It’s simple, let’s have total ban on hunting (From Worcester News)

Here we go again more RUBBISH from
Simon MuCCullough !!!!

I have left the previous debate to join this one. Sharpy, you wanted a direct question, which I’m sure you would be so kindly in answering. Why is Simon McCullough’s letter rubbish?
.
((I have a copy of the Hunting Handbook (2005) published by the Countryside Alliance and the Council of Hunting Association stating ways in which you can legally hunt in reflection to the law. As far as I’m concerned, Mr McCullough’s letter is correct in relating to the law.))

Tubs - Simon MCCullough originally claimed the W/N was promoting hunting then he admitted they were not and doesn't like having his nose rubbed in it . = rubbish

He criticises man for cultivating the land and rearing animals and protecting
crops and livestock from pests. = rubbish.

He asks for total hunting ban but doesn't give us one detail about getting his ban on the statute book, this = rubbish.

He tell us we have no right to determine if an animal is a pest. If the law states it's a pest it's a pest, if it eats our food it's a pest, if it eats our livestock it's a pest. If it spreads disease it's a pest. = rubbish.

He fails to give us any facts about shooting animals flushed from cover, preferring a bit of innuendo. = rubbish.

Some clever antis wrote the hunting Act and now it's turned out to be a load of rubbish you are all complaining it's got more holes than swiss cheese . LACS is haemorrhaging membership and CEO's like mad but no one is wants to comment on that simple but rather glaring fact.

Shapry - Simon admitted he was wrong about the WN coverage. Had nothing to do with his ‘nose being rubbed in it’.
.
He says that no animal is a pest. I agree with him. You want facts? I keep chickens and grow veg. The birds destroyed my lettuces last year, which I was unprepared for. I lay some netting over them but the heavier birds weighed it down and they still got to them! Shall I shoot these birds for destroying my crops? They are only classed as a pest because we consider them to be getting in the way of our own business. That doesn’t mean to say that I am ‘mamby pamby’. If an animal attacked me and I felt the need to protect myself, I would probably react in one form or another. But as with growing veg – it’s not a matter of life or death so there is no need to kill.
.
A fox killed my chickens once. I left them there for a couple of days. The fox came back to get them (probably to bury them somewhere else for food stocks as this is what canids do). Did I shoot the fox? No. I left him to clean up the mess and I took extra measures in securing my coop. If you want to call that rubbish then feel free. That’s your opinion. But all I know is that this is my experience. I’m not trying to be clever and I don’t want sarcastic, anger-ridden comebacks.
.
I mentioned that the CA and the CHA wrote the handwork to which I referred. These are the groups that you support. There is a little bit of propaganda in they about antis – but the handbook states ways in which you can carry on hunting within the law. Why do I quote from this? Because its what you know and its from who you support.

Tubs - re birds eating your veg. I'd shoot the birds if legal and then eat them, two birds with one stone as they say.

Seriously you cannot net a thirty acre field of sprouts or oil seed rape to keep the pigeons off. If bird scarers fail then shooting is the only answer and the general licence issued by the Government allows this to happen. the farmer gets his crop (and your food) protected and the shooter get some pigeons to eat.

So, Sharpy. You want to eat wild birds now, huh? I suggest you take a look at “Favourite Recipes of Famous Outdoorsmen” published in 1949. There is a nice recipe in there for ‘Broiled Starlings on Toast’.
.
On a serious note, thank you for suggesting the farmer grows all of my food. And if the shooter of pigeons gets his food, fair play to him. At least he hunts for survival, not like the foxhunters: “the unspeakable in full pursuit of the uneatable”.