The most significant research on shooting for a decade
- Thread starter Conor O'Gorman
- Start date
big ears
Well-Known Member
I agree but we too need to accept that it’s not all good. Releasing millions of birds a year does affect the ecosystem in a negative way. There IS raptor killing in shooting areas. Something ALL pro shooting agencies deny but it is happening. The antis know this there is good evidence that the ecosystem around big shoots is not normal.
I’m not being negative but we cannot win this. Driven shooting in all its forms perhaps has had its day.
I understand your point, when you refer to the ecosystem around driven shoots, given all land is managed to a greater or lesser extent, arguably there is evidence that all land is not 'natural' and therefore not 'normal'. Whether the benefits to society as a whole justify the release of birds, i haven't read the report yet so not sure what is says about such shooting.
big ears
Well-Known Member
That’s a fair point and farming has changed ploughing less to try and protect the soil but the use of herbicides, neonicatinoids and high nitrogen fertilisers are taking their toll. This is to put food on our plate.
Driven game shooting cannot say that! The article talks about conservation but it is really putting glitter on a brown thing to make it sparkle. The numbers are small and meaningless in comparison to the area put down to driven shooting.
I’m not sure the sums of money made and the sums of money in the rural economy match, I’m sure there are large profits being made which don’t feature in the sums. Most employees are on minimum wage I bet.
Think the whole business needs to come clean on environmental impact, illegal raptor control, profits made and perhaps even taxes paid as it’s topical at the moment
I personally believe if Driven shooting stopped tomorrow the rest of the shooters in this country (vermin & deer) would have an easier time of it. As said in another thread the wounding of animals in the name of fun/sport to many is very difficult.
BE
jimmer.13
Well-Known Member
Agree to a point, however it’s how you make your point to the public about the value of shooting.
I would imagine the majority of the general public don’t care what we do as it as no impact on their day to day lives.
But…….. when a group or influencer starts to bang on about field sports in a negative manner, it’s essential to have a group or an organisation to counter the spin and fight our corner. Subtle education and good PR most would agree is key to counter the antis and Woke brigade. Beat them at there own game but in a manner that the general public will side with you.
Telling folks your point of view constantly puts you in the Vegan Just stop oil blob. The public mostly are bored with the pink haired malnutritioned keffiyeh wearing botty bandits. Having proven well sourced facts, presented in a practical reasoned manner, will defeat the screaming woketards hands down.
Not bashing @connorgorman on this one.
Well done I say
Id be very careful about what one 'wishes' for. The antis are not keen on any shooting, or fishing for that matter as far as i can make out.
In a world where logic and facts have little if any bearing on the drafting of legislation, the ending of one shooting activity (e.g. drive), is likley to herald the start of the campaign against other shooting activities. JMHO of course.
big ears
Well-Known Member
Yes but their arguments will be very weak. At the moment they have the moral high ground in the public’s view. Once the fun/sport element of shooting high numbers goes then we can start to turn the argument our way. It’s Driven shooting they want stopped. Even Packham and Avery accept that walked up one for the pot is sustainable.
It’s harsh I know but Driven shooting doesn’t do us any favours.
Gruffterbear
Member
I can understand the 'whats the point' negativity around attempts to explain the benefits of shooting and preserve the management of the land through our sport. Yes, there are ardent anti-shooting folks who's mind will never be swayed. However they are actually the minority (although they make a lot of noise...). The majority are normal folks who get pulled into the popularist 'anti' view point because they simply don't understand shooting, habitat conservation/management, pragmatic population management through culling & predator control etc, etc
Most don't ever consider that fact that humans have been custodians & shapers of our environment for thousands of years and that we have a continued responsibility to continue that management (often in the absence of most of our natural predatory species). To 'drop the mic' on our responsibility to this land because of a vocal minority who have the luxury of shopping for their food instead of working for it would be a catastrophic failure.
The education of this well intentioned but disconnected and poorly informed majority is hugely important. It is worth every effort we can put into it.
Why?
Because their minds can be changed with the correct information & logical, reasoned debate.
I've lost count of the amount of positive conversations I've had with city dwelling (yes, I live in a city too) left of center folks on game shooting, stalking, countryside management and my choices on the consumption of wild meat versus intensive farming.
Almost all have ended with them changing their minds completely (maybe just to get rid of me...). In addition, they have led to some serious debates on human nature, our disconnection with the natural order, sustainable farming & animal welfare.
So, in short, it is worth every effort we can make to educate the ill-informed majority. It does make a difference.
Most don't ever consider that fact that humans have been custodians & shapers of our environment for thousands of years and that we have a continued responsibility to continue that management (often in the absence of most of our natural predatory species). To 'drop the mic' on our responsibility to this land because of a vocal minority who have the luxury of shopping for their food instead of working for it would be a catastrophic failure.
