Ramblers' grouse with gun parties (From Bradford Telegraph and Argus)

If I was walking that part of the moor and shooting was in progress I would simply keep out of the way (unless of course I had reasons other than walking to be there).

Well go find some other direction to walk in if a shoot is on. You've got the moor all to yourselves for the rest of the year.
The "I know my rights" cagoule wearing/trousers in socks brigade are a royal pain in the ****.
On my families farm nr Harrogate, they come wandering around the farm yard as if they own the place, when the public right of way, is well signed...200 yrds away. It is rather funny when they try to climb over the electric fences though. :-)

Dois wrote:
Well go find some other direction to walk in if a shoot is on. You've got the moor all to yourselves for the rest of the year. The "I know my rights" cagoule wearing/trousers in socks brigade are a royal pain in the ****. On my families farm nr Harrogate, they come wandering around the farm yard as if they own the place, when the public right of way, is well signed...200 yrds away. It is rather funny when they try to climb over the electric fences though. :-)

Farmers and so-called 'landowners' really get up my nose. How on earth can anyone own land?

Ramblers should keep out of the way of the shooting gentlefolk. Ilkley Moor is for gentlemen - go and walk on Baildon Moor or somewhere else.

Ramblers should keep out of the way of the shooting gentlefolk. Ilkley Moor is for gentlemen - go and walk on Baildon Moor or somewhere else.

Up with the partridge wrote:
Ramblers should keep out of the way of the shooting gentlefolk. Ilkley Moor is for gentlemen - go and walk on Baildon Moor or somewhere else.

Gentlemen? You mean rich over-privileged tosspots with nothing better to do. Shoot them all.

The shooters pay a great deal of money towards the maintenance of the moor, a few years ago when the shooting was stopped the general condition of the place deteriorated, much of that money goes to the council.
There would be no grouse if the shooting people didnt rear them specially, as when left to their own devices disease all but wiped them out.

albion wrote:
The shooters pay a great deal of money towards the maintenance of the moor, a few years ago when the shooting was stopped the general condition of the place deteriorated, much of that money goes to the council. There would be no grouse if the shooting people didnt rear them specially, as when left to their own devices disease all but wiped them out.

Why can't they continue to manage the Moor, continue to raise the Grouse, just stop shooting them ? Either that or let us take potshots at the hunters. Fair's fair.

Bent - Meister wrote:

albion wrote:
The shooters pay a great deal of money towards the maintenance of the moor, a few years ago when the shooting was stopped the general condition of the place deteriorated, much of that money goes to the council. There would be no grouse if the shooting people didnt rear them specially, as when left to their own devices disease all but wiped them out.

Why can't they continue to manage the Moor, continue to raise the Grouse, just stop shooting them ? Either that or let us take potshots at the hunters. Fair's fair.

Who do you mean by they? If you mean the council then no they wont commit public money on projects like that (some parts of the moor are privately owned anyway.
If you mean the shooters, well this is business (people pay very large sums for a days shooting).
Taking potshots at people is currently illegal, shooting game within the restrictions of a game licence isnt, if you want to alter the situation you will have a hard time doing it I should imagine.

How anyone can take pleasure in killing animals is beyond me I personnally think they are sick.All the usefull things that they could spend their time and money on and they have to go around killing animals.

Collos wrote:
How anyone can take pleasure in killing animals is beyond me I personnally think they are sick.All the usefull things that they could spend their time and money on and they have to go around killing animals.

Can we assume then,your roast on a Sunday is still alive and kicking,if your a veggy/vegan fair do,s.But ever since cavemen clubbed animals to eat,the preffered way to eat meat/fish/game is dead...

Jammy wrote:

Collos wrote:
How anyone can take pleasure in killing animals is beyond me I personnally think they are sick.All the usefull things that they could spend their time and money on and they have to go around killing animals.

Can we assume then,your roast on a Sunday is still alive and kicking,if your a veggy/vegan fair do,s.But ever since cavemen clubbed animals to eat,the preffered way to eat meat/fish/game is dead...

Very true, and after seeing the horrors of an abattoir I think that shooting is a preferable method.

