UKC

I see its ok for guns to be transported on Scottish trains if they are for use in field "sports" to allegedly protect the income for the Scottish economy - like its needed.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-highlands-islands-40715482

Is this the same train companies that are severely restricting the nr of bikes allowed on trains?

In reply to subtle:

What's the difference if they drove up to Scotland with the guns in their cars?

In reply to subtle:

I don't see the connection here. Unless you have a very small bike. Or someone's going hunting with light artillery.

Also: No. It is a different company. The guns are allowed on the sleeper, which also carries one bike per passenger free of charge, and will take your bike by road if they can't fit it on the train.

In reply to subtle:

I was hoping I'd be able to carry a revolver to deal with rogues and footpads.

In reply to Ridge: I was hoping I'd be able to carry a revolver to be a rogue or footpad

In reply to subtle:

Why not? Perfectly acceptable to go on aircraft as hold luggage, provided you notify in advance and hold a licence etc... It's not like they are excessive in size, weight or shape.

In reply to summo:
ScotRail said the decision to introduce the ban was made for safety reasons after a licensed firearm was left unattended on one of its trains earlier this year.

That's why not according to scotrail.

In reply to elsewhere:


Easily solvable by notifying the police, who then take the weapon and the person's licence. Guns are dangerous, but as recent events have shown so are knifes, acid and chainsaws. You'd think if it's a regular route for hunters then a secure cabinet in the guards bit would be best practice and a cheap fix. Charge hunters £20 per weapon and it would make money in no time at all.

In reply to subtle:

So you have something against clay pigeon shooting?

In reply to Ridge:

Fair enough, but don't use it on the scallywags or urchins. They should be lightly cuffed upon the ear.

In reply to summo:

It was the oddest thing, but very soon after passing my 'small trees' chainsaw course, I found myself being critical of a man in Hull who went into a pub without wearing any PPE while waving a running chainsaw at people. 'Where are his chainsaw trousers?...'

In reply to summo:


£20 would be lucky to get you an hours parking at the airport these days. They should ask for £200. Also, for extra security and ease of identification of gun owners on the train, any 'hunter' travelling up from London with a rifle to shoot at deer should be issued with a pink top hat with the word 'Wanker' written on it. Exceptions might be made for members of the aristocracy where it is so obvious they are wankers no hat is necessary.

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

We can easily identify the wankers already.

They're the ones with a huge chip on their shoulder

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

So I'm a clay pigeon shooter travelling to Scotland by train ( god knows why if you're typical of the Scots). I can carry my shotgun about my town, I can carry my shotgun to Heathrow airport and travel across the world with it (or Scotland), I can cycle to Scotland with my gun on my pushbike, I can drive to Scotland, I can stay in a hotel with my shotgun en route, I can take a coach to scotland, I can take the overnight train to Scotland with my gun, I can walk to sodding Scotland carrying my gun.
But you want me to pay an extra £200 for taking my gun on Scottish trains, and have "wanker" on my hat if I want to shoot a deer.
I'm beginning to wish you had won the referendum vote.

In reply to Moley:


Yeah, it would have solved a lot of problems. Brexit would never have happened for starters.

And ScotRail are completely correct about guns on public transport. We don't live in Texas.

In reply to summo:


Hopefully that's what happened but beyond that I think they've decided they just can't be arsed with the any further hastle.

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

Is that what prestwick now charge after sturgeons intervention?


How else will the Scottish hills be rewilded once Nicola takes the land back? You'll need a deer cull.

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:



Presuming planes are public transport, how would you have got guns to the London Olympics. Or the commonwealth games which Scotland has hosted 3 times? Maybe a competitor even needed to use a train?

In reply to Moley:


How would you describe someone who is willing to pay a large amount of money to kill an intelligent animal for fun?

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:


Both have oil and Salmond has the look of a Dallas character.

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:


What about smaller poor defenceless creatures that are killed in the thousands and eaten in Scotland?

https://www.google.se/amp/s/www.visitscotland.com/blog/scotland/world-exclu...

