Shotguns & Pigeons, was Re: greyhounds and coyotes
Question:
> BTW, I agree with your assessment that probably some percentage close > to 100% of the birds are hit, few are clean misses.
i have shot both box birds and columbaire – two entirely different sports. neither is a sport for he faint of heart – or wallet. judging from the number of pigeons (escapees) in the neighborhood of a box-bird ring, there are a substantial number of quite healthy escapees. there are a much larger number of clean misses than one would assume from the talent & equipment (perazzis & fabbris) assembled. a box-bird setup had five traps and the bird comes out at random. additionally, the distance back of the boxes is handicapped (30+ yards) is quite common. add to that the small hole mr briley’s ‘extra-extra-tite’ masterpiece punches in the air even at 40-45 yards…. at a 35 yard handicap, with a 20 knot gusty wind blowing there are a lot of pure misses – and a few new tooth-marks in stocks. -bob
Response:
>> Attribtion lost but I think it was either Joe or the Elitist > BTW, I agree with your assessment that probably some percentage close > to 100% of the birds are hit, few are clean misses. >i have shot both box birds and columbaire – two entirely different sports. >neither is a sport for he faint of heart – or wallet. >judging from the number of pigeons (escapees) in the neighborhood of a >box-bird ring, there are a substantial number of quite healthy escapees.
[...] My original thesis was that there are a number of pros and cons to the different hunting methods available to us, including the use of hounds, sight or scent. Everyone knows that when using a rifle we miss and wound every once in a while and if things go horribly wrong, the wounded game may escape. But this phenomena isn`t as obvious in shotgun use. The original figures of live released pigeon was from memory. It is so long ago that I read this article I have no idea where it was I read it. Since we have had some factual contributions in this respect from other readers then we now have enough to work with. I’m not too worried about an exact figure, as long as we recognise that even under the best circumstances, some birds will be injured and, to our great regret, may also escape capture. Since we are all omnivores, then the question of whether we eat meat or we do not does not arise. We do eat meat and by definition, animals will be slaughtered in some fashion or other so that we may do so. (The great majority of the populace would prefer to ignore the latter part of that sentence. Meat is, after all, something which you find on supermarket shelves in plastic packets, is it not ?) As I have already summarised, the methods are these: With rifle: Very quick, but carries a slight risk of wounding and escape. With shotgun: Very quick, but carries a slight risk of wounding and escape. With hounds: Not always the quickest, but there is nearly no risk of wounding and escape. At a slaughterhouse. With the last option, the end is quick one and carries no risk of escape (although some are injured). However, there is considerable stress and apprehension suffered by the animals when they are herded into the confined spaces and smell the blood of their dead bretherin. Furthermore, although transportation of the animals in some cases may be only a few miles to the local town, in some cases, they may be transported for over twenty four hours without food or rest, in a crowded wagon, in European summertime conditions before they are finally slaughtered (Source: T.V. Documentary footage shot from a undercover vehicle.) You can imagine how painful this must be. Now lets perform the calculation. You are travelling in the forest one day and suddenly death appears before you (imagine a scene from a Bergmann film.) Before him he has laid four decks of cards, face down. He beckons you to choose one, to select the manner of your death. The four decks of cards are the four methods above. Think carefully now. When you glance at the first pile and imagine the swift sudden blackness, remember that it is not always like this and there is the risk of days of agony, as you wander through the forest till you expire. As you glance at the second, remember that although there is less chance of a ‘miss’, you may be struck without being killed and again have a painful death, or a nagging wound. As you glance at the third, know that although you will have to flee for your life and may have a briefly terrifying struggle with the beasts, when it is over, it will be over. As you glance at the fourth, remember that that day without food and water could well seem like a lifetime. Now which is it to be ? You must turn one of the cards. You can think of it another way if you like. Long before I was born, my father new a publican who kept and raised a pig on his extensive premises. The pig’s name was Horace, and little Horace would skitter round the end of the bar and come and greet you by chewing your shoelaces. After a while Horace wasn`t quite so little anymore and as the original intention of his owner had been to raise him and have him slaughered for meat, this is what he had to do. He had not anticipated how awful it would be to part with Horace, and he has heartbroken at their leave-taking. He gave the carcase away. Now, which pack of cards would you choose for Horace ? Certainly I would reject the porcine equivalent of Auschvitz-Birkenau, and there arn`t too many people who keep prides of lions in these parts. At a pinch it would almost certainly be the first option, but there isn`t a lot in it and personally I would do my best to rule out the fourth option for any animal. The point I am driving at is that, hunting, much like life, is a matter of uncomfortable choices if not actually a matter of choosing the lessor of evils. And which camp do I represent ? Well, one should play the ball not the man, and facts, after all are facts are they not ? The real answer: At some point or other I have hunted or do hunt in all of these ways. h —
