islandgun Posted September 29, 2016 Report Share Posted September 29, 2016 It saddens me when so much time, money and effort is ploughed in by shooting organiations, magazines and indeed the shooting community as a whole into demonstrating the benefits game shooting brings to wildlife conservation, that we cannot even get the message across to some within our own sport. Quite how anyone who shoots can be minded not to support Grouse shooting or advocate the suspension of Woodcock shooting without any scientific basis is beyond me. I would think the sensible answer to the Woodcock question would be to wait until the GCWT complete their research rather rely on emotive hype and lobbying from those with an agenda. yes exactly and also to a much wider audience, the general public Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adge Cutler Posted September 29, 2016 Report Share Posted September 29, 2016 It saddens me when so much time, money and effort is ploughed in by shooting organiations, magazines and indeed the shooting community as a whole into demonstrating the benefits game shooting brings to wildlife conservation, that we cannot even get the message across to some within our own sport. Quite how anyone who shoots can be minded not to support Grouse shooting or advocate the suspension of Woodcock shooting without any scientific basis is beyond me. I would think the sensible answer to the Woodcock question would be to wait until the GCWT complete their research rather rely on emotive hype and lobbying from those with an agenda. I don't dispute this at all...in fact I've been trying to get this over to the BTO and RSPB at a regional level for years. Why should I support grouse shooting ..I don't enjoy it and I'm sure the super rich exponent's of it can afford better support than mine. That said I don't have a view on it either way. And Woodcock ?..what's the point ? It is scientifically proven by over 20 years of field survey by the BTO BBS that native woodcock are in serious decline. Ok so thousands of birds supplement the UK population from Europe each year granted.. Personally after studying the woodcock for many years and the incredible story of its migration I don't feel comfortable about shooting it at all. Each to his own. I don't disagree at all with shooting of reared birds which is sustainable...just not for me I'm afraid. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
panoma1 Posted September 29, 2016 Report Share Posted September 29, 2016 Like in many walks of life nowadays the zealots, inadequates and opinionated start campaigns in order to force their personal opinions on everyone else (usually by social media and lately by online petitions) and to further their own personal crusade, to many of these zealots the "end justifies the means". Lies, deliberate exaggeration and propaganda are all tools to be used in the attempt to persuade the gullible, inadequate and ignorant to support their moralising crusade. Then there are the pathetic bleeding hearts who will willingly give away everyone's future and freedoms because of their own feelings of inadequacy, evidenced by their need to fit in with the majority, be one of the herd and to cow tow to the political and moral positions taken by others.......this is the Politically Correct Brigade!.......Some may conclude that the foregoing demonstrates a blinding lack of personal moral fibre, individuality and character!......are these idiots really prepared to live in a world where everyone will be required to think and act the same as everyone else? And accept on everyone's behalf, that every action we take will be controlled? Because this will be the likely final result! For someone who has no moral objection to killing a living creature, then in the same breath state that on moral grounds, they don't kill this or that particular creature (which is a legal quarry species).......and imply that no one else should! is breathtakingly hypocritical............by then offering their agreement with and support to some zealot who's objective is to deprive everyone of their freedom to do so..............is not democracy..........it's cowardly, bullying and selfish beyond words. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harvey Donaldson Posted September 29, 2016 Report Share Posted September 29, 2016 Grouse shooters, game shooters and wild fowlers can fight their own corner as they please, but in a democratic society if sufficient weight of public numbers demand that statute be changed so be it (fox hunting for example). Would be the same with fishing. As much as I enjoy fishing if I couldn’t go I wouldn’t mither about it for long, just find something else to occupy my time. Well its clear you don’t have an overriding and all-consuming passion for hunting with a firearm or shotgun. If you did I refuse to believe you would be so sanguine at the prospect of the “people's will” depriving you of such. This kind of pull up the ladder Jack mentality that fails to recognise the need to concede not an inch, and sometimes on issues one has little if any interest or indeed sympathy, is why we are in the pickle we now so clearly are. Hell, you must be the Gentlemen who entered certain Police Station with me back in the day to surrender handguns and, on the way out, cheerfully spewed the following: “Never mind mate, they’ll never take away the long ones.” I could have kicked him in the nuts were it not for fear of losing my FAC! Ironically I agree with a lot of what you say about Packam but on this I’m afraid the only words that spring to mind when considering your imprudence are “clamp”, “nuts” and “tweak”. HD Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adge Cutler Posted September 29, 2016 Report Share Posted September 29, 2016 (edited) Like in many walks of life nowadays the zealots, inadequates and opinionated start campaigns