Doghunters from norway

[ran 0]

a single well aimed 5.56 or 7.65 round is more than enough

No it's not, which is why you are required to use a shotgun. A dog very much resembles a fox (which in fact is a dog) and the reason for using a shotgun is that it gives almost instant death due to the impact. An assault rifle/submachine gun penetrates but doesn't deliver a serious enough blow to the body of the animal. A 9mm is not supposed to be used for hunting purposes other than killing a wounded dog or close range killing.

well .. the FR-F2 was quite efficient at stray-dogs hunting

[Bordoy 0]

F*cking norwegian twats (no offence to other norwegians, just them ones). i hp[e they get what they deserve.

[brgnorway 0]

a single well aimed 5.56 or 7.65 round is more than enough

No it's not, which is why you are required to use a shotgun. A dog very much resembles a fox (which in fact is a dog) and the reason for using a shotgun is that it gives almost instant death due to the impact. An assault rifle/submachine gun penetrates but doesn't deliver a serious enough blow to the body of the animal. A 9mm is not supposed to be used for hunting purposes other than killing a wounded dog or close range killing.

well .. the FR-F2 was quite efficient at stray-dogs hunting

A well placed shot will always result in almost instant death - even though the animal can run off due toe the shock and reflexes (it will be practically dead though) . However, most people are not that good shooters - especially with an animal on the move or running fast. There's a reason for such kalibers not being allowed on ordinary hunts   A shotgun (stupid of me trying to tell you that Ran) is probably the most deadly weapon on short ranges.

[ran 0]

a single well aimed 5.56 or 7.65 round is more than enough

No it's not, which is why you are required to use a shotgun. A dog very much resembles a fox (which in fact is a dog) and the reason for using a shotgun is that it gives almost instant death due to the impact. An assault rifle/submachine gun penetrates but doesn't deliver a serious enough blow to the body of the animal. A 9mm is not supposed to be used for hunting purposes other than killing a wounded dog or close range killing.

well .. the FR-F2 was quite efficient at stray-dogs hunting

A well placed shot will always result in almost instant death - even though the animal can run off due toe the shock and reflexes (it will be practically dead though) . However, most people are not that good shooters - especially with an animal on the move or running fast. There's a reason for such kalibers not being allowed on ordinary hunts A shotgun (stupid of me trying to tell you that Ran) is probably the most deadly weapon on short ranges.

it is, but do you think we would have risked ourselves on short ranges against stray dogs on one of these "agreement hunts" ?

and shotguns were quite rare . heh ... no CQB , FIBUA or any other short range engagement on the Bosnian heights and valleys

-edit- :

and who do you think were affected to this task when there wasn't anything of higher importance to do ? the best shooters naturally

[joltan 0]

a single well aimed 5.56 or 7.65 round is more than enough

No it's not, which is why you are required to use a shotgun. A dog very much resembles a fox (which in fact is a dog) and the reason for using a shotgun is that it gives almost instant death due to the impact. An assault rifle/submachine gun penetrates but doesn't deliver a serious enough blow to the body of the animal. A 9mm is not supposed to be used for hunting purposes other than killing a wounded dog or close range killing.

Sorry, I've participated in enough hunts where foxes were shot, too. Never seen a hunter using more than one shot with his rifle. Admitedly they did use hunting ammunitions that were created to bring down deer (well, that's what they had with them) - but with a target that small that's just overkill. An assault rifle designed to bring down a (much bigger) human is enough for any dog.

[brgnorway 0]

Sorry, I've participated in enough hunts where foxes were shot, too. Never seen a hunter using more than one shot with his rifle. Admitedly they did use hunting ammunitions that were created to bring down deer (well, that's what they had with them) - but with a target that small that's just overkill.

In Norway slugs are not allowed on foxhunts. You can however use some rifles - but only on posts - not when hunting with terriers.

Quote[/b] ]An assault rifle designed to bring down a (much bigger) human is enough for any dog.

Not nessecarily because penetration is not the same as shock of impact - and it's much harder to hit a fox/dog at full speed than a human. Thus the chance causing serious wounds and unnessecary pain to the animal is much grater. Why do you think the norwegian army only allowes shotguns and trained hunters for the job? (although it didn't happen) .

As a hunter you would also know that an animal has a far more robust nerve system than a human being. That's why you most places have so tough restrictions about kalibers and their impact.

Oh, by the way - I hunt foxes myself (and mink) .

[Bordoy 0]

Oh, by the way - I hunt foxes myself (and mink) .

You a fur factory or do u own one or work for one?

[brgnorway 0]

Oh, by the way - I hunt foxes myself (and mink) .