In reply to Moley:


If anyone was crazy enough to put me in charge of policy with regard to weapons on public transport how competitors could get firearms to the Olympic games would not be at the top of my list of concerns.

In reply to summo:


Probably, there are too many deer, mainly due to the shooting industry.

The difficulty I have is with killing for pleasure rather than as a necessary evil.

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

It can be as expensive or cheap as you want to make it, as with any sport or pastime. £50 a day for roe stalking is hardly excessive especially if you've paid £200 to carry your gun on the train (as suggested). Many cull deer for free.
I thought Scotland and the UK desperately needed deer management and culls, not sure what the deers intelligence has to do with it. Fun = enjoyment, amusement or light hearted pleasure. Doesn't sound like Scottish deer stalking to me.

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:


Britain left the EU because Scotland was still in the Union? So it was YOUR fault!

In reply to subtle:

1. If I was to take one of my shotguns or rifles on the train, I would take it down and carry it in packed safety into a duffel bag or similar, not in a gunslip slung over my shoulder. I'd rather not advertise I was carrying it, and the train company would be none the wiser. Not that I'd be able to afford to head up there for grouse shooting or red deer staking at the moment, but that's by the by.

2. To the cretins who don't understand deer management: deer have no natural predators. We are their apex predator, in the absence of wolves (which will never be reintroduced, so let's not get into that one). Enjoying hunting them doesn't make it any less of a necessity.
Deer reproduce at a rate 30-40% higher than that is required to maintain a stable population levels, meaning that if they weren't managed and sustainably culled, the population would double every year or so.
Now, a doubled population doesn't mean that there's lots of lovely deer for you townies to come out and coo over, oh no. It means massively increased pressure for food, over-grazing and forestry damage. What happens when the population reaches a point where the food can't sustain it? Starvation, illness and inevitable fatalities through prolonged and fully avoidable diseases and malnutrition, not to mention the environmental impact.
So yes, stalking is a force for good, wildlife does need managing, millions are ploughed into rural Scottish economies each year as a result, and townies who can't see further than "awww, cute little bambi" need to reeducate themselves.

In reply to Bimble:
You keep kidding yourself sunshine, that your thrill of killing wild animals is done for anything other than bloodlust and over compensation for having a tiny penis.

In reply to Big

https://www.bds.org.uk/index.php/advice-education/why-manage-deer

'In the absence of a natural predator, sustainable management of deer usually means that they have to be 'culled'. Already, an estimated 350,000* deer are culled in the UK every year. Despite this, and the high number killed in road accidents, the population continues to grow with increasing environmental and economic damage and additional pressure on the health of the existing stock.'

And yes, it is enjoyable stalking in, selecting your animal to cull and taking a successful shot that drops it immediately. It's a skill, the same as climbing is, and I see nothing wrong with enjoying it.
I'm guessing all the animals you eat die of natural causes? I'm not going to dignify your final statement with an angry response, as its just the same puerile nonsense the anti brigade trot out when they can't form a logical and scientifically sound argument.

In reply to Bimble:



You enjoy killing, good for you. A defenceless animal, one with no chance or opportunity to retaliate, gosh aren't you the brave one. Was it a nasty accident, or were you born with a tiny dick?


I don't eat animals.


Well apart from the fact that there's other ways of controlling deer number, apart from letting inadequates kill them for fun, how does your ostrich impression go again...

In reply to Bimble:

A lot of confusing between 'shooting', 'stalking' and 'hunting' in this thread.

As someone who works in a 'rural scottish industry' growing trees we rely heavily on deer stalking in one way or another. There are too many deer in Scotland due to a lack of predators and the fact they have been effectively farmed here for generations. Part of the valuation of an estate is down to the stag cull, hence the 'farming'. For the life of me I can't figure out why people cast such ridiculous aspersions on those who go deer stalking. It's like everything, people are too quick to make stupid statements and don't know the first bit about it.

Anyway, the article/argument is really about the Glorious Twelfth which is the beginning of the grouse shooting season (before anything else is in season), grouse shooting has very questionable environmental credentials and is completely different to stalking or 'hunting' (which to me means fox hunting). People seem to be very anti guns rather than considering their uses, that sort of prejudice doesn't create a very reasoned debate and things just carry on as they were.

