Response to BASC questions from the Green Party

Good evening All.
I recently received a BASC email requesting me to ask my local politicians their views on shooting. Since being a member I feel it my duty to do these things as it's no point being a member of a group trying to help our activities if we don't help them.
So I sent the pre prepared emails and got a few replies.
Most were just one word answers and obviously had no interest. The Green part candidate did atleast reply in person and in a rather more full way.

Here is the reply.

Dear John,


Thank you for your email. While much shooting activity does not harm animals the Green Party is fundamentally opposed to all blood-sports. We oppose the killing of, or infliction of pain or suffering upon, animals in the name of sport or leisure, and will work to end all such practices.









1. Do you support shooting sports conducted according to the law and the current codes of practice?
I oppose the shooting of animals in the name of sport or leisure

2. Will you join the All Party Group on Shooting and Conservation?
No

Regards,


Graham Bliss










Now I could have picked through the answers and in a pedantic and negative way responded. Perhaps I could have asked what shooting (other than at pretend targets) does he know of that does not harm animals? Since his reply says "While much shooting activity does not harm animals".

Or perhaps he could explain if people having a barbeque eating a lamb chop that are not starving and are just eating because it's sociable and enjoyable are being cruel as that lamb died for their leisure!

However I felt this would be counter productive, so thought I send the following instead.

Good evening Graham.
Firstly I would like to thank you for taking the time to respond to my email. I appreciate it, given you will have been very busy with the election only days away.
I’m sure you are happy that some of your party candidates did receive some support and in some instances gained more votes than the Lib dems or ukip.
While I accept that everyone has the right to an opinion and we will never all agree on everything I would ask that you indulge me and read the remainder of this email.

I whole heartedly agree with your sentiment on blood sports where there is barbarity pure and simple. I.e bear baiting or dog fighting or cock fighting. This is not sport or “fair chase” or has nothing to do with the management of our countryside.
However I did not ask you for your opinion on blood sports but on shooting.

Now I accept that you may feel that to kill something in the name of recreation is unnecessary but would have to disagree. Assuming you accept that we live in a country where almost all of our countryside is managed for some purpose or another and is not “wild” you will see that part of that is to manage the animals that live within it and affect it by their presence. Sometimes their presence is to the detriment of the environment or other animals.
This can and is done by full time “professional” people such as game keepers and deer stalkers, along with pest controllers when dealing with rabbits or rats/mice. Many large landowners/managers such as the Forestry Commission or English Heritage do use professionals employed on a full time basis. Other smaller land owners could not afford the expense of such staff and so use people like me.
I have a full time job unrelated to wildlife management, but love the outdoors and being in the countryside. I have undertaken a lot of recognised training to substantiate my years of experience of controlling animal populations. So you could say I do this in a recreational capacity as I do not earn any money from doing it (in fact I pay for the privilege), but I am as qualified and experienced as many “professionals”. This is the case for many thousands of people across the country who take their role in wildlife management very seriously along with the welfare of the animals and ensure that they operate according to best practice guidelines and sound ethical principals.
To be honest it is quite offensive to me that you would put me and others such as me in the same bracket as someone who would take part in a dog fight or badger baiting. There is absolutely no similarity between such activities.
I would ask that you and others within your party consider talking to people such as BASC or other representative groups so you can be given a true and rational explanation on why people shoot. I think you would find many country people who understand much of what your party stand for and in many cases are the very people who improve and manage the environment around us, which is as diverse in its nature as the people who live in it and enjoy its beauty. Many country people live fairly sustainable lives, with little travel, low C02 emissions and ultimately eat the animals they manage.
A far cry from those who travel miles to their work, shop in supermarkets consuming meat that has travelled many hundreds of miles and required feed to be shipped to them. It’s not fair to suggest that a hunter is barbaric or cruel for shooting an animal in its own environment in a professional, calm and safe way when many of your own party will be eating meat that has been farmed (in some of the best conditions in the world) but has had to endure the stress of travelling to a factory to be processed and made into an unrecognisable product wrapped in plastic for those that have neither the skill or the gumption to go out and find their own sustenance.
Thankyou for reading and I hope I may just stir you to look a little deeper into the world of shooting and the important and necessary role it plays in this country.