You a fur factory or do u own one or work for one?

 no I'm afraid it's mainly for the pleasure. However, a nice result of fox hunting is that it keeps the small wildlife nice and healthy. I know many people loathe foxhunting but there are benefits to consider without getting too political. Where I live the fox population was too large resulting in the foxes suffering gruesomely by diseases and scab (is that the right word in english? ) . This also had a tradgic effect on other wildlife as hares were almost extinct due to an overpopulation of foxes. To make the situation even worse - the large owls and falcons also hunt hare - but there was nothing left to eat and some of the birds on the endangoured list also disappeared. Today in my area - the foxes are healthy, the small wildlife has picked up and the birds (some) have come back  

So, I'm all for foxhunting. I use a welsh terrier and a shotgun and usually the killing is clean and fast.

I also hunt mink and their story is remarkable similar to the "fox effect" on the environment.

[Pipski 0]

You're unlikely to find many people who disagree with hunting foxes using guns, especially for reasons of population control. The controversy starts with the use of packs of dogs instead. But prob'ly best we don't go down that path ...

[brgnorway 0]

You're unlikely to find many people who disagree with hunting foxes using guns, especially for reasons of population control.  The controversy starts with the use of packs of dogs instead.  But prob'ly best we don't go down that path ...

 I like that path! I have a distinct feeling that this has much more to do with priviliges and "class battle" than compassion for the animals - in your country? I might be wrong of course but a second aspect is the densly populated areas vs the countryalliance, but why do people frown upon the use of fox hounds? After all, several studies have concluded that the fox are not significantly more stressed during the hunt (including during terrierwork) . Secondly, when the terrier bolts the fox it's instantly killed by the hounds - it only looks a bit worse when they tear the body into pieces.

My suggestion is to keep the hunts but in a greater extent allow ordinary people to hunt (terrierwork) on the estates like in Wales where ownership of land tends to be more evenly distributed? I don't know - just my thoughts of course.

[MacReady 0]

99% of hunters are drunk animal killers. Only the remaining 1% really cares about animals and nature. There should me stricter laws about obtaining a hunting license and severe punishment if you brake that law. In China the poachers hunting panda bears were even sentenced to death and I totally support that decision. The wealth of endangered species is far far greater than that of the life of money-thirsty lousy poachers.

[brgnorway 0]

Quote[/b] ]99% of hunters are drunk animal killers. Only the remaining 1% really cares about animals and nature.

I don't know how hunting is conducted where you live - but I can assure you this is as far from reality as possible in my country. Alcohol is not in any way accepted during hunts - not even in the camps (well, only after the hunts) .

Quote[/b] ]There should me stricter laws about obtaining a hunting license and severe punishment if you brake that law.

It's already strict enough where I live. It's actually quite hard to pass the exams in order to hunt and purchase a gun.

Quote[/b] ]In China the poachers hunting panda bears were even sentenced to death and I totally support that decision. The wealth of endangered species is far far greater than that of the life of money-thirsty lousy poachers.

Allthough I agree on the sentiments I can't support death penalty for poachers.

[MacReady 0]

Well the laws about hunting here in Slovenia are quite relaxed. You actually need just a few relatively easy exams and that's it. That needs to be fixed ASAP, but as most of the people here are stupid farmers (you could call them rednecks ), the changes will be hard to implement. So basically you have people with low IQ hunting 'stray' dogs just like in the norwegian example.

Regarding the death penalty for poachers - they're clearly endangering the nature and they should be eliminated. It's basic 'self denefse', really. At least in China, where poachers almost exterminated pandas and other rare species.

[brgnorway 0]

Quote[/b] ]Well the laws about hunting here in Slovenia are quite relaxed. You actually need just a few relatively easy exams and that's it. That needs to be fixed ASAP, but as most of the people here are stupid farmers (you could call them rednecks ), the changes will be hard to implement. So basically you have people with low IQ hunting 'stray' dogs just like in the norwegian example.

Well, I don't like unethical hunting, but to call a farmer "stupid" and "low IQ" is a bit on the strong side isn't it? Being simple people like farmers and others in the district is not essential for being "stupid" .

Quote[/b] ]Regarding the death penalty for poachers - they're clearly endangering the nature and they should be eliminated. It's basic 'self denefse', really. At least in China, where poachers almost exterminated pandas and other rare species.

Lot's of people have subsistence problems. You take what you need in order to survive. You don't deserve to be killed for that! There are other ways to avoid such problems - however costly it must be. Maybe it's about time the chineese government acts responsible in order to provide people with opportunities?

And all the while I thought the Panda problem was it's unwillingness to fuck!  

[Baphomet 0]

A friend said he saw it on some website... the video that is. I couldn't watch something like that. Seeing animals getting hurt really bothers me. Rabid or not. Which allegedly they were.