From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I disagree with Jonathan's reiteration of arguments in favour of the
efficiency of traditional hunting compared with using a rifle. I have always
been baffled by the bone-headed persistence of the hunting lobby in claiming
that the hounds 'n' horses business is the best way to control foxes, and
that shooting is very iffy, with wounded foxes crawling away to die a
lingering death. Sure, 22 rimfire is unsuitable, and the fact that it will
kill immediately with a brain-shot is irrelevant - it lacks sufficient poke
and has a crappy trajectory. But 22 centrefires such as 22-250 and 223 with
decent varmint bullets such as Hornady V-Max or Nosler Ballistic Tip pack
enormous destructive power, and a fox hit anywhere in the head or torso is a
goner, either immediately or as near to it as makes no difference. I've shot
a lot of foxes, though I don't consider myself an expert, and even I have
killed three in one short lamping session with a good caller. A friend of
mine up-country is an expert, though, and I've seen the photograph of him and
two chums early one morning after a night's lamping: they're standing by the
Landy, and on the grass in front are 16 (yes, sixteen) foxes shot in one
night with a 22-250. Three others were hit but not recovered - my friend says
he hit them, and he's the sort of guy who doesn't need to lie about his
marksmanship. (Rifle is his own heavy-barrel custom job with a Unertl
Ultra-Varmint scope.)
This kind of performance makes a joke of hunters' claims about controlling
foxes. I'm not anti-hunting, of course, quite the contrary, and it's
depressing to see how many subscribers to this list passionately insist on
their right to own a handgun while repudiating others' right to hunt
foxes.... But I think they made a severe tactical error when they decided
years ago to blather on about how efficient a Hunt was, rather than
concentrating on the more fundamental and important issue of liberty. Maybe
they were just stupid. I've certainly offended a few of them by talking like
this, and I'm afraid many fox-hunters cannot be made to understand the
connection between their own desire to retain the freedom to hunt foxes, and
others' desire to own handguns, or smoke dope, or be homosexual, or whatever.
The bottom line about wounded foxes is that although we deplore anything but
a clean kill, they're vermin to be controlled, even if we derive much sport
from their pursuit. If one or two get away, it's a shame, but let's not get
misty eyed about it.
BTW snares are useful, and a good snare-setter can set them safely and target
foxes quite accurately - but they do risk killing or crippling other
creatures by mistake. If you had to be killed, would you prefer (a) a
frangible bullet through the chest, or (b) the garrotte? Not getting misty
eyed about foxes here, just asking for a bit of rationality...
Anthony Harrison
Cybershooters website: http://www.cybershooters.org
List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
____________________________________________________________
T O P I C A -- Learn More. Surf Less.
Newsletters, Tips and Discussions on Topics You Choose.
http://www.topica.com/partner/tag01