The Albion wrote:

Dois wrote:
Well go find some other direction to walk in if a shoot is on. You've got the moor all to yourselves for the rest of the year. The "I know my rights" cagoule wearing/trousers in socks brigade are a royal pain in the ****. On my families farm nr Harrogate, they come wandering around the farm yard as if they own the place, when the public right of way, is well signed...200 yrds away. It is rather funny when they try to climb over the electric fences though. :-)

Farmers and so-called 'landowners' really get up my nose. How on earth can anyone own land?

Typical townie response The Albion. Or is it the landless peasant?
.
"I've got nowt, so why should anyone else have owt?"
.
Do you own the patch of land your house sits on, or do you reside in a Council flat?

albion wrote:

Jammy wrote:

Collos wrote: How anyone can take pleasure in killing animals is beyond me I personnally think they are sick.All the usefull things that they could spend their time and money on and they have to go around killing animals.

Can we assume then,your roast on a Sunday is still alive and kicking,if your a veggy/vegan fair do,s.But ever since cavemen clubbed animals to eat,the preffered way to eat meat/fish/game is dead...

Very true, and after seeing the horrors of an abattoir I think that shooting is a preferable method.

Halal has to be the ultimate in cruelty but you have lots of the stuff in glorious (not) Bradford.

This so called killing for fun supports full time and part time jobs and brings money into the local community! I do think alot of people are moving away from the actual article of walkers being stopped on footpaths. I think it is always going to be a conflict of interests but i don't really think the shooters will have actually got into conflict over access they might have asked them to stop for a few moments for there own safety but i'd hope nothing more then that!

Up with the partridge wrote:

Up The Partridge wrote:

Up with the partridge wrote:

albion wrote:

Jammy wrote:

Collos wrote: How anyone can take pleasure in killing animals is beyond me I personnally think they are sick.All the usefull things that they could spend their time and money on and they have to go around killing animals.

Can we assume then,your roast on a Sunday is still alive and kicking,if your a veggy/vegan fair do,s.But ever since cavemen clubbed animals to eat,the preffered way to eat meat/fish/game is dead...

Very true, and after seeing the horrors of an abattoir I think that shooting is a preferable method.

Halal has to be the ultimate in cruelty but you have lots of the stuff in glorious (not) Bradford.

I don't eat any flesh, but even I can see there is a difference between killing for food (though I don't personally agree with it) and killing for fun. Grouse shooting is for psychopaths.

This is weird, clearly someone at the T&A is having fun. I didn't write the above comment as grouse shooting is fun and certainly is to be encouraged.

Grouse shooting is a very sick form of amusement for those lacking in moral fibre and of low state of spiritual growth, who have by their own deeds retarded the progress of their soul. Only a person of similar standing would encourage such atrocious and deviant behaviour.

watcher14 wrote:
This so called killing for fun supports full time and part time jobs and brings money into the local community! I do think alot of people are moving away from the actual article of walkers being stopped on footpaths. I think it is always going to be a conflict of interests but i don't really think the shooters will have actually got into conflict over access they might have asked them to stop for a few moments for there own safety but i'd hope nothing more then that!

So are you saying that monetary concerns take precedence over God's creation? Material wealth is an illusion, it doesn't even exist.

LOL @ Moon up the stick and Up the partridge....... nice one LP. ;-D

Up with the partridge wrote:

Up The Partridge wrote:

Up with the partridge wrote:

albion wrote:

Jammy wrote:

Collos wrote: How anyone can take pleasure in killing animals is beyond me I personnally think they are sick.All the usefull things that they could spend their time and money on and they have to go around killing animals.

Can we assume then,your roast on a Sunday is still alive and kicking,if your a veggy/vegan fair do,s.But ever since cavemen clubbed animals to eat,the preffered way to eat meat/fish/game is dead...

Very true, and after seeing the horrors of an abattoir I think that shooting is a preferable method.

Halal has to be the ultimate in cruelty but you have lots of the stuff in glorious (not) Bradford.

I don't eat any flesh, but even I can see there is a difference between killing for food (though I don't personally agree with it) and killing for fun. Grouse shooting is for psychopaths.