The education of this well intentioned but disconnected and poorly informed majority is hugely important. It is worth every effort we can put into it.
Why?
Because their minds can be changed with the correct information & logical, reasoned debate.
I've lost count of the amount of positive conversations I've had with city dwelling (yes, I live in a city too) left of center folks on game shooting, stalking, countryside management and my choices on the consumption of wild meat versus intensive farming.
Almost all have ended with them changing their minds completely (maybe just to get rid of me...). In addition, they have led to some serious debates on human nature, our disconnection with the natural order, sustainable farming & animal welfare.
So, in short, it is worth every effort we can make to educate the ill-informed majority. It does make a difference.
Gruffterbear
Member
I must confess...it is very difficult to justify the huge corporate driven shoots, where the game goes to waste. More needs to be done to integrate them into the food production chain. After all, they are really just very, very inefficient poultry farms right?
Conor O'Gorman
Well-Known Member
Just to note that the Value of Shooting Report covers all aspects of live quarry and target shooting with contributions from 24 organisations as listed in the OP.
The estimated number of participants by shooting discipline in the UK are:
https://valueofshooting.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/dlm_uploads/2024/05/The-Value-of-Shooting-2024-.pdf
The estimated number of participants by shooting discipline in the UK are:
- Clay target 366,000
- Game shooting 293,000
- Pest and predator control 255,000
- Deer management/stalking 120,000
- Air rifle and pistol 106,000
- Small-bore rifle shooting 104,000
- Full-bore rifle shooting 97,000
- Wildfowling/inland duck and goose shooting 95,000
https://valueofshooting.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/dlm_uploads/2024/05/The-Value-of-Shooting-2024-.pdf
big ears
Well-Known Member
You are absolutely right but to win that argument then you have admit that driven shooting is damaging the environment locally and any conservation work is a bit like BP buying green offsets.
Predator control is done to protect the birds primarily and adjacent wildlife is secondary but used as an excuse. Buzzards and other Raptors are shot by gamekeepers.
Look at the figures of participants in driven shooting in the article they make up a minority. Now look at the BASC magazine the majority of articles are aimed at driven shooting.
Large corporate days where hundreds of birds are killed and wounded and very little eaten does not put us in a good light.
As Barack Obama said ,”you can put lipstick on a pig, but it’s still a pig”
Gruffterbear
Member
Big driven shoots do cause local damage. I've seen the impact that big driven shoots have on the local landscape first hand. I've also see piles of birds going to waste. So I completely understand your point. However I do not believe it is as simple as the 'all driven shooting is bad' message that's being pushed by the vocal minority. I would not put all driven shots into the same category. For every big driven shoot there are dozens of small syndicates proving rough and walked up shooting, and yes, some driven. My experience is that the majority of those smaller shoots play a much more balanced & mutual role in county & wildlife management that people realize. Yes, birds are put down, but the provision of habitat (including predator control) for game birds also provides for wild birds (especially ground nesting) and migratory species. The feed for game birds also provides for the same (many amateur keepers would say most of their feed does!). For every pheasant I've shot I've seen Teal, Mallard, Woodcock, Snipe all benefiting from the work done to keep mashes & ponds in order and rough land managed to shoot over and provide nesting habitat. Despite being surrounded by Buzzards, Sparrow Hawks, Harriers and Kites in very healthy numbers, no shooter or amateur keeper I have ever known has condoned shooting raptures. I don't doubt it happens but attitudes have radically changed from the 'bad old days'.
Yes, the big shoots have a lot to answer for when providing sport for profit. So does intensive farming when providing excess of meat so supermarkets can sell it cheap. If are to look at big driven shoots (and I believe we should), we must also look at intensive farming for supermarket profits that has decimated our countryside for decades. I understand farming is for food and shooting is for sport...but current farming practice is for cheap meat and profit much more than it is to feed the nation.
I think fundamentally we are on the same page and in the court of public opinion 'big shoots are bad'.....but there is a greater understanding that the public would benefit from achieving, and we'd benefit if they did!
Yes, the big shoots have a lot to answer for when providing sport for profit. So does intensive farming when providing excess of meat so supermarkets can sell it cheap. If are to look at big driven shoots (and I believe we should), we must also look at intensive farming for supermarket profits that has decimated our countryside for decades. I understand farming is for food and shooting is for sport...but current farming practice is for cheap meat and profit much more than it is to feed the nation.
I think fundamentally we are on the same page and in the court of public opinion 'big shoots are bad'.....but there is a greater understanding that the public would benefit from achieving, and we'd benefit if they did!
big ears
Well-Known Member
Yes agree. It’s the big driven shoots I mean. Local small walked up, odd drive shoots are not the ones I mean. It’s the ones that shooting shows on YouTube love showcasing.
