posted by Hunting Footage on Feb 9
WARNING – DISTURBING IMAGES In February 2005, the Hunting Act came into force. Instrumental to the achievement of this landmark legislation was ifawís ability to reveal the reality of animal suffering caused by hunting with dogs ñ suffering that hunts had tried to keep secret for centuries. The scene you are about to see show pre-ban hunting. To take action ëclick hereí. And insert the link to the police Chief Constable here: e-activist.com
November 27th, 2009 at 8:31 pm
Do they sell deer meat in supermarkets? Hell no, and that’s why people hunt still. Same with bear, pheasant (and other fowl). Hunting is part of our nature, if we cease to hunt, we’ll get fat and dependent (OOPS TOO LATE) I’m gonna hunt till I die dude, and you ain’t changing my mind. Good bye.
December 13th, 2009 at 5:59 pm
mate i am a top shot. despite that i still prefer dogs. dont you understand what i have been saying…forever… shootings fine for the most part, but i will always, no matter what im shooting, have a dog with me, simply because accidents happen and i do not want things to suffer. a simpler way of doing it is to take the dog and the lamp out and do the job properly, as nature intended…almost, why damage a rabbit when your dog will return it live to hand without a bruise? guns are foul.
December 15th, 2009 at 11:44 pm
Yep they sell venison shoulder steak, venison steak and other sort of wild fowl at Tescos….go check it out…
December 15th, 2009 at 11:52 pm
Shooting this deer would have been far less foul than hunting it to exhaustion. Nature never promotes the use of another species to go and hunt for another. Apart from humans parasiting off a dogs ability to catch and return live food. In fact it is unnatural for a dog to chase prey, not kill it and eat it, but instead carry a struggling animal to another species and give it up….where else in the natural world do you find a predator hunting solely for another predator????
December 16th, 2009 at 1:00 am
I’ve counted to 10 and used all my other anger management tricks but to no avail, what a shower of complete idiots to claim that this is about food. The cost of getting this whole hunt together would buy 3 cows or 3 farmed deer or hundreds of vegetarian meals. As someone who used to hunt as a child and who is now a veggie, I know how exciting hunting can be and it has nothing to do with food. The Irish government is in the process of banning this barbarity too right now.
December 16th, 2009 at 6:17 am
I did, and yes sir I love my venison. I was wrong, my apologies. We are the exact same way out here in the States: you eat what you kill. At least when it comes to killing. We are very sporting these days about what we kill, using every part possible of the body of whatever we are killing. Everyone feels bad about killing off the Peregrine Falcon and the Stool Pigeon, and even nearly the bald eagle, so we keep it under wraps these days.
December 16th, 2009 at 6:29 pm
Nowhere, but, if there weren’t humans, dogs would still hunt, whereas no guns would be fired.
That’s your weakest argument yet, how can you say that something far more advanced i.e. a gun, is more natural than the use of dogs, we have hunted with them for a long time, and I think the dogs see it as a fair deal, they get sheltered fed and exercised and get to hunt for fun rather than survival.
Also I am not a fan of using scent hounds to hunt deer. you know I’m a lurcher man.
December 16th, 2009 at 6:37 pm
and although nowhere in the natural world do you get a predator hunting for another predator (and I’m glad you referred to humans as predators) you do get relationships between species. Birds and mammals, and plenty of different species of fish, feel free to research it. how long does a relationship between species have to last to be considered a natural one? dogs have been mans best friend seemingly forever. NOTE : this is just an interesting thought not any kind of argument.
December 19th, 2009 at 12:28 am
I see guns as evolution, so to speak, the modern society that mankind has created need not rely on primitive methods of killing. Dogs are a pack animal and respond solely as such, we have made the domestic dog dependant on us, feral populations are culled. We now have the weaponry and knowledge to minimise suffering to ‘game’ and still keep dogs as pets, companions and humane working dogs. Using them to catch, and in cases kill, our prey is unnecessary and inhumane…
December 19th, 2009 at 12:09 pm
do you realise that hunters have these debates too, between ewach other, its not just hunters and anti’s and hunters and hunters too, except our debates our based upon our own experiences rather than what people have told us, and what we have seen on youtube. you dont hunt and shouldnt be lecturing on something you simply have no experience of.
the only reason we have dogs in the first place is to help us hunt, you are suggesting that we turn them into mere ornaments?