This is weird, clearly someone at the T&A is having fun. I didn't write the above comment as grouse shooting is fun and certainly is to be encouraged.

Leave the poor Grouse alone you Imperialist bully.

Moon Up The Stick wrote:

watcher14 wrote: This so called killing for fun supports full time and part time jobs and brings money into the local community! I do think alot of people are moving away from the actual article of walkers being stopped on footpaths. I think it is always going to be a conflict of interests but i don't really think the shooters will have actually got into conflict over access they might have asked them to stop for a few moments for there own safety but i'd hope nothing more then that!

So are you saying that monetary concerns take precedence over God's creation? Material wealth is an illusion, it doesn't even exist.

Yes i am!

No one can own land, and no one should kill anything. Got that? Right, good, can we get on now?

Anna Kissed wrote:
No one can own land, and no one should kill anything. Got that? Right, good, can we get on now?

Wrong capitalism rules - we all love it. Keep the poor peasants of Ilkley Moor and leave it for the rich gentry to shoot. Marvellous pastime and good food to boot.

Up with the partridge wrote:

Anna Kissed wrote: No one can own land, and no one should kill anything. Got that? Right, good, can we get on now?

Wrong capitalism rules - we all love it. Keep the poor peasants of Ilkley Moor and leave it for the rich gentry to shoot. Marvellous pastime and good food to boot.

Moron. EAT THE RICH.

Anna Kissed wrote:

Up with the partridge wrote:

Anna Kissed wrote: No one can own land, and no one should kill anything. Got that? Right, good, can we get on now?

Wrong capitalism rules - we all love it. Keep the poor peasants of Ilkley Moor and leave it for the rich gentry to shoot. Marvellous pastime and good food to boot.

Moron. EAT THE RICH.

Then where will your handouts come from?

albion wrote:

Anna Kissed wrote:

Up with the partridge wrote:

Anna Kissed wrote: No one can own land, and no one should kill anything. Got that? Right, good, can we get on now?

Wrong capitalism rules - we all love it. Keep the poor peasants of Ilkley Moor and leave it for the rich gentry to shoot. Marvellous pastime and good food to boot.

Moron. EAT THE RICH.

Then where will your handouts come from?

There would be no need for 'handouts' (or ENTITLEMENTS) in a fair, just and equal society.

Anna Kissed wrote:

albion wrote:

Anna Kissed wrote:

Up with the partridge wrote:

Anna Kissed wrote: No one can own land, and no one should kill anything. Got that? Right, good, can we get on now?

Wrong capitalism rules - we all love it. Keep the poor peasants of Ilkley Moor and leave it for the rich gentry to shoot. Marvellous pastime and good food to boot.

Moron. EAT THE RICH.

Then where will your handouts come from?

There would be no need for 'handouts' (or ENTITLEMENTS) in a fair, just and equal society.

Of course there would, the reason that society is unequal is because some people lack the ability to conserve what they have or make the effort to better their lot, if you decided to divide all the wealth in this country equally you would find that the bulk of it was back in the same hands within a generation.

albion wrote:

Anna Kissed wrote:

albion wrote:

Anna Kissed wrote:

Up with the partridge wrote:

Anna Kissed wrote: No one can own land, and no one should kill anything. Got that? Right, good, can we get on now?

Wrong capitalism rules - we all love it. Keep the poor peasants of Ilkley Moor and leave it for the rich gentry to shoot. Marvellous pastime and good food to boot.

Moron. EAT THE RICH.

Then where will your handouts come from?

There would be no need for 'handouts' (or ENTITLEMENTS) in a fair, just and equal society.

Of course there would, the reason that society is unequal is because some people lack the ability to conserve what they have or make the effort to better their lot, if you decided to divide all the wealth in this country equally you would find that the bulk of it was back in the same hands within a generation.

I think you're wrong there albion. The reason that inequality exists is because the system is unequal and unjust in the first place. Those at the top are born with a silver spoon and there life is mapped out for them. The likes of Cameron, Osborne, Boris Johnson, etc. all went to Eton, all are related, and related to Royalty. None of them have the slightest clue how ordinary folk live. The system is weighted in favour of those who 'have', and against those who 'have-not'. The wealth stays in the same hands from one generation to the next. It's time to change that. We are not their slaves!

