Poll- Who has responded to the consultation on trophy hunting?

Have you responded to the DEFRA consultation on trophy hunting?

  • Yes- done

    Votes: 102 83.6%
  • No- don't intend to

    Votes: 11 9.0%
  • No- but I will before the 25th January

    Votes: 8 6.6%
  • Undecided

    Votes: 1 0.8%

  • Total voters
    122
Sent my response and made it quite clear I hold the whole thing in complete contempt as it is rigged. Question 8 asks for you to state that you either hold their option 1 to be your first or second choice. Then you can pick one of the remaining 4 options as second choice. So in effect you have to put option 1 as second choice (although it would not be an option I would chose at all) then have option 4 (keep things as they are) as first choice. Absolutely rigged. These wan**rs are a disgrace, and clearly have already decided they are to begin to limit movement of "trophies". As for the changing of sentences and enforcement that could be a weapon of mass destruction in the future if it was ever decided to ban the ownership of any such items retrospectively.
 
Yep told them the same ,it is no option ,the wording is done to make it look like you agree when clearly no we dont at all ,total shambles so Boris,s mrs is happy and he doesnt make the papers for shouting at her again
 
Sent my response and made it quite clear I hold the whole thing in complete contempt as it is rigged. Question 8 asks for you to state that you either hold their option 1 to be your first or second choice. Then you can pick one of the remaining 4 options as second choice. So in effect you have to put option 1 as second choice (although it would not be an option I would chose at all) then have option 4 (keep things as they are) as first choice.
I used the "none" option as my 2nd choice
 
I have responded and I dont think I left any doubt about my views, particularly links to conservation.
 
I used the "none" option as my 2nd choice

For my second choice I proposed that there be greater bi-lateral governmental engagement on conservation projects and to use the experience of those collaborative bodies as the source for draft legislation, if any. It seems absurd that an illiberal western metro-elite can formulate conservation-jeopardising legislation over a round of lattes and ignore that which the governments of Africa have spent decades honing.

Namibia has the most black rhinos of any nation. It is better to ask them how they did that rather than to tell them they cannot sell trophies "because we think so".
 
So what did you put as first choice then. It would appear that you may now have put a further restriction of one kind or another as your first choice?
8 Please state your first and second preferred option:
ranking - Option one: A ban on hunting trophies from certain species entering or leaving the UK.:
ranking - Option two: Stricter requirements for clear benefits to conservation and local communities to be demonstrated before hunting trophies from certain species are permitted to enter or leave the UK.:
ranking - Option three: A ban on all hunting trophies entering or leaving the UK.:
ranking - Option four: Do nothing - continue to apply current controls based on internationally agreed rules.: 1
ranking - None: Please suggest any alternatives.: 2

I then suggested pretty much as Zambezi states, although less eloquently

If you disagree with all the other options then why on earth would you annotate a preference ranking against it??
 
Sent my response and made it quite clear I hold the whole thing in complete contempt as it is rigged. Question 8 asks for you to state that you either hold their option 1 to be your first or second choice. Then you can pick one of the remaining 4 options as second choice. So in effect you have to put option 1 as second choice (although it would not be an option I would chose at all) then have option 4 (keep things as they are) as first choice. Absolutely rigged. These wan**rs are a disgrace, and clearly have already decided they are to begin to limit movement of "trophies". As for the changing of sentences and enforcement that could be a weapon of mass destruction in the future if it was ever decided to ban the ownership of any such items retrospectively.

That's one reason why I emailed my response, rather than mess with their survey - both methods of response are supposed to carry equal weight, plus I bunged in a load of links regarding how African game is more, rather than less diverse thanks to hunting making it financially worthwhile keeping huge areas as wilderness.

