Swans' bodies found in Norfolk were 'filled with shot'

[onehandle]

The dead birds had been partially hidden under bracken next to a path in Church Road, Horningtoft, near Dereham.

X-rays revealed the swans were filled with shot across their entire bodies, wings and heads.

"They must have suffered an awful death, being shot over and over again at close range.

"It is a completely mindless act to shoot at wild birds. Those responsible for such attacks should realise that they are illegal and cause huge suffering for no other reason but the bizarre enjoyment of the attacker."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/norfolk/8512438.stm

[Hassin Bin Sober]

1. "cause huge suffering for no other reason but the bizarre enjoyment of the attacker."

It's called hunting.

[SPedigrees]

4. No it's not. A responsible hunter follows the game laws

and shoots only birds or animals he/she intends to put on his/her dinner table.

This is called a sadistic, criminal act.

[Tempest]

5. You call that hunting?

Shooting a bird over and over again at close range?

Sounds more like torture and an execution.

[nykym]

7. I believe you

meant to say THRILL KILLING. That was not hunting.

[RaleighNCDUer]

9. Not if he hides the bodies in the bushes instead of taking them home

and cooking them.

[SteveM]

10. "...suffering for no other reason but the bizarre enjoyment of this...

poster.

"In what many experts see as one of the most important and complete studies of violence and aggression ever done, THE ANATOMY OF HUMAN DESTRUCTIVENESS, psychiatrist Erich Fromm concluded that hunting was not a sadist pursuit at all, and in fact among cultures around the world where hunting was a primary activity, people tended to be peaceful.

'Sadism is the passion to have absolute control over the other living being, whether an animal,
a child, a man or a woman....'

'The idea that hunting produces pleasure in torture is an unsubstantiated and most implausible
statement. Hunters as a rule do not enjoy the suffering of an animal, and in face a sadist
who enjoys hunting would make a poor hunter.'"

Fromm, Erich, THE ANATOMY OF HUMAN DESTRUCTIVENESS, (pp. 131-32).

Clearly, you have never hunted, and don't know what you are talking about. If you wish to continue the dialog, perhaps we can parse the differences between "cruelty" and "sadism?"

[Hassin Bin Sober]

20. Strawman.

No one said the hunter has to ENJOY "the suffering" to cause the suffering.

One can cause "suffering" and not give a shit about the suffering inflicted - which is the attitude I believe most hunters have.

No. I don't hunt. But I know enough that I can't hike my in-law's acreage with my dog during hunting season due to those "noble hunters" who trespass on private property and shoot anything that moves. I'm hesitant to hike near our place in Michigan during hunting season when I see the "noble hunters" loading up their trunks with beer in the IGA parking lot. I see the road signs shot full of holes in the afore mentioned areas ... not to mention the story in the OP - Oh but they weren't "hunters" ... they were what? Can we get us a "No True Scotsman" fallacy?

[farmout rightarm]

22. You certainly seem to be claiming expertise on something you don't do.

Maybe you shouldn't invoke "No true Scotsman" in the same paragraph with issuing fallacious generalizations.

[benEzra]

23. Do you or your dog eat meat or other animal protein?

Because hunters generally care far more about limiting the suffering of the animals they kill than do the people who buy their meat in little shrinkwrapped packages at the grocery store, and buy their dog food in plastic-coated paper bags.

[SteveM]

26. Poor argument...

"One can cause 'suffering' and not give a shit about the suffering inflicted -- which is the attitude I believe most hunters have."

Your belief is not supported, except by your anecdotal reference of "...my in-law's acreage."

In fact, most hunters DO give a damn about suffering, which is why there is so much emphasis on good marksmanship, follow-up shots, and tracking wounded animals. Your "noble hunter" derision reminds me of former NY governor Mario Cuomo's rather formulaic Yee-HAH outburst: "hunters who drink beer, don't vote and lie to their wives about where they were all weekend." Cuomo later wrote the NRA and apologized for his smear, saying: "it is unintelligent and unfair to disparage any large group." (TIME, May, 27, 1985.)

If these people were hunters, then they are bad ones and the exception to the rule. But I don't know if "they" were hunters.
In any case, this incident was not about hunting; anyone can be a fuck-up, and it would be "unfair to disparage any large group."

You can have your True Scotsman; I'll take Cuomo's apology.

[SPedigrees]

27. You are confusing 'law-breaking criminals' w/ 'noble hunters.' nt

[AtheistCrusader]

29. I hunt. You're wrong.

For most hunters I've ever met, and myself as well, a quick humane kill is the goal.

That and meat in the freezer/on the table.


I guarandamntee I put animals down a lot more humanely than most of our nation's commercial meat production.

[PavePusher]

33. Oh my.

"One can cause "suffering" and not give a shit about the suffering inflicted - which is the attitude I believe most hunters have."

I do hope you are a Vegan....:eyes:

[farmout rightarm]

21. Uh huh. And waterboarding is a fraternity prank.

...

[proteus_lives]

40. That's not hunting.

[niyad]

2. may the perpetrators receive everything they deserve.

[YOY]

3. Fuckheads could have at least eaten them.

Sick assholes. That's just cruel.

All hunters I know eat their kills.

[rd_kent]

6. Onehandle, did you have a point for posting this? Does this somehow involve gun policy?

Or is this another drive-by post with no point at all?