I've Returned wrote:

albion wrote:

Anna Kissed wrote:

albion wrote:

Anna Kissed wrote:

Up with the partridge wrote:

Anna Kissed wrote: No one can own land, and no one should kill anything. Got that? Right, good, can we get on now?

Wrong capitalism rules - we all love it. Keep the poor peasants of Ilkley Moor and leave it for the rich gentry to shoot. Marvellous pastime and good food to boot.

Moron. EAT THE RICH.

Then where will your handouts come from?

There would be no need for 'handouts' (or ENTITLEMENTS) in a fair, just and equal society.

Of course there would, the reason that society is unequal is because some people lack the ability to conserve what they have or make the effort to better their lot, if you decided to divide all the wealth in this country equally you would find that the bulk of it was back in the same hands within a generation.

I think you're wrong there albion. The reason that inequality exists is because the system is unequal and unjust in the first place. Those at the top are born with a silver spoon and there life is mapped out for them. The likes of Cameron, Osborne, Boris Johnson, etc. all went to Eton, all are related, and related to Royalty. None of them have the slightest clue how ordinary folk live. The system is weighted in favour of those who 'have', and against those who 'have-not'. The wealth stays in the same hands from one generation to the next. It's time to change that. We are not their slaves!

There are plenty of self made millionaires in the world.
If you took the people from the most awful estate in the country and swapped them with the people from the most expensive area you would find that the expensive area became awful and the awful area became expensive, history proves this to have always been so, even in times centuries ago artisans from humble beginnings made good for themselves.
If you changed all that you would soon find that some people would rise to the top and often prove to be more tyrannical than those that they replaced, you can't brainwash society into a uniform thought process unless you bring in cloning or robots.

albion wrote:

I've Returned wrote:

albion wrote:

Anna Kissed wrote:

albion wrote:

Anna Kissed wrote:

Up with the partridge wrote:

Anna Kissed wrote: No one can own land, and no one should kill anything. Got that? Right, good, can we get on now?

Wrong capitalism rules - we all love it. Keep the poor peasants of Ilkley Moor and leave it for the rich gentry to shoot. Marvellous pastime and good food to boot.

Moron. EAT THE RICH.

Then where will your handouts come from?

There would be no need for 'handouts' (or ENTITLEMENTS) in a fair, just and equal society.

Of course there would, the reason that society is unequal is because some people lack the ability to conserve what they have or make the effort to better their lot, if you decided to divide all the wealth in this country equally you would find that the bulk of it was back in the same hands within a generation.

I think you're wrong there albion. The reason that inequality exists is because the system is unequal and unjust in the first place. Those at the top are born with a silver spoon and there life is mapped out for them. The likes of Cameron, Osborne, Boris Johnson, etc. all went to Eton, all are related, and related to Royalty. None of them have the slightest clue how ordinary folk live. The system is weighted in favour of those who 'have', and against those who 'have-not'. The wealth stays in the same hands from one generation to the next. It's time to change that. We are not their slaves!

There are plenty of self made millionaires in the world. If you took the people from the most awful estate in the country and swapped them with the people from the most expensive area you would find that the expensive area became awful and the awful area became expensive, history proves this to have always been so, even in times centuries ago artisans from humble beginnings made good for themselves. If you changed all that you would soon find that some people would rise to the top and often prove to be more tyrannical than those that they replaced, you can't brainwash society into a uniform thought process unless you bring in cloning or robots.

As an alternative to both Capitalism AND Communism, remove the 'top', so that there is no 'top' to rise to. Abandon the goal of economic growth, de-centralize government, create small-scale local economies utilizing local resources in a sustainable manner, use available technology to improve people's lives rather than maximizing profit, stop producing anything we don't actually need and produce only that which we do need. That way everyone in spciety would have a valid role and no-one would be any better-off than anyone else. It won't work though UNLESS the most vital part of the overall plan is adhered to; ie. abandoning the goal of economic growth. That is where Cameron's 'Big Society' falls down and cannot work.