in order to force their personal opinions on everyone else (usually by social media and lately by online petitions) and to further their own personal crusade, to many of these zealots the "end justifies the means". Lies, deliberate exaggeration and propaganda are all tools to be used in the attempt to persuade the gullible, inadequate and ignorant to support their moralising crusade. Then there are the pathetic bleeding hearts who will willingly give away everyone's future and freedoms because of their own feelings of inadequacy, evidenced by their need to fit in with the majority, be one of the herd and to cow tow to the political and moral positions taken by others.......this is the Politically Correct Brigade!.......Some may conclude that the foregoing demonstrates a blinding lack of personal moral fibre, individuality and character!......are these idiots really prepared to live in a world where everyone will be required to think and act the same as everyone else? And accept on everyone's behalf, that every action we take will be controlled? Because this will be the likely final result! For someone who has no moral objection to killing a living creature, then in the same breath state that on moral grounds, they don't kill this or that particular creature (which is a legal quarry species).......and imply that no one else should! is breathtakingly hypocritical............by then offering their agreement with and support to some zealot who's objective is to deprive everyone of their freedom to do so..............is not democracy..........it's cowardly, bullying and selfish beyond words. imho utter tosh Edited September 29, 2016 by Adge Cutler Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adge Cutler Posted September 29, 2016 Report Share Posted September 29, 2016 Well its clear you don’t have an overriding and all-consuming passion for hunting with a firearm or shotgun. If you did I refuse to believe you would be so sanguine at the prospect of the “people's will” depriving you of such. This kind of pull up the ladder Jack mentality that fails to recognise the need to concede not an inch, and sometimes on issues one has little if any interest or indeed sympathy, is why we are in the pickle we now so clearly are. Hell, you must be the Gentlemen who entered certain Police Station with me back in the day to surrender handguns and, on the way out, cheerfully spewed the following: “Never mind mate, they’ll never take away the long ones.” I could have kicked him in the nuts were it not for fear of losing my FAC! Ironically I agree with a lot of what you say about Packam but on this I’m afraid the only words that spring to mind when considering your imprudence are “clamp”, “nuts” and “tweak”. HD Correct.! I shoot when it suits me and the farmers whose land I rid of pigeons...nothing more nothing less. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
panoma1 Posted September 29, 2016 Report Share Posted September 29, 2016 imho utter tosh That is as maybe, but I think that is for others who's opinion is more independent than yours, to comment on? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adge Cutler Posted September 29, 2016 Report Share Posted September 29, 2016 That is as maybe, but I think that is for others who's opinion is more independent than yours, to comment on? Let them proceed..its a democratic forum after all. It wont effect my stance on shooting the avian pests of Britain in selection over anything else be they legitimate or not. If I see a crow I shoot it, or magpie or jay ( occasionally ) because I know the damage they do first hand to native British birds and they need to be culled. I don't feel the need to satisfy some sort of primeval urge to shoot a Duck, Goose, Pheasant, Grouse, RL Partridge, Woodcock, Snipe, Moorhen, Coot or Plover however.. As you were.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CharlieT Posted September 29, 2016 Report Share Posted September 29, 2016 Correct.! I shoot when it suits me and the farmers whose land I rid of pigeons...nothing more nothing less. But is it morally fair for you, who choses to shoot pigeons for fun, not support those who shoot grouse for the same reason. Surely you could at least show support for their right to do so even if it doesn't float your particular boat. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adge Cutler Posted September 29, 2016 Report Share Posted September 29, 2016 But is it morally fair for you, who choses to shoot pigeons for fun, not support those who shoot grouse for the same reason. Surely you could at least show support for their right to do so even if it doesn't float your particular boat. Don't assume you know my motives for shooting Pigeons...you don't.. I enjoy it yes ...but my life wouldn't suddenly collapse if it were banned. I think the basic difference between me and many others is that I don't need to get out every week and shoot seven bales out of anything that flies which is on the General list. Give that the Red Grouse is in decline it seems ( even though its habitat is intensively managed ) I could never morally support sustained shooting of it by a small minority of people fortunate enough and financially secure enough to do so. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CharlieT Posted September 29, 2016 Report Share Posted September 29, 2016 And therein lies the problem. If we can't even get the message across and convince you, a fellow shooter, that our attitude is not to go out every week and knock seven bales out of anything that flies or that grouse numbers are and have always been cyclical and that harvesting a sustainable crop, where numbers permit, is beneficial to their very existence, then we are well and truly on an uphill struggle and it is not surprising that the likes of Mr Packham gain so much ground with their click button polls. