more attacks on shooting from Chris Packham

[Adge Cutler]

 

Well from the viewpoint of an anti...not really too far removed nor irrelevant really. Antis despise those who kill things for 'sport', be it a Matador, a shooter or an angler.

None of us NEED to kill anything; we do it from choice because we can.

Granted I'd view it as hypocritical for someone who enjoys a steak to criticise me for shooting something, as they are eating it simply because they enjoy the taste and not from a viewpoint of survival, but is there any need to hook a fish through its mouth, gills etc and haul it from its natural environment simply so you can take a picture? Why do you do that; for enjoyment? Because it gives you pleasure? If it doesn't then why do it? I'm not criticising you for doing so as I've done the same, and enjoy doing it immensely, but see it from the point of view of the anti. Why inflict such a thing on a living creature simply because you enjoy it?

Not as irrelevant as you make out perhaps.

We're all in this thing together; if you don't care enough to defend it and would simply walk away if it were banned then fair enough, but others will fight to the end to defend what we do, including me.

Like I've said; I have no objection to those who oppose what I do, but do it with honesty please.

I'm nothing if not honest. Wouldn't be in the position I am if I were not

[Scully]

I'm nothing if not honest. Wouldn't be in the position I am if I were not

 

We'll have to agree to disagree on that; I well recall your stint as Fisherman Mike.

[Adge Cutler]

 

We'll have to agree to disagree on that; I well recall your stint as Fisherman Mike.

who ?

[Scully]

http://us8.campaign-archive1.com/?u=ce598cb66b49390b21df1f52c&id=0edeb52d93&e=d9591bd57b

Just received this. Not familiar with copy and paste from phone so if it doesn't work will do it properly later

[scotslad]

Heres the similar letter/reply from the GWCT.

The GWCT generally sit on the fence and don't get overly political as they have to be seen to be impartial

 

 

 

BBC rural impartiality – GWCT Chairman responds
29/9/2016
By Ian Coghill, GWCT Chairman

There has been a good deal of fuss caused by the unpleasant comments about farmers, landowners and people who shoot and fish made by the regular BBC presenter Chris Packham. Many, I think, have missed the point. In my view the issue is not Mr Packham, who, in a country still at least relatively free, is entitled to say whatever he wants. The issue is, and always was, the BBC.


Everyone knows that the BBC is supposed to be impartial and most still assume it is. To protect this reputation, it has rules applying to regular presenters of news, current affairs and policy that prevent them making personal statements on controversial subjects or promoting pet causes or charities.

It was thus fairly obvious that when Chris Packham, a regular presenter on countryside and wildlife issues, made personal statements on controversial subjects and promoted his pet causes and charities, in this case the RSPB and League Against Cruel Sports, the BBC would be upset.

The BBC is seen by many as institutionally biased against the countryside. Treating it as one would expect from an organisation so long divorced from country life that it thinks The Archers is real, probably because it’s made in Birmingham, which from a London perspective is practically a village.

Most of the land surface of Great Britain is owned, managed and farmed by people who have no problem with traditional country sports, with an extraordinarily high percentage actually engaging in them. Many of these people, who happen to make up probably the most important stakeholder group from the point of view of conservation of species and landscape, are getting increasingly disenchanted with being treated as a whipping boy by the odder elements of the BBC.

Obviously you would assume that when a regular presenter on countryside and wildlife issues made gratuitously offensive remarks about these people, following an even more unpleasant attack on farmers who agree with culling diseased badgers and preceding a plea to join the LACS and the RSPB and ban driven grouse shooting, the BBC would at least have asked him to calm down a bit.

You would be wrong. The reasons why you are wrong are as simple as they are surprising. Contrary to what almost everybody thought, Mr Packham is definitely not a regular presenter for the BBC at all. Furthermore, the countryside and wildlife issues he deals with have nothing to do with news, policy and current affairs. Thus even if he did work for them regularly, which he doesn’t, the rule would not apply anyway.

According to the BBC, Mr Packham is a recurring presenter not a regular presenter. If I shot 50 days a season, I would be a recurring shot, not a regular one. At what point, I wonder, would I become a regular shot? A hundred days, perhaps? Apparently not. Mr Packham, we learn from the BBC, worked for them on 119 days last year.

If you take weekends, annual leave and bank holidays out of the year, most people work around 210-220 days – obviously this doesn’t apply to farmers, gamekeepers and other countryside workers, I’m talking BBC. Thus for over half the working year, Mr Packham was employed by the BBC, yet not only isn’t he an employee, his zero-hours contract isn’t even regular enough to be their responsibility.

This is, of course, simply nonsense. If Mr Packham, God forbid, caused a fatal accident and the Health and Safety Executive came over the horizon, telling them that it was nothing to do with the BBC because he or his company are recurring freelancers, so it was nothing to do with us, would elicit a wry smile and an interview under caution.

The idea that you can wash your hands of someone whose celebrity status you have created, whose links with your organisation you celebrate, who you are happy to be referred to as ‘BBC presenter Chris Packham’, and who you pay for at least 119 days in a single year is ridiculous. Claiming that they have nothing to do with you when they become gratuitously abusive about perfectly decent country people is frankly laughable.