I've Returned wrote:

albion wrote:

I've Returned wrote:

albion wrote:

Anna Kissed wrote:

albion wrote:

Anna Kissed wrote:

Up with the partridge wrote:

Anna Kissed wrote: No one can own land, and no one should kill anything. Got that? Right, good, can we get on now?

Wrong capitalism rules - we all love it. Keep the poor peasants of Ilkley Moor and leave it for the rich gentry to shoot. Marvellous pastime and good food to boot.

Moron. EAT THE RICH.

Then where will your handouts come from?

There would be no need for 'handouts' (or ENTITLEMENTS) in a fair, just and equal society.

Of course there would, the reason that society is unequal is because some people lack the ability to conserve what they have or make the effort to better their lot, if you decided to divide all the wealth in this country equally you would find that the bulk of it was back in the same hands within a generation.

I think you're wrong there albion. The reason that inequality exists is because the system is unequal and unjust in the first place. Those at the top are born with a silver spoon and there life is mapped out for them. The likes of Cameron, Osborne, Boris Johnson, etc. all went to Eton, all are related, and related to Royalty. None of them have the slightest clue how ordinary folk live. The system is weighted in favour of those who 'have', and against those who 'have-not'. The wealth stays in the same hands from one generation to the next. It's time to change that. We are not their slaves!

There are plenty of self made millionaires in the world. If you took the people from the most awful estate in the country and swapped them with the people from the most expensive area you would find that the expensive area became awful and the awful area became expensive, history proves this to have always been so, even in times centuries ago artisans from humble beginnings made good for themselves. If you changed all that you would soon find that some people would rise to the top and often prove to be more tyrannical than those that they replaced, you can't brainwash society into a uniform thought process unless you bring in cloning or robots.

As an alternative to both Capitalism AND Communism, remove the 'top', so that there is no 'top' to rise to. Abandon the goal of economic growth, de-centralize government, create small-scale local economies utilizing local resources in a sustainable manner, use available technology to improve people's lives rather than maximizing profit, stop producing anything we don't actually need and produce only that which we do need. That way everyone in spciety would have a valid role and no-one would be any better-off than anyone else. It won't work though UNLESS the most vital part of the overall plan is adhered to; ie. abandoning the goal of economic growth. That is where Cameron's 'Big Society' falls down and cannot work.

To do so would require compulsion, it just doesnt work without enforcement, so no thanks.
I dont have a great deal of faith in Cameron but he is only like others before him, here for a limited time, The rather drastic looking (to some) measures he is instigating will at least put us back on firm foundations given time.

albion wrote:

I've Returned wrote:

albion wrote:

I've Returned wrote:

albion wrote:

Anna Kissed wrote:

albion wrote:

Anna Kissed wrote:

Up with the partridge wrote:

Anna Kissed wrote: No one can own land, and no one should kill anything. Got that? Right, good, can we get on now?

Wrong capitalism rules - we all love it. Keep the poor peasants of Ilkley Moor and leave it for the rich gentry to shoot. Marvellous pastime and good food to boot.

Moron. EAT THE RICH.

Then where will your handouts come from?

There would be no need for 'handouts' (or ENTITLEMENTS) in a fair, just and equal society.

Of course there would, the reason that society is unequal is because some people lack the ability to conserve what they have or make the effort to better their lot, if you decided to divide all the wealth in this country equally you would find that the bulk of it was back in the same hands within a generation.

I think you're wrong there albion. The reason that inequality exists is because the system is unequal and unjust in the first place. Those at the top are born with a silver spoon and there life is mapped out for them. The likes of Cameron, Osborne, Boris Johnson, etc. all went to Eton, all are related, and related to Royalty. None of them have the slightest clue how ordinary folk live. The system is weighted in favour of those who 'have', and against those who 'have-not'. The wealth stays in the same hands from one generation to the next. It's time to change that. We are not their slaves!

There are plenty of self made millionaires in the world. If you took the people from the most awful estate in the country and swapped them with the people from the most expensive area you would find that the expensive area became awful and the awful area became expensive, history proves this to have always been so, even in times centuries ago artisans from humble beginnings made good for themselves. If you changed all that you would soon find that some people would rise to the top and often prove to be more tyrannical than those that they replaced, you can't brainwash society into a uniform thought process unless you bring in cloning or robots.