In reply to Big Ger:

Why the obsession with my dick? Are you sure you're not secretly temped to gobble a bit of pork and are expressing yourself through the medium of penis?

And there's no point having a debate with you on this. Trying to be logical with vegetarians or vegans isn't possible, as anyone who can't understand that wildlife isn't wild any more (nor has been for centuries) and therefore needs to be managed sustainably is an utter cretin.

In reply to Big Ger:

People like you are part of the problem. It doesn't help anything

In reply to Bimble:
Oh, I just enjoy insulting people who kill wild animals for fun. They are the lowest form of the human species.

These findings may interest you.

A 1986 study of 64 convicted male sex offenders, found that 48% of rapists and 30% of child molesters reported committing animal abuse during childhood or adolescence.
A 1988 retrospective study reported that 46% rapists began abusing animals during adolescence, while 36% began as children.
A 1977 article published in Psychiatry found that 36% of assaultive women reported cruelty to animals while 0% of non-assaultive women did.
Kellert and Felthous found in a 1985 study that 25% of violent, incarcerated men reported higher rates of substantial cruelty to animals” in childhood than a comparison group of non-incarcerated men (0%).
Men who abused animals were five times more likely to have been arrested for violence towards humans, four times more likely to have committed property crimes, and three times more likely to have records for drug and disorderly conduct offenses.

In reply to Bimble:
The bit I don't get is why it is made into a sport. So much fauna and flora is decimated so that shooters can get a clear shot, roads driven through wild areas so shooters don't have to walk. Your view is your business but having a sport which is so damaging is another view. Attitudes are beginning to change luckily. My view is that if a pair of golden eagles turned up in Ennerdale encouraged by the rewilding programme, their would be far more money drawn into the lakes than charging people to shoot whatever is left to be shot.

In reply to Big Ger:


I love the way the anti brigade always say "defenceless animal" and then when someone kills an animal that is large enough to defend itself or put the shooter in danger (cape buffalo, tiger, elephant, lion etc.) they get even more hot under the collar.
So please, describing all animals shot or hunted as intelligent or defenceless sounds like you've watched too many Disney animal cartoons.

In reply to Big Ger:








That is animal abuse, you're missing the point.

In reply to Big Ger:
If you think deer stalking is just about the killing the animal part then you really don't understand. I like insulting people who make sweeping judgements about things they don't understand but I'd imagine people get banned for that sort of thing.

Interestingly, We have a pair of nesting golden eagles near one of our sites, the local raptor group are responsible for monitoring them in conjunction with the stalker on the estate. I'm not suggesting all stalkers and gamekeepers are as conscientious because they aren't but certainly in my experience things aren't how they used to be, or how I expected they would be when I started working here

In reply to Big Ger:
As I said before, logic doesn't come into it with you, does it? I'm guessing you lacked a basic level education as a child, as your sorely lacking debating skills indicate. (Or your dad forced his tiny dick upon you. That'd explain quite a lot)

Selectively culling an animal with a single shot and utilising the carcass for food isn't 'abuse', you absolute cretin. It's part of life, one that thousands of people do on a daily basis. Until you understand how the countryside is managed and works, I suggest keeping quiet as you're just looking like a ranting moron.

And yes Clint86, I agree in part, but you are referring to grouse shooting, not deer stalking. I've never shot a grouse, and doubt I will, but my freezer will never be lacking in venison.

In reply to Moley:


What a wonderful strawman, you should mount it in your garden.


How are they anything other than defenceless from inadequates sneaking up on them, and shooting them from a safe place at a distance?

In reply to Moley:


So what is shooting a deer from a distance? Cuddly fun?

In reply to Bimble:

Ok, but that's still better than being hung like a mouse.


What is it then? Fun for the animal?


"part of life"? Oh what a trite, and rather ironic, cliche



I'm not ranting dearie, and I do have a good understanding.


Weren't you pleading poverty here not so long back? Weren't you asking for advice how to get out of a financial hole? Yet you can still afford to satisfy your lust to destroy, in lieu of being able to create. What warped priorities you have.

