially if not destined for a pot, however I understand some reserves exist because of managed game shooting & some people will pay substantially for it & the wider picture in some estates & reserves is actually a good level of reservation protection against poaching, wildlife management & animal conservation & the nett effect is positive.

Chuck wrote:Thought the hunters amongst us would be interested in this newsletter the NRA send me from time to time.

http://blog.nraoutdoors.com/upland-hunt ... m-bradley/

Cannot understand shooting mountain lions or any other animal just for fun and not the pot though............Nothing against hunting, just killing for sake of killing.

No different from shooting foxes or crows here. If they're classified as a pest, then I don't have a problem with it.

The conservation status of Mountain Lions (Cougar) is Least Concern which is the lowest status, however their traditional range has been severely reduced due to persecution and overhunting.

Another thing to consider, is when you look at trophy hunting in places like Africa it brings a large increase to the local economies. In the USA it'll be similar but possibly at a reduced level.

Does it interest me, no, not really but as long as it's done in a sustainable and ethical manner then I won't criticise those that do.

SG - it was an observation and opinion, not a critiscism. Agree with the points you made, its gratuitous killing just for the sake of it I have issues with.

If it sustains the population, weeds out the older /weaker ones or in Africa helps the economy and feeds people then fine. They should run hunts for ivory poachers in Africa - I would pay for that .

Chuck wrote: Cannot understand shooting mountain lions or any other animal just for fun and not the pot though............Nothing against hunting, just killing for sake of killing.

Different countries, different rules mate. I naively couldn't imagine shooting wolves and cougars until one mate in particular described how he lost 3 gundogs when some wolves targeted them whilst upland shooting. Another how his cattle were getting hampered.

We don't have any real predators here in the UK so only hunt what we eat and vermin.

One hunt that I did find unpleasant was bow hunting black bear over a stand. The bear came into a barrel full of grease and food scraps and it was shot with a bow. It crashed through the bushes and began whining in pain. Sounded like agony and went on for a long time. I'm glad it wasn't me that let fly the arrow.
I've always preferred the rifle or shotgun but wasn't against bow hunting. I am now.

Hi Scotsgun, Happy New Near, I just picked up on this.

Agree on the bow hunting too - especially when it is obvious an arrow won't produce a clean kill. I know arrows hit with a fair amount of force but trying to take a large animal with bow and arrow is not to me "sport", just cruelty.

Why do people hunt bears?? I doubt they are edible so again, is bear hunting season about keeping the stock healthy or just a season for folks to kill bears for fun and maybe a rug and wall trophy??

Obviously pest control is a necessity and I have no issues with that - just gratuitous killing for the "fun" of it and leaving the carcass where it falls or whatever.

Chuck wrote:Hi Scotsgun, Happy New Near, I just picked up on this.

Agree on the bow hunting too - especially when it is obvious an arrow won't produce a clean kill. I know arrows hit with a fair amount of force but trying to take a large animal with bow and arrow is not to me "sport", just cruelty.

Why do people hunt bears?? I doubt they are edible so again, is bear hunting season about keeping the stock healthy or just a season for folks to kill bears for fun and maybe a rug and wall trophy??

Obviously pest control is a necessity and I have no issues with that - just gratuitous killing for the "fun" of it and leaving the carcass where it falls or whatever.

especially when it is obvious an arrow won't produce a clean kill. I know arrows hit with a fair amount of force but trying to take a large animal with bow and arrow is not to me "sport", just cruelty.

Chuck, you couldn't be more wrong if you tried. I have hunted deer with rifle, shotgun and compound bow. I have shot deer with rifle and shotgun cleanly destroying both heart and lungs and the deer have run anywhere from 10 - 200 yards on adrenaline alone, they were dead, they just didn't know it.

I have also hunted deer with a compound bow and had them drop where they stood, some will run I grant you but again that is down to adrenaline, I have hunted bear with a compound bow and never had them run more than a 100 yards before dropping dead, as with a firearm it all comes down to shot placement and I for one will never ever take a shot I am unsure of.

I can only surmise that in the case of the hunt Scotsgun witnessed, that bear suffered due to bad shot placement and the shot should never have been taken in the first place. There is nothing cruel about hunting with a compound bow, as with a rifle or shotgun done right it will produce a quick clean kill.

Speaking for myself only, I don't and have never hunted over bait piles. Instead I prefer to hunt in areas where after much scouting around will decide if an area has the game I am after in that area and is worth setting up in. With bears up in Canada, my brother in law and I will usually scout around for bear sign and lay in wait and see what comes along.

You say "I doubt they are edible". Well again mate you couldn't be more wrong, bear meat is not only edible but it is also delicious.

Ooops forgot to add that both in the United States and in Canada it is illegal to kill any game animal and leave it where it drops. All kills, including non game animals such as vermin must be taken from where they are killed and disposed of correctly and according to the hunting laws.

Blu wrote: All kills, including non game animals such as vermin must be taken from where they are killed and disposed of correctly and according to the hunting laws.

There's actually some argument for leaving carcasses (or the bits you don't want to eat) where they are - Large mammals at the top of the food chain carry a lot of their ecosystem's vital nutrients, which get recycled by insects, detritivors and funguses when they die.

On a slightly related note - A study was done in Canada in an area where bears feed heavily on salmon - it was found that the trees withing 200 meters of the river were especially healthy and tall - the cells of the trees, even 200 yards from the river, where made up from a lot of matter that was previously in the salmon...it turned out that the younger bears were taking their catch into the woods so that it wasn't taken by a bigger bear, and that the large quantities of left over salmon heads and tails were great fertiliser...