December 19th, 2009 at 9:24 pm
No I don’t hunt, purely because I DO have experience of it, (not all bad, but the using the dogs to kill I despise). We don’t need dogs to hunt, but we use them in the police, navy, army, working farm dogs, seeing-eye dogs, therapy dogs, search and rescue etc etc….Hunting isn’t the only thing dogs can be used for, but their abilities can be used for more than causing suffering to other animals for sport…..Only a hunter could think that unless a dog hunts it’s an ornament…lol!
December 21st, 2009 at 3:20 pm
ok a good point, but the original purpose and the one they carry out the best is hunting, and you know i am not a scent hound person, will you ever talk to me on a subject that i am comfortable with, that of sighthounds, what’s cruel about the use of sighthounds? i dont understand what you find so bad about a dog killing something. its usually very swift. and its in the dogs blood to do it. ive seen dogs kill things faster than i could myself. using any humane method at my disposal.
December 21st, 2009 at 3:22 pm
i think that the sight of blood sickens you and blinds you to the true efficiency of the act. and i think that is the case with most people. they switch off their brains when they see blood,and bloodied hounds, and jump to ridiculous conclusions, do you think that i might just have a point?
December 22nd, 2009 at 6:30 pm
No, I’m not a sqeamish person. I would consider a pack of sighthounds to kill in exactly the same way as a group of scenthounds. While my Rottie is orignially a herding dog, he wasn’t born an experienced herder. Every young carnivore needs to learn to hunt and kill efficently, although the basic instinct is there, naturally their parents would teach them…not humans. Why do you believe a sight hound is a superior killer compared to any other sporthound?
December 23rd, 2009 at 7:05 pm
i do not, it is merely quicker, i thought that your main problem with hunting was length of the chase. i would have thought that the few minutes (max) chase of a sighthound was preferable to the slower paced scent hound. The difference between a fox hound and a lurcher, is the speed of impact. often a decent lurcher will have killed a fox before it has stopped moving forward. whereas a fox hound usually shakes it like a rat, or bites its neck or ribcage. bloodier, but not much less effective.
December 23rd, 2009 at 7:14 pm
another thing is that there is no room for confusion with a lurcher, its either killed it or it hasnt, the carcass isnt being pulled every which way by 30 hounds. you know the fox is dead. i wouldn’t teach a lurcher to hunt, it either wants to or doesn’t want to. if he is interested then i will give him obedience so he is not out of my control in the field, but he will learn to hunt efficiently with me given time, and allowed to watch other dogs at work.
i simply prefer sighthounds….
December 27th, 2009 at 5:31 pm
I have seen a (relatively) humane death delivered by a JRT to a flushed rat. However I have seen rats killed instantly with an air rifle while they were searching for food. No need for smoking them out and causing distress…just unaware and shot dead. We have other excellent uses for ‘mans best friend’, and we have the capacity to kill ‘pests’ or ‘control populations’ without the use of nature…and we both know full well nature is cruel…why indulge it for ’sport’??
December 30th, 2009 at 2:25 pm
Jesus!!! I still cannot believe that seemingly educated men can get thirlls out of this form of entertainment. They say that the anit hunt brigade are merely in a class war. So some of these people are supposed upper classes? Well I’ve always thought class was more about a persons morals and attitude not about what you earn or social standing. There’s nothing ‘class’ about killing a stag with a pack of dogs.
December 31st, 2009 at 2:20 pm
i love it when they kill
January 1st, 2010 at 6:27 pm
@ainscough101
Thank-you for your comment – the true voice of blood sports.
January 5th, 2010 at 4:58 pm
great hunt and great piece of british history, may it go on forever.
January 8th, 2010 at 8:27 pm
@TheHorseinaround (aka TheShamtube, Belwadebasset)
Hows your holiday? Scotland the Brave? Ha! Ha! Ha!
Ya snivellin chookters an baw jugglers? What do you think? Ive been learning the lingo. Ha! Ha!
January 25th, 2010 at 6:47 pm
very very cruel
January 30th, 2010 at 5:20 pm
I am a shooter my self. I stalk and cull deer for venison and to maintain a healthy wild population on the grounds but i am 100% against this. That magnificent stag is due more respect than this.
February 6th, 2010 at 11:14 am
instant death the hounds never touched it