Countryfile - shooting's role in the countryside
- Thread starter Conor O'Gorman
- Start date
Quire right. Even from a purely utilitarian perspective that would be wrong. A diversity of land uses is ultimately better than everyone doing what is currently deemed the most profitable or preferable for any other reason. Policies are nearly always wrong at some point in time or other.
Respect for diversity doesn't just mean employing women, ethnic minorities, unusually gendered, lefties or other disabled people. It means not being an anti.
Dunwaters
Well-Known Member
Theres absolutely going to be comparisons, the exercise is pointless otherwise. What concerns me is what they pluck out of the fruit bowl to base their comparison on. Deer stalking is easy to justify as necessary, so is shooting for crop protection, when we get to vermin control to protect ground nesting birds and grouse moor management we have science on our side, but large scale poultry ranching is our Achilles heel.
Its very difficult to justify.
timbrayford
Well-Known Member
Best to await the broadcast before commenting?
Malxwal
Well-Known Member
So by extension, large scale chicken farming is unjustified, large scale any farming is unjustified.
Whatever your thoughts and feelings on driven bird shooting are, when it goes, so do your rifles.
There is absolutely no need to compare and contrast these two differing models of land use, unless you're doing it solely on an abstracted financial basis.
I'll just say thirty + years, no further comment.
Dunwaters
Well-Known Member
No, large scale chicken farming produces cheap food, as does farming generally.
Large scale poultry ranching exists purely to meet the demand for driven game shooting and the income it generates. It is a pure leisure activity the demand for which drives a lot of what we do in the countryside.
We have accepted that sport shooting is good for the countryside without question, but now questions are being asked and some of the answers are a little less than convincing.
I witnesses the following scene at a shoot recently.
A gun had shot his first ever pheasant so I took it from the picker up and handed it to him to pose for a photo, one of the other guns asked him what he was doing and remarked that he personally wouldn’t be touching any birds or taking any home to eat because of bird flu.
Both the gamekeeper and the estate manager overheard the remarks, neither said a word to the gun.
Last edited by a moderator:
People shoot driven game in general because they enjoy doing so and for many is a tradition, numbers to me not relevant nor to many others and has been practised in this country for a very long time as was fox hunting.
People do it for enjoyment if others don’t agree fine, none of their business.
Edit people shoot driven game for enjoyment, some provide that pleasure for money or joy of inviting others.
People do it for enjoyment if others don’t agree fine, none of their business.
Edit people shoot driven game for enjoyment, some provide that pleasure for money or joy of inviting others.
Last edited:
Malxwal
Well-Known Member
I'd say by the sounds of it, you'd be happy to see the demise of driven shooting (unfortunately like many on here).
We can agree to disagree. The BBC could quite simply have run the feature on the shooting estate and it's benefits to local community on its own, without any apples and oranges comparisons. Now that would have shown complete impartiality, the very thing we most often find lacking in Countryphile and the BBC.
That seems a little unfair at my reading as I’m sure Mr. Dunwater is only communicating what is quite obviously a fact and that should be the starting point for defence of what is no more than a sport, and at best one given of a certain cultural tradition.
Namely that shooters enjoy killing challengingly presented pheasants and are happy to pay for the privilege. Therefore Game Shooters and their representatives (BASC etc.) need to defend this position rather than tinkering at the edges of reality.
The same applies to deerstalking/management as although there is demonstrable need for such culling we need to provide a convincing narrative as to why one desires to be the person behind the trigger.
A lot more truth in defence of what we do is what I’d like to see but I guess that proves very difficult for many to contemplate.
K
Just a changing world with people who enjoy some aspects of what the countryside offers becoming less and those against increasing, put many pursuits to public vote now or in time no win regardless of what organisations may say.
Obviously control of some species needed regardless but not under the pleasure principle
Folks views will greatly depend on individuals position and love / passion for the countryside and field sports and involvement and for many what life is about and most not to be found on forums in my experience.
Shooting,and conservation shaped much of the countryside as it is today for better or worse, and along with legions of others been a conservationist and shooter for over 50 years and if others don’t like jog on or ban it.
Obviously control of some species needed regardless but not under the pleasure principle
Folks views will greatly depend on individuals position and love / passion for the countryside and field sports and involvement and for many what life is about and most not to be found on forums in my experience.
Shooting,and conservation shaped much of the countryside as it is today for better or worse, and along with legions of others been a conservationist and shooter for over 50 years and if others don’t like jog on or ban it.
