Fieldsports Britain - town & country foxshooting 

You need culling

Thanks, Tony. Happy Easter to you. / Charlie

That's very depressing. It's what the RSPB wants, unfortunately. / Charlie

@@fieldsportstv please don't mistake my question for a complaint but could you explain to me why the RSPB would want only crow's and magpies and no song birds? What a depressing image that is, there's no way I would allow that change to take place in my garden or area.

Interesting idea. Thanks. Will run it past the camera dept (David) and see if we can do it. / Charlie

@@fieldsportstv first question is guaranteed to be what budget are you giving us? 🤣🤣🤣😉

😁

@@fieldsportstv Hi Charlie, I had another thought, do you think Wild Justice could be held liable for chimney fires due to corvid nests? I have issues with Jackdaws that just refuse to take no as an answer. In 2 chimneys I use. This is going to be a growing problem with all the messing about with the general licences.

We'd need a test case. As yet, I haven't heard of a test case of people shooting pigeons the wrong way. Natural England's version of the rules is out of step with the rest of the country. / Charlie

Thanks for this. We cover it in Fieldsports News on the website. Have a look at Fcha.nl/gl - / Charlie

There is no such thing as a silencer!

@@paulharrison6417 oh OK how about a moderator.. He needs a decent one if you're going to shoot more than one fox in the same or near vicinity!

Yes - we are one of the easiest countries in the world to come and hunt. / Charlie

There has been multiple baby’s injured or killed by foxes in urban areas

Easier said than done going by my friends who had a fox proof set up. They woke up one day and the chickens were all dead. (For disclosure neither myself nor them cull any foxes just chipping in.)

You obviously don't keep chickens. Every fox needs shooting! Nasty buggers around chickens and lambs.

@@mrbenn180 can’t of been very fox proof then

More fun

@@andrewmacdonald5984 wow! Someone drank the Kool Aid. You've obviously read the "official report" on the matter and pasted much of it above. First, the number of cattle lost is far above the number of cattle compensated. The out so often used is "there were also signs of coyote" to negate compensation as if coyotes became a sudden issue for full grown cattle predation. Never mind the fact that officials do not race out to view the site. The complaint of affected ranchers being "of course there was no proof two weeks later" other than pictures taken by them then declared insufficient as evidence. Also, the number of cattle in the state is irrelevant to the number of cattle on impacted farms or ranches. You can count sixty head of cattle lost in a single county without finding any attempt at compensation. As you are obviously well aware wolves are not picky eaters and despite the official report wolves do not readily leave plentiful food sources. They must be driven off without harming them lest you suffer the full weight of both a state and Federal assault on you and all you own. The most laughable phrase is that one stating bird and fish environments have been greatly improved, which cannot in any measurable way be attributed to wolves. However unfounded it is actually true but almost exclusively in parts of those states where there are oddly few to no wolves and part of habitat restoration programs designed to impact... Wait for it... fish and birds. Didn't see that in your report did you? As decimated ungulate populations in Michigan, Wisconsin, Idaho, and pretty much every place wolves had been reintroduced, most states have reported better than expected herd populations. Lets look at that. First, wolf hunting has helped some but not much. Second, the method of expectations used was similar to "budget surplus" calculation. When the government says "we had a budget surplus" they do mot mean "we spent less than expected." They calculate the budget with a certain amount of over spending then simply do not overspend as much and tada! Budget surplus. Here they simply stated herd populations will be at an artificially low percentage then low and behold the herds exceeded their expectations. Check into harvest numbers from year to year over the last twenty-five years. Do you see a trend? You do if you look. This is not a fun game. Hunters and landowners, as you claim to be, are impacted adversely. Now Biden, as he does, has set out to make it worse. The USFWS has filed suit to ban all wolf hunting. Good luck digging into the matter using Google. This information is not easily found. You are better served looking at source data. When the call to reintroduce wolves came about in the late 80's I was all for it. Why not? I was ignorant. I bought what was being sold. What I was told later has long since come true. What was that? "Reintroduction sounds great but it comes with a government assigned bureaucrat. Government involvement is as healthy as rat poison. Science plays no part in the process. These same people would reintroduce T-Rex to roam rural lands because they like the idea of seeing one some day but suffer none of the consequences. Don't believe for a second that once populations reach desired levels the goverment will relent. Also, look at those who are pushing for it to happen and who are opposed. They will drag us all through the mud. Your hunting access is secondary. Your land is not yours. Your livestock are prey and if you take matters into your own hands, the feds will eat you alive just like the wolves will if they catch you out." Paraphrased but these decades later and it has all come to pass. Wolves passed "recovered" numbers everywhere they were placed almost two decades ago - everywhere. However even today it is a fight to have them delisted and allow states their rights to manage wolves as they see fit. Remember grey wolves were never actually threatened let alone endangered. They were plentiful in Canada and Alaska but their range was reduced from northern Mexico to none in the lower 48. Your notions sound as though you've not had to deal with wolves, the devastation they bring, nor the bureaucrats who oversee and impose them on others. You sound like I did when I was young and dumb especially echoing that BS how wolves have made life better for their woodland friends, the birdies and the fishies. I'm still a wolf fan but not the way anti-science anti-hunters force them on the country today and I'm especially against the lies and disinformation being systematically perpetuated.

😁

Don’t be stupid.

Why are you here?

@@the13thdukeofwybourne77 I am not against shooting I am against killing our wildlife ,just to satisfy a sick blood lust . I have seen those that put out bait to draw animals & birds onto their land ,then try & justify their mass slaughter ,buy saying they are overrun with pests .If those that own firearms wish to practice their skills at marksmanship ,there are such things as Clays & field target shooting to hone one’s skills . Somehow I can’t see you sitting down to dine on Fox & onion pie . I have many foxes visit my gardens front & back ,but I don’t ask my staff to pass me my rifle whilst I bag one of the poor blighters ,it’s just not done old chap ,very bad form indeed .