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richie10 Posted September 29, 2016 Report Share Posted September 29, 2016 (edited) Don't assume you know my motives for shooting Pigeons...you don't.. I enjoy it yes ...but my life wouldn't suddenly collapse if it were banned. I think the basic difference between me and many others is that I don't need to get out every week and shoot seven bales out of anything that flies which is on the General list. Give that the Red Grouse is in decline it seems ( even though its habitat is intensively managed ) I could never morally support sustained shooting of it by a small minority of people fortunate enough and financially secure enough to do so. I would say you a good example of a non shooting person to join the debate. You seems to have little grasp on how wild populations of birds change on a yearly basis and also see shooting of wild birds as primeval. You have a chip on your shoulder about perceived upper classes/wealth. You also have a low opinion of fellow shooters and wouldn't be bothered if shooting was banned as it doesn't affect you. Edited September 29, 2016 by Richie10 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adge Cutler Posted September 29, 2016 Report Share Posted September 29, 2016 And therein lies the problem. If we can't even get the message across and convince you, a fellow shooter, that our attitude is not to go out every week and knock seven bales out of anything that flies or that grouse numbers are and have always been cyclical and that harvesting a sustainable crop, where numbers permit, is beneficial to their very existence, then we are well and truly on an uphill struggle and it is not surprising that the likes of Mr Packham gain so much ground with their click button polls. Oh don't be so melodramatic. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adge Cutler Posted September 29, 2016 Report Share Posted September 29, 2016 I would say you a good example of a non shooting person to join the debate. You seems to have little grasp on how wild populations of birds change on a yearly basis and also see shooting of wild birds as primeval. You have a chip on your shoulder about perceived upper classes/wealth. You also have a low opinion of fellow shooters and wouldn't be bothered if shooting was banned as it doesn't affect you. Wrong on all counts Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
panoma1 Posted September 29, 2016 Report Share Posted September 29, 2016 Don't assume you know my motives for shooting Pigeons...you don't.. I enjoy it yes ...but my life wouldn't suddenly collapse if it were banned. I think the basic difference between me and many others is that I don't need to get out every week and shoot seven bales out of anything that flies which is on the General list. Give that the Red Grouse is in decline it seems ( even though its habitat is intensively managed ) I could never morally support sustained shooting of it by a small minority of people fortunate enough and financially secure enough to do so. Shooting pigeons "I enjoy it yes"..... But you would deprive others the "enjoyment" of shooting other legal quarry species you don't personally approve of shooting..........is that not hypocrisy? "Red Grouse is in decline" and the evidence supporting this is from were? Chris Packham? Lol! Another attempt at using an emotion driven arguement "need" "every week" "shoot seven bales out of anything that flies" to prop up a weak debating position! And your last comments give away your true motives "I could never morally support" " a small minority of people fortunate enough" it sounds as if "morally support" is a red herring and "people fortunate enough" has the stench of class hatred, envy and jealousy about it! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richie10 Posted September 29, 2016 Report Share Posted September 29, 2016 Wrong on all counts No I'm not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adge Cutler Posted September 29, 2016 Report Share Posted September 29, 2016 (edited) Shooting pigeons "I enjoy it yes"..... But you would deprive others the "enjoyment" of shooting other legal quarry species you don't personally approve of shooting..........is that not hypocrisy? "Red Grouse is in decline" and the evidence supporting this is from were? Chris Packham? Lol! Another attempt at using an emotion driven arguement "need" "every week" "shoot seven bales out of anything that flies" to prop up a weak debating position! And your last comments give away your true motives "I could never morally support" " a small minority of people fortunate enough" it sounds as if "morally support" is a red herring and "people fortunate enough" has the stench of class hatred, envy and jealousy about it! You sound like my Sister... she's got a sociology degree ! I wasn't aware I was depriving anyone of anything... as I said each to his own. No point trying to psychoanalyse my posts "stench of class hatred, envy and jealousy about it!"...what's that all about. ?? No I'm not. Afraid so.. Edited September 29, 2016 by Adge Cutler Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