(Apologies if that was not you, I may have mistaken you for another poster.)

In reply to Big Ger:

Not poverty, just debt advice. A debt that I've now cleared surprisingly quickly, thanks for asking.

And the cost of my venison?

Stalking rights on 2,800 acres - a bottle of whisky at Christmas and help with fox control, especially during lambing.

Box of 20 100gn .243 - £13.50

Rifle - already owned

The satisfaction of knowing I've got a freezer full of venison and you'd rather they die from disease & malnutrition instead - priceless.

In reply to Bimble:

Having seen the amount of bark stripping on older trees, and the physical emaciation after winter over on the west coast there is definitely an animal welfare issue with such numbers of deer

In reply to Big Ger:


You simply don't get it do you? You even try to equate animal abuse with deer stalking etc. and if you cannot differentiate then I'm afraid we are on a different planet with this argument/debate and little point in continuing.

If you want a "strawman" regards defenceless animals, I take it you are ok with bull fighting? Now there's an animal that a human has to kill at very close quarters and sometimes wins by killing the human. Seems to meet your criteria as a fair game, have a think about it.

In reply to Bimble:

More to the point why are you assuming large mammals don't have emotions and thought processes. Unless you want to get religious humans are animals too. More advanced and mentally capable animals but a lot of the same DNA as a large mammal like a deer.

My guess is getting shot would be fairly painful for the period of time between when the bullet hits and your brain stops working. It would be distressing to see someone you knew get shot even if you weren't hit yourself. Assuming that deer feel no pain or distress is a bit too convenient if you are the one doing the shooting.

Having said that I am not against licensed professional hunters culling deer or farming deer for food or licensing local people to hunt wild deer for food. The thing I have a moral and economic problem with is people paying to kill deer for pleasure and landowners deliberately increasing deer numbers because a stag per year equates to £22K on the capital value of a 'sporting' estate. I don't believe that the 'sporting' industry functions to reduce deer numbers for the simple reason that a 'sporting' estate is worth more when there are more deer. I suspect there would be more economic value in the land for the community at large if it was released from 'sporting estates' and managed differently.

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

Morally I would rather that the people killing deer did enjoy it. It would be awful if we made people kill deer if they didn't want to do it.

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:


I think you'll find that even a banana has "a lot of the same DNA".
Have you ever thought of the pain and suffering you cause when eating one ?
And what about potatoes - skinning them alive, slicing them, and then throwing them into boiling oil !!

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

I agree with you if estates are keeping on artificially inflated numbers of deer to the detriment of the natural environment, but in my experience (English stalking around Herefordshire, Worcestershire and Cotswolds), cull plans are meticulously composed and stuck to with the sole aim of maintaining the balance on that particular bit of land (apart from muntjac, which tend to get whacked on sight unless they've got young at foot).

However, I see no reason why people shouldn't enjoy or take pleasure from it. What's wrong with taking enjoyment from harvesting your own meat sustainably and ethically?

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

Please explain what your concept of "licensed professional hunters" are.

Who pays them for starters? There have to be enough hunters to cull a minimum of 350,000 deer per annum spread throughout the whole UK. They need permissive access to private land and farms, how do you sort that? I'm guessing you would want them vetted in some way to ensure they don't enjoy their job. Who does the training?
I'm especially intrigued by who pays their wages in this day and age.

Sika, muntjac and grey squizzels - can't shoot enough of the little bastards around where I live.

I think we should arm pine martens.

In reply to Thrudge:


What about undesirables? Or is that too broad a term?

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

Judging by how many dead ones I see at the side of the road, I'm guessing they are not that smart....

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

Wonder how many rodents die a slow painful death after poisoning in grain stores?

In reply to subtle:

The real obscenity is the fact that a large part of Scotland is still parcelled into large estates owned by anonymous individuals or funds registered offshore and used for recreational hunting. Now that really is an example of Victorian values. Hopefully over time the Scottish government can build on recent reforms and adopt a more radical approach to putting land back into the hands of identifiable local communities that know how to exploit it to the benefit of the many and not the few.