Have any others asked their local politicians and had a reply worth noting?

 

[Tartan_Terrier]

Nice reply you gave him. I saw a post on Facebook recently where someone had asked their local candidates about attitudes to shooting, the one from the Green Party was the only one to give him an actual answer too.

 

[Millerich]

That's a great letter. I look forward to the reply.

 

[kieran222]

Interesting, but not sure that anybody who is anti hunting will be persuaded that shooting is for management purposes. I think that the argument for this is defeated by the rearing and then shooting of pheasants/partridge/etc. (I am a member of a local pheasant shoot). Management of deer/foxes/rabbits could be justified as they are not reared and I don't think that anybody could reasonably argue that they don't need to be managed.

 

[mariner]

Superb reply and I also would be interested in his response but I suspect he wouldn't have got half way through it
Before deleting it!

 

[wildfowler1]

A very rounded and put together letter well done John.Wf1

 

[flytie]

WM,

Well done, a very thoughtful, moderate and cogent letter to which I hope you receive a reply.

Simon.

 

[woodmaster]

Interesting, but not sure that anybody who is anti hunting will be persuaded that shooting is for management purposes. I think that the argument for this is defeated by the rearing and then shooting of pheasants/partridge/etc. (I am a member of a local pheasant shoot). Management of deer/foxes/rabbits could be justified as they are not reared and I don't think that anybody could reasonably argue that they don't need to be managed.

I agree with you Kieran, but based my reply on deer stalking in the main. As you say there is less of a sound argument for the shooting of reared birds if one only looks at the physical aspect of "do we need to do this"? Rather than seeing the other benefits to the environment and rural economy as part of the game shooting scene. I have been on game shoots and enjoyed the challenge of some difficult birds along with the camaraderie of being with others who enjoy the countryside and shooting. That said it does not give me the pleasure and challenge that stalking does. My only reply I could give if asked to justify the practice of rearing birds only to shoot them in the name of sport is as follows.
Aside from the known environmental and economic benefits of game shooting, I see no difference to rearing birds and releasing them into the countryside to grow in a organic and almost natural way, to then be harvested by people who take pleasure in being in that environment and having the challenge of harvesting those birds in order that they can then eat them.
Again when compared with many other people who will accept millions of chickens are reared in artificial environments eating only prepared food and are slaughtered in a factory with no chance of escape only to end up on a supermarket shelf at the lowest possible price. Because its so cheap perhaps being wasted and thrown in the bin 4 days later because the purchaser didn't really "need" it.

So if the anti's are to ask "do we need to shoot game birds"? I would say yes, as they form a part of my diet, just like chicken may be part of yours. Difference is I go and get mine from the countryside rather than expecting someone else to.
That's why we should all eat the game we shoot, not waste it. In other countries it is illegal to shoot a deer or moose and leave the meat.

Thanks for the interest though, I'll be amazed if I get a reply let alone to have inspired him to become more informed. But we must try if we are to have any chance of retaining our right to hunt/shoot.
I have had similar discussions many times, as in conversations over the years when going into a pub or cafe etc while in my stalking gear. I've been asked if I'm hunting. I never feel embarrassed or shy away from the fact that I love to hunt and feel totally justified in my actions. So I'm happy to discuss the rationale behind my actions. I hope many other do the same.

 

[Alantoo]

Any of my Green Party voting friends and relatives who are Vegetarian or vegans have always accepted my position with no problem....I think killing an animal for food or protecting potential food, is a pretty fundamental/natural part of life and ecosystem...we are just another predator.

Another useful argument is that I would not eat meat if I was not prepared to do the killing and butchering myself. If one feels there is anything "wrong" about it then delegating the process to someone else, paying the food industry to do the "wrong" thing on your behalf is doubly immoral.

The assumption of attitude held by any given party supporter is the reason I don't like the enforced tribalism of Party Politics. Much too black and white. Is there anybody that believes wholeheartedly in every policy of the Party they voted for? Are there no vegetarian/anti-shooting/hunting/pro NHS Conservative voters?

Alan