islandgun Posted September 29, 2016 Report Share Posted September 29, 2016 (edited) utter tosh "always consider the other person may just be right" where have i seen those words before ? Edited September 29, 2016 by islandgun Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spanj Posted September 29, 2016 Report Share Posted September 29, 2016 Well said Adge Cutler. I agree,everyone is looking out for their own interests,Packham is looking out for his interests,which are conserving and protecting our dwindling bird populations,the guys that enjoy blasting small birds out of the sky(which are in sharp decline)are looking out for theirs. I certainly dont feel inclined to put my weight behind the interests of Grouse shooters and the like. Also,being on the Autistic Spectrum doesn't make someone insane or a figure of ridicule,this forum is a place to air your views,but some views really should be kept to yourself. "I certainly dont feel inclined to put my weight behind the interests of Grouse shooters and the like." This is precisely why all shooting IS doomed, its only a matter of time. Selfish and self centered attitudes will see Packhams desires come true you and FM really should have a word with yourselves IMO Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adge Cutler Posted September 29, 2016 Report Share Posted September 29, 2016 "always consider the other person may just be right" where have i seen those words before ? I give up where? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
panoma1 Posted September 29, 2016 Report Share Posted September 29, 2016 I wasn't aware I was depriving anyone of anything... as I said each to his own. In post 17 you wrote you agreed with Chris Packham!............this thread is entitled 'more attacks on shooting by Chris Packham'....so if you agree with him you are supportive of depriving others of shooting their chosen legal quarry species! "stench of class hatred, envy and jealousy about it!"...what's that all about. ?? read my post again if you want to understand! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adge Cutler Posted September 29, 2016 Report Share Posted September 29, 2016 (edited) "I certainly dont feel inclined to put my weight behind the interests of Grouse shooters and the like." This is precisely why all shooting IS doomed, its only a matter of time. Selfish and self centered attitudes will see Packhams desires come true you and FM really should have a word with yourselves IMO I really cant see why you all see my or Woodlanders views on Packham and my views on game shooting as such a threat...you must feel really insecure and frustrated about its future. I don't see myself as being hypocritical at all..why on earth should we want to have a word with ourselves ...? I shoot pigeons as a means of pest control, which predate crops grown by farmers and have done for nearly 50 years I don't shoot much else apart from the odd crow and magpie. ( or rabbit for the pot) If I see a pigeon on the bird table I don't immediately reach for the cabinet keys or plan its demise, I observe it as the beautiful bird it is...when the time comes to pull the trigger I'm happy to do so however. Likewise in the field if I see game birds or plovers, or duck or grouse I don't view them as quarry so I don't feel it necessary to kill them indiscriminately for no other reason than I might enjoy bringing its life to an end. If forum members want to pay lots of money to shoot grouse or pheasant good for them.... its just not for me... no point you all getting upset, having a hissy fit and throwing your toys out of the pram..it wont change anything or affect my views or allegiances. The shooting community need to engage with the likes of Packham not isolate him fail in this undertaking and as Spanj said above... shooting is doomed. I think some of you are jumping to conclusion and erroneously assuming I signed the bloody petition. Its unwise to jump to conclusions Edited September 29, 2016 by Adge Cutler Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adge Cutler Posted September 29, 2016 Report Share Posted September 29, 2016 Sorry Pan ...you have me at a disadvantage ..you are obviously on a higher mental plane than I. You could be a barrister or an art critic... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yellow Bear Posted September 29, 2016 Report Share Posted September 29, 2016 I agree with Packham to be honest I don’t shoot any waders, wildfowl or game birds for that matter… cant see the point in it. I shoot pest birds on Defras list as and when I am required to. This will continue as long as it’s legal and there is a requirement to do so. That doesn’t make me an anti… far from it by my very nature I am a conservationist. Grouse shooters, game shooters and wild fowlers can fight their own corner as they please, but in a democratic society if sufficient weight of public numbers demand that statute be changed so be it (fox hunting for example) Would be the same with fishing. As much as I enjoy fishing if I couldn’t go I wouldn’t mither about it for long, just find something else to occupy my time. I don’t quite understand the attitude towards Packham to be honest, some of the comments are extreme to say the least…he’s entitled to his opinion and to campaign for change as a voter as are all of us. At the end of the day Jefferson’s quote has never been so true “The will of the people is the only legitimate foundation of any government, and to protect its free expression should be our first object.” Ive been to several conventions where Packham has spoken, and he does in fact recognise the benefits of proper wildlife management and if you read the petition carefully he’s calling for a moratorium pending independent research not an immediate ban. If that independent research can demonstrate that shooting is not affecting the decline there is nothing to worry about. Rather than alienate (or annihilate as some would) Packham we should be working in collaboration to find a solution. The BBC has put him on a pedestal because he appeals to the absolute majority and that’s an undisputable fact. You never see prime time TV shows about game or pigeon shooting because the audiences would be miniscule. Like I said the will of the people will prevail. To quote yourself - imho utter tosh Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
motty Posted September 29, 2016 Report Share Posted September 29, 2016 Adge Cutler. I don't like your point of view, one little bit. You shoot pigeons for crop protection. Do you need to? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.