Dunwaters
Well-Known Member
No, I dont think I would, but I’m having a hard time accepting accepting quite a bit of what I see nowadays.
The biggest change I see is that the game harvested has morphed from a valued food item with a ready market into an unwanted and often unsaleable by product.
I also don’t care for the attitude towards the game of some guns and keepers, theres a complete lack of empathy or any acknowledgment that we’re dealing with live sentient creatures, not clay discs.
Frankly I find it hard to accept large volume game shooting where the only purpose of the game is to serve as a live target.
I‘m a passionate bird shooter, to my mind there is no finer sport in all creation than shooting game over a pointing dog and I indulge myself as often as I can, my seasons bag will be under 20 pheasant with a few snipe and a woodcock or 2 to round it out and I’ll eat them myself, I don’t like being tarred with the same brush as the 250 a day crowd.
Economically game shooting is the king of country sports, far ahead of anything else, but that doesn’t mean that it should be immune from criticism or change.
Theres a lot to criticise.
If you were to debate the issue with a prize for the winner, would you prefer to argue the case for or against?
Sadly I think I’d opt for the case against, its a walk in the park compared to the pro shooting argument.
Tony Morgan
Well-Known Member
I'll just refer you to timbrayford #24
Cumbrian 1
Well-Known Member
I would say the majority of shoots are small syndicates where you walk one stand one, average bag 30 birds, cost for the season £500. Most shoots in the UK are not commercial, and to say that pheasant shooting is only for the very wealthy is simply not true.
Would really depend on who debating with and how valued the prize, sometimes lose battle win war and all that stuff..
In say a trial scenario with impartial and balenced judge would say “for” would be a win.
Some would argue shooting game over dogs is “arse” shooting and not sporting, I am not one, and a true sportsman would not either, 250 brace driven or 5 over dogs great day imo.
Eating of meat now not as popular as it was and many would no longer thank you for a brace of pheasants in uk
Criticism very much a personal thing depending on politics and religion and each to their own.
Know of no keepers professionally employed who do not have the greatest empathy for the birds they have reared, but perhaps love/hate relationship can exist.
A well respected head keeper and decorated soldier once told me that been a keeper in part was been nice to people you would much rather kick in the teeth
.
Last edited:
It isn’t a pure leisure activity. For many people it is their livelihood and it has important cultural, social and environmental aspects.
What are the questions? Who is asking them and why? You may find the answers less than convincing, in which case you’re quite entitled to your opinion and everyone else is equally entitled not to suffer the imposition of it. Personally, I have never read or heard any argument for banning or restricting any form of shooting live quarry which has any merit whatsoever. They are exclusively politically motivated, frequently communist and power seeking.
Evidently you found this gun’s behaviour distasteful. I find much distasteful about large, driven shoots. So what? Remove guns like that from the equation and the environment, rural economy, livelihoods, culture and interest of other types of shooters suffer too. Distaste or revulsion are not a good reason to restrict or ban anything, and this principle is widely respected across the board. Why should different standards apply to particular forms of field sports?
markyw
Well-Known Member
I felt the weakest piece was from BASC. Sounded like a poorly briefed politician when all that was needed was a factual answer to the questions asked.
That said, it seemed a balanced report except for not emphasising the 1300 acres vs 12500 acres difference, alongside the 20 cows and 4 pigs vs a much larger animal residency on the Welsh estate.
Mark
That said, it seemed a balanced report except for not emphasising the 1300 acres vs 12500 acres difference, alongside the 20 cows and 4 pigs vs a much larger animal residency on the Welsh estate.
Mark
Can we say that you didn't hear them say a word to the gun, they may have had a word in private, and I hope they did.
David.
Hmm... 39 responses and only 3 posted after the piece aired.
To be honest, I think shooters of all types should be welcoming with open arms any main-stream exposure that isn't directly negative/critical. Especially if there's a chance its actually quite positive.
Antis will always be antis, but most people know nothing and care little about shooting. The only way they come to know about it is by being told, and if the only narrative they hear is anti, that's all they have to go on.
The BASC haters can say what they like, at least BASC are doing something
To be honest, I think shooters of all types should be welcoming with open arms any main-stream exposure that isn't directly negative/critical. Especially if there's a chance its actually quite positive.
Antis will always be antis, but most people know nothing and care little about shooting. The only way they come to know about it is by being told, and if the only narrative they hear is anti, that's all they have to go on.
The BASC haters can say what they like, at least BASC are doing something
Similar threads