In reply to summo:


Or mangled by combines.

In reply to Moley:

Licensed professional stalkers tend to pay landowners for the privilege to stalk in our forests in the same way they do on estates but in forests it's more of a pest reduction thing than estates so the rent is minimal. If damage is over a certain percentage then we would get someone else in, and if it's really bad then we might have to pay. We will never eradicate deer practically in Scotland (not that I would personally want to) and it's extremely difficult to keep on top of numbers for various reasons so from our point of view targeting stalkers on areas with young trees is the best approach. From a wider wildlife point of view on open hills it's up to the land owner (as it should be). If someone like the National Trust want to change something (heaven forbid) then go for it, but it's expensive

In reply to Bimble:


I suspect for some it's the notion of taking pleasure from causing harm. It might be less contentious to word it slightly differently - 'taking satisfaction from self-sufficiency', say. Which to my mind is more worthy than being someone who just buys meat as a product in the supermarket and doesn't give a thought to where it came from

In reply to nufkin:

But you have to cause death to harvest the meat. Word it how you want but it's the same result.
However, knowing that you are ending that life with precision, skill and the absolute minimum of suffering is essential; it's what you practice on the range for, and what you make sure you do every time you squeeze the trigger. Being proud of my ability to do that doesn't lose me any sleep at night.

In reply to Bimble:

>
I'm surprised this comment hasn't been picked up on. Regulars on here will know there's no love lost between myself and Big Ger but that's a rather vile post.

In reply to aln:


Tolerance only goes so far. I was perfectly civil but he persisted in being puerile and abusive.
That remark was entirely deserved, and I do note he hasn't denied it...

In reply to Bimble:


Wow, even by UKC standards, that is a f*cking horrific thing to say. F*cking horrible.

In reply to Bimble:


Wow - another one. Seriously vile post. What a f*cking cretin.

In reply to ThunderCat:


Oh I don't know, stroppy said bimble was worse than a paedophile and bimble called stroppy a paedophile. Seems fairly evenly matched - both down in the gutter.

In reply to Sir Chasm:

I may be in the gutter, but at least I get venison to nibble on whilst down here.

In reply to Bimble:

Do you get a 'Buzz' from shooting your meat? Seeing as you appear to see shooting animals as a 'sport'.
I'm a meat eater and I'm quite happy for professional animal killers to do it for me.
But, if needs be, I'd go out and do it myself.

In reply to Lusk:

More of a feeling of accomplishment, like when topping out on a hard ascent.

I also home-slaughter my own lambs & Muscovy ducks, and it's just the same as that; a means to an end (the 'end' being dinner)

In reply to Bimble:


A bit of a buzz then, as top roping a route is like buying a steak from the supermarket

I've never felt topping out a hard lead as an accomplishment, more of an overwhelming sense of relief!

In reply to Lusk:

Do you get a 'Buzz' from shooting your meat?

Doesn't a good hunter eat what he shoots?
(The thread seems to have got to that level, so why not say it... )

In reply to Nina_Sky:

As long as they're not doing anything undesirable at the time, one may simply lift one's chin and turn one's head slightly to the left. Should they become uncouth in their speech, the head movement accompanied by a brisk, "Good day to you, sir" should suffice. If they attempt to accost a lady in your presence, strike them firmly on the temple with your almanac. Older gentlemen may resort to a sharp rap with an ebony or malacca cane.

In reply to subtle:

Is the answers that the trains can't then take off?

In reply to Bimble:

However, knowing that you are ending that life with precision, skill and the absolute minimum of suffering is essential...Being proud of my ability to do that doesn't lose me any sleep at night.

Quite - I was just thinking that it's better to emphasise your pride in your skill, which I'd hope people who don't eat meat could still appreciate, even if they don't necessarily agree with the action, rather than giving the impression of taking enjoyment from killing something. Maybe it's a contrived distinction, since the animal's dead either way, but to my mind someone who kills their own meat but cares about doing it cleanly and skillfully is to be repected, whereas someone who just kills for the satisfaction of it is worrying