[sharesunited]

11. Sharing yet another instance of death by gunshot always has a point.

It's a reminder that the whim of some shooter has been empowered and has prevailed upon a victim.

[rd_kent]

39. You really make no sense.

I wonder if YOU even know what you are saying.

[peace13]

8. I wonder if Shooter was visiting.

That sounds like his form of 'hunting'.

[RaleighNCDUer]

12. Actually that x-ray doesn't look like it was such close range. The

shot is pretty well scattered throughout what was a pretty big bird. If it was real close range wouldn't the shot be in clumps?

How many pellets are in a typical bird shot?

[Tim01]

17. Hundreds. Depends on the shot size, of course. nt

[Tim01]

18. Doesn't look so close to me either, and it looks like one shot. nt

[SteveM]

13. So, against guns, now against hunting, with examples in.... Great Britain?

[RaleighNCDUer]

15. That's sport killing of protected species, not hunting. nt

[SteveM]

19. Were you able to glean that from this no-comments posting?

Please note the posting of bin sober, he seems to believe otherwise.

[RaleighNCDUer]

25. From the article:

"It is a completely mindless act to shoot at wild birds. Those responsible for such attacks should realise that they are illegal and cause huge suffering for no other reason but the bizarre enjoyment of the attacker."

Those found guilty of killing or injuring wild birds could face a maximum six-month prison sentence and/or a £5,000 fine, the RSPCA said.

Didn't have to 'glean' that.

Besides, I know that wild migratory birds are protected in Britain. Someone living there should also know that. He was committing a crime, and knew it. If he didn't know it, why try to hide the bodies?

[SteveM]

28. Everyone knows its a crime. But is this about guns or hunting?...

If you have a poster do an immediate follow-up calling this crime "hunting," then clearly a posting like this with no comment can confuse folks in this thread. The poster should at least comment on the purpose of the posting, unless he wishes to add agendas, but not claim responsibility for them. Maybe the OP has some bodies he/she wants to hide.

[Tim01]

14. Is this the thread where I post about kids setting cats and dogs on fire?

This doesn't have anything to do with hunting, and very little to do with guns.

[farmout rightarm]

16. "...a completely mindless act..." I wonder how he feels about fox hunts,

a venerable British invention and tradition.

[SPedigrees]

32. If I'm not mistaken, fox-hunting has been made illegal in Great Britain.

I believe the ban went into effect 5 or 6 years ago.

[farmout rightarm]

36. Okay thanks I didn't know that.

...

[hlthe2b]

24. F__CKERS.....

Even if grossly unfair, this is the kind of shit that makes people less supportive of gun ownership in general. Just sayin...

[Glassunion]

30. Yes, we get it, you can copy and paste.

Yet you make no point. I will make no assumptions or comments on the post, other than what you provided. All you provided is a reiteration of a news story. So, congratulations... You can indeed copy and paste. Moving along...

[AtheistCrusader]

31. If you see poachers, call the cops.

Every time. Even if you SUSPECT they are poachers, but do not know. If they are legally licensed hunters, there will be no issue.

This was bullshit, and no hunter would ever approve of it, because it endangers our PRIVILIDGE to hunt. Sport hunting is not a right, and we know it. These were poachers.

I appreciate that that article doesn't attribute this to hunters, but I wish it clearly lableled these people as poachers.


Some of the assertions in the article are bunk. That could have been a single shot at long range, with a full modified choke. Impossible to tell from the xray. Also, based on the amount of shot, if it were a single shot, I suspect the animal didn't suffer much at all, because that's a major hit. That animal was not 'winged'. Assume one shot, and it's lights out. A single shot could easily produce that many pellets in the animal, range, shot type, and choke depending.

[farmout rightarm]

38. There was a time when killing for sport was widely viewed as 'hunting'

and that's an artifact of language. Now, educated people are able to distinguish between those activities and properly castigate those who "kill for thrills" - unfortunately there are still vile humans who do exactly that as we see from this article as well as others.

I'm a hunter, I kill non-endangered animals (almost exclusively deer) strictly for consumption, and we process it ourselves so we know what is in the meat and what's not, unlike the attractive but mysterious plastic-wrapped meat in the grocery case. Killing any animal for 'sport' is unconscionable in the 21st century.

[slackmaster]

34. There is a dearth of swan recipes on teh Interwebz

This one is about as thorough as they get.

http://www.elizabethan-era.org.uk/bake-swan-old-recipe.htm

Swans have been protected in the UK for a long, long time.

[GreenStormCloud]

35. Correcting the hype.

A swan with that many shot in it dies really fast. Multiple shots hasten death and decrease suffering, but ruin the meat.

The shot in that swan are fairly eavenly distributed. I would suspect that the swan was in flight at low altitude of about 30 to 50 feet and was shot squarely with one round of #4 shot from a 12 gague. It died instantly.

[farmout rightarm]

37. It is highly unlikely it suffered any more than commercially processed pre-hamburger.

But it makes for good histrionics. shrug.

[dashrif]

41. quick

If it was close range with a shotgun would be quick with no suffering add in several follow up shots and I can see why they xrayed them they probably did not know what it was

to kill something for no purpose I have never understood that now the shooting at wild birds is a mindless act part, no it is not if see again you have a purpose

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

42. Dean Astill-Dunseith is a blithering idiot.