As an alternative to both Capitalism AND Communism, remove the 'top', so that there is no 'top' to rise to. Abandon the goal of economic growth, de-centralize government, create small-scale local economies utilizing local resources in a sustainable manner, use available technology to improve people's lives rather than maximizing profit, stop producing anything we don't actually need and produce only that which we do need. That way everyone in spciety would have a valid role and no-one would be any better-off than anyone else. It won't work though UNLESS the most vital part of the overall plan is adhered to; ie. abandoning the goal of economic growth. That is where Cameron's 'Big Society' falls down and cannot work.

To do so would require compulsion, it just doesnt work without enforcement, so no thanks. I dont have a great deal of faith in Cameron but he is only like others before him, here for a limited time, The rather drastic looking (to some) measures he is instigating will at least put us back on firm foundations given time.

Trouble is, you can't enforce people to become less selfish, less materialistic, and more altruistic and spiritual (as opposed to them being utterly grounded in earthly concerns) but you can encourage them to do so by creating the right conditions and through leading by example, again where Cameron fails as he expounds the 'virtues' of Capitalism and remains obsessed with economic growth. The two are entirely incompatible. Rather than laying firm foundations, the Tories are attempting to use the same foundations; a house built on sand will crumble.

I think what you propose would be a country running at the pace of the slowest rather than the fastest, a country which would quite frankly be miserable.
Despite your reservations we do have a great deal of freedom in this country and people do manage to opt out to a great extent if that is their wish, the only way to change these things would be by even more state intervention, it reminds me of reading a Green Party manifesto where everything would either be banned or compulsory.
We could debate this all day but neither of us is going to change our views.

Less is more. Small is beautiful. Misery only arises from the battle that rages within, with one's Ego that eternally wants. But until such a system is devised or brought about, and whilst people remain unable to satisfy their **** for material possesions, Socialism has to be the only other option.

watcher14 wrote:
This so called killing for fun supports full time and part time jobs and brings money into the local community! I do think alot of people are moving away from the actual article of walkers being stopped on footpaths. I think it is always going to be a conflict of interests but i don't really think the shooters will have actually got into conflict over access they might have asked them to stop for a few moments for there own safety but i'd hope nothing more then that!

So does crime! It creates a mass of jobs. And there was almost a crime committed when a 'fat boy' tried to stop me fell running over Ilkley Moor during a grouse shoot a few years ago. At the request of one of the 'marshals'? whilst out running across the moor (a decent enough chap by the way!) I stopped and knelt down out of site of of those large aeronautically challenged birds flying at the speed of a 'flock'? of tortoises (for approximately 10-15 mins, so as not to spoil the apparent 'challenge' in the taking down of these birds from all of 30 yds! with spreading shot) and waited for the grouse beaters to pass through. Then, when given the ok and thanked for my assistance I set off running until said 'fat boy' with stick tried to prevent me going any further. He accused me of trespassing and ruining the shoot and said I could be prosecuted and whatever. Well, I told 'fat boy' where to go pushed past him and carried on with my run. So the grouse shooters have lost my support -of sorts- because 'fat boy' tried to look big and tough in front of a load of students by claiming something that wasn't true. He didn't succeed in preventing me running and he didn't prosecute me! What he did do was lose any possibility of future support from me for shooting on the moor.

I had a similer incident a couple of years ago as i live in Ilkley, i saw some of these people walking on part of my garden(well its a bit of land that the house is built on). when i asked them to leave they got a bit harsh with me saying they have a right to walk in that area, not on my land they dont?

in the end i had to call the police to remove them, these ramblers were really rude and aggresive, they think that they can walk whereever they feel does not matter to them if they are trespassing then they try to tell you what the law says.

To me it says get of my land or i will set my dogs on to you.

i have been to a couple of these shooting parties they are well organized people in the area know when and where they are taking place, but still these people will walk on to the land it is a danger one of these days someone will get hurt but they dont listern, why can they not find somewhere else to walk the moors are big enough for everyone.

their are areas where they can go and walk with out causing a nusance ,its l

Nice people who kill animals for fun