PS A mere 55 of the membership here appear to have read this thread & responded - pretty apathetic IMO, as it's not just those of us wishing to hunt abroad who will be affected by any ban,
 
8 Please state your first and second preferred option:
ranking - Option one: A ban on hunting trophies from certain species entering or leaving the UK.:
ranking - Option two: Stricter requirements for clear benefits to conservation and local communities to be demonstrated before hunting trophies from certain species are permitted to enter or leave the UK.:
ranking - Option three: A ban on all hunting trophies entering or leaving the UK.:
ranking - Option four: Do nothing - continue to apply current controls based on internationally agreed rules.: 1
ranking - None: Please suggest any alternatives.: 2

I then suggested pretty much as Zambezi states, although less eloquently

If you disagree with all the other options then why on earth would you annotate a preference ranking against it??
I could not move on in the questionnaire if I did not select either 1 or 2 for question 8; option1. It gave me no option to only select option 4 and none. On my survey there was a line between option 1 and the following options, which appeared to distinguish that particular answer from the others. Out of interest how long ago did you complete the survey?
 
I wonder if the emailed comments will be reviewed along with the rather engineered questions.
I lived a few doors away from an ex teacher at one place and became quite friendly with her, she gave up teaching and worked for the civil service in some kind of operation that conducted the very type of questions such as these, great lengths were taken when arranging the questions so as to achieve the correct result they were after. the pay was quite a bit higher than teaching, as a single mother [widowed] it put her daughter through a good college I recall.
 
Out of interest how long ago did you complete the survey?

Yesterday.

Although "none" is not listed as an option per se, it did appear to be an option as such as I was not forced to choose any of the marked options for my 2nd choice. It would appear this wasn't the case for you when you completed it so maybe they fixed the anomaly.
 
Hi All,

It looks like the deadline has been extended until 25th Feb, so perhaps all the various shooting organisations can perhaps get some more people to put their views across!!!!

I appreciate it appears it that only a few people who travel abroad would be affected, but option three would not do the UK deer stalking industry any favours, many of us would probably think this would be another method to limit shooting and stalking full stop?

Rgds
 
8 Please state your first and second preferred option:
ranking - Option one: A ban on hunting trophies from certain species entering or leaving the UK.:
ranking - Option two: Stricter requirements for clear benefits to conservation and local communities to be demonstrated before hunting trophies from certain species are permitted to enter or leave the UK.:
ranking - Option three: A ban on all hunting trophies entering or leaving the UK.:
ranking - Option four: Do nothing - continue to apply current controls based on internationally agreed rules.: 1
ranking - None: Please suggest any alternatives.: 2

I then suggested pretty much as Zambezi states, although less eloquently

If you disagree with all the other options then why on earth would you annotate a preference ranking against it??


I did the same

S
 
When I first responded options 3 and 4 were only available after extra clicks and a none option was not even available - but you still had to select 2 options meaning that you had to select one that was clearly against your views. So I expressed my disappointment to the obvious bias that the survey had. I also replied along the lines of what would we know about the local population situation of a species in any country when we cannot even manage an accurate deer and boar count in the UK. Also how would we know when a ban on culling excess animals, with a by product that was a trophy, would have an adverse effect on the local economy that would be detrimental to conservation efforts.
 
Hi All,

It looks like the deadline has been extended until 25th Feb, so perhaps all the various shooting organisations can perhaps get some more people to put their views across!!!!

I appreciate it appears it that only a few people who travel abroad would be affected, but option three would not do the UK deer stalking industry any favours, many of us would probably think this would be another method to limit shooting and stalking full stop?

Rgds
BASC emailed me today with a breakdown of options and a link to email defra. Did it this afternoon .
 
When I first responded options 3 and 4 were only available after extra clicks and a none option was not even available - but you still had to select 2 options meaning that you had to select one that was clearly against your views.
Think I would resubmit.......
 
The very term used - "trophy hunting" - obscures the fact that this is a consultation which is about a potentially very wide range of hunting memorabilia, and that it has huge repercussions for conservation and for rural economies both in the U.K. and abroad. The whole anti "trophy hunting" movement is simply anti hunting in all forms. Fake news and emotive stories are everywhere, and our organisations need to really wake their members up to it.
 
This morning's fake news story is about polar bears being hunted to extinction (daily star). The principal source seems to be Ole Liodden, who was one of the platform party at the recent meeting held by Goldsmith et al.
It is BS but it made this morning's newspaper review on Sky, being taken at face value.
 
Back
Top