Gruffterbear
Member
Redaction: I don't believe 'farming has a lot to answer for'. Most farmers are just trying to survive. Its the market driving the price down for profit that is the root problem.
Gruffterbear
Member
Its great to discuss and share views. I'd just very much like to see Chris Packham and Natural England etc turn their sights on the supermarkets for indirectly causing so much destruction to our environment & hardship to our rural communities. I'd like to see how they got on & whether the public was as easily swayed to back the 'anti-cheap-meat' movement as they are the anti-shooting one!
big ears
Well-Known Member
For me the supermarkets and the power they yield are at the heart of a lot of our rural problems. Few businesses down here gone bust due to the weather affecting crop and supermarkets paying not the full amount.
FWIW i think the problem is not about big shoots per se, not because of the damage they may cause but because of the perception that its the 'rich nobs' that partake. Its prejudice thing, combined with a dose of sentimentality thrown in.
Yes i have been on driver days but with a bag size 175birds or thereabouts, but to be frank, id be really, really surprised if those who were anti shooting driven game would say it was ok to drive and shoot 150 birds. Could be wrong., on this front i think those arguing about big bag days are missing the point.
Yes i have been on driver days but with a bag size 175birds or thereabouts, but to be frank, id be really, really surprised if those who were anti shooting driven game would say it was ok to drive and shoot 150 birds. Could be wrong., on this front i think those arguing about big bag days are missing the point.
Gruffterbear
Member
A good point. Its the 'rich folks paying to kill stuff' aspect that many find hard to process. There is definitely a debate to be had around what's hunting and what's sport... and the differences (perceived or actual). If all the game on driven shoots, regardless of size, were eaten it would help to simplify the moral/ethical argument a little: discuss the difference between an abattoir worker killing your meat versus a gun on a peg? That's a healthy debate on personal responsibility and food choices!
So, forgive me, I'm going deep here:
I've talked to many folks about the enjoyment around hunting. I enjoy it and I work hard to explain why to others. Hunting is a hard wired instinct in most of us (if not all, when we are hungry). Humans have been hunting for millennia. The achievement of a successful hunt brings great enjoyment/satisfaction/fulfilment. That's basic brain chemistry rewarding us for surviving another day. I am unashamed of this and most folks I talk too can understand it too, regardless of their ethical stance. It helps to explain the 'enjoyment' of sport shooting. There is however an important part of hunting that I believe lies at the root of your point: when 'hunting' for food you enter into a moral contract to respect your quarry and eat it. This balances out the 'thrill' of the kill & 'justifies' it...certainly its helped me when taking to folks who are detached from their food & struggling to understand.
The problem, as you rightly say, is when there is a perception that 'rich nobs' pay to kill without honoring that contract. They just walk away and leave their birds. If the game we shoot all went into the food chain, it would help. Then we could say to those anti hunting who were against a 150 bird day: is it better for a gun to do the work or a man in a white apron?
So, forgive me, I'm going deep here:
I've talked to many folks about the enjoyment around hunting. I enjoy it and I work hard to explain why to others. Hunting is a hard wired instinct in most of us (if not all, when we are hungry). Humans have been hunting for millennia. The achievement of a successful hunt brings great enjoyment/satisfaction/fulfilment. That's basic brain chemistry rewarding us for surviving another day. I am unashamed of this and most folks I talk too can understand it too, regardless of their ethical stance. It helps to explain the 'enjoyment' of sport shooting. There is however an important part of hunting that I believe lies at the root of your point: when 'hunting' for food you enter into a moral contract to respect your quarry and eat it. This balances out the 'thrill' of the kill & 'justifies' it...certainly its helped me when taking to folks who are detached from their food & struggling to understand.
The problem, as you rightly say, is when there is a perception that 'rich nobs' pay to kill without honoring that contract. They just walk away and leave their birds. If the game we shoot all went into the food chain, it would help. Then we could say to those anti hunting who were against a 150 bird day: is it better for a gun to do the work or a man in a white apron?
Agree re the moral contract and our oplbigasoitn to our quarry, whatever it is, whtehr itsd food or pest.
big ears
Well-Known Member
Like you the hunting instinct is there.
I’m not however sure that those who turn up and shoot 300-500 birds have the same instinct. Putting the shot game into the food chain does not make right the fact that those doing it are only interested in the kill. It’s like BP and green offsets again.
The class war thing is real and you have hit the nail on the head. Certainly Tingay and Avery have an issue with rich people shooting and this motivated them to be so vociferous
This is why I said that if you took the driven days out, the argument for shooting is suddenly easier. We are all tarred with the brush of bulldozing pheasants into landfill and toffs in tweed.
Similar threads