What is in some ways much worse is that what he does is seen by the BBC as having nothing to do with policy and current affairs. That is a far greater concern than the periodic outbursts of a transient celebrity. The state of our countryside and the wildlife it supports, which is essentially what the programmes Mr Packham presents purport to address, has, according to the BBC and the BBC Trust, nothing to do with policy or current affairs.

That is the real scandal, and the BBC Trust is to be thanked for making it clear where it and the BBC stand. It turns out to be where we always thought but until now were never really able to confirm: as far away from the real countryside as they can get

 

 

 

Sums up my views nicely i have no problm with his view/opinion its the way he puts it accross and he is also educated enough to know the benefits of shooting, unlike the Jodie marsh's of the world, yet when they're shown the facts they views change to at least tolerate us/shooting, which is all i'm really looking for

[islandgun]

 

Well from the viewpoint of an anti...not really too far removed nor irrelevant really. Antis despise those who kill things for 'sport', be it a Matador, a shooter or an angler.

None of us NEED to kill anything; we do it from choice because we can.

Granted I'd view it as hypocritical for someone who enjoys a steak to criticise me for shooting something, as they are eating it simply because they enjoy the taste and not from a viewpoint of survival, but is there any need to hook a fish through its mouth, gills etc and haul it from its natural environment simply so you can take a picture? Why do you do that; for enjoyment? Because it gives you pleasure? If it doesn't then why do it? I'm not criticising you for doing so as I've done the same, and enjoy doing it immensely, but see it from the point of view of the anti. Why inflict such a thing on a living creature simply because you enjoy it?

Not as irrelevant as you make out perhaps.

We're all in this thing together; if you don't care enough to defend it and would simply walk away if it were banned then fair enough, but others will fight to the end to defend what we do, including me.

Like I've said; I have no objection to those who oppose what I do, but do it with honesty please.

 

there you go again, I kill things for a living, fish, rabbits, chickens, sheep. I think your assuming that we all have good well paid jobs and only shoot for sport, i dont, i make my living by killing things then making their remains into meals, if I couldnt take the responsibility for killing things i would become a vegan and sign on. This is the last time i will mention it as i dont want to take up any more time of an important thread. sorry folks

[wymberley]

 

there you go again, I kill things for a living, fish, rabbits, chickens, sheep. I think your assuming that we all have good well paid jobs and only shoot for sport, i dont, i make my living by killing things then making their remains into meals, if I couldnt take the responsibility for killing things i would become a vegan and sign on. This is the last time i will mention it as i dont want to take up any more time of an important thread. sorry folks

I think Scully is talking about "us", "we" as sports shooters and am pretty sure that he is fully aware that tens of thousands of people in this country are employed to kill animals/birds for food.

[islandgun]

I think Scully is talking about "us", "we" as sports shooters and am pretty sure that he is fully aware that tens of thousands of people in this country are employed to kill animals/birds for food.

 

back to reality, I was wondering about the adg/ fm comment that packham would become the new David Attenborough, now i have no recollection of anyone describing Attenborough as that annoying little #### on the tv as they do about packham

[Scully]

 

there you go again, I kill things for a living, fish, rabbits, chickens, sheep. I think your assuming that we all have good well paid jobs and only shoot for sport, i dont, i make my living by killing things then making their remains into meals, if I couldnt take the responsibility for killing things i would become a vegan and sign on. This is the last time i will mention it as i dont want to take up any more time of an important thread. sorry folks

 

This is a shooting forum, not a food industry forum. As Wymberley has pointed out ( for which I'm grateful ) I'm obviously not talking about butchers or those involved in the food industry who rely on killing animals as part of their job for that industry, or even pest controllers, but those who kill for sport or entertainment.

No one in western society needs to kill a living creature for food, nor eat meat to survive for that matter. There are many millions living normal healthy lives as vegetarians or vegans. Anyone in western society who eats meat does so because they like the taste ( and unless they've killed it themselves they have sanctioned someone killing that animal on their behalf ) and not because they need it to survive, or they kill it for sport as part of their lifestyle, whether they eat it or not.

On a driven shoot I've yet to meet the person who stops after killing more pheasants or grouse than they could possibly eat. Even if every bird is sold to a dealer, why does anyone ( including myself ) shoot as many birds as possible? Why do they even turn up? Answers on a postcard.

Attenborough is equally guilty of ignoring facts or skimming over them to push his personal opinions, and has done so regarding big game shooting and climate change, although admittedly he doesn't get on his soapbox about it.

Edited September 30, 2016 by Scully

[islandgun]

jeez do you never give up, I am not in an industry, I catch, grow and shoot things for food, on a very local level, if i didnt i wouldnt have a living, if you want to kill things for fun thats up to you but dont tar everyone with same brush. im sick of your boring repetition so leave it there

[Scully]

jeez do you never give up, I am not in an industry, I catch, grow and shoot things for food, on a very local level, if i didnt i wouldnt have a living, if you want to kill things for fun thats up to you but dont tar everyone with same brush. im sick of your boring repetition so leave it there

 

No, I don't. I don't care what you do for a living but you keep banging on about it. Why? Believe me, I really couldn't care less.

This is a shooting forum and this thread is about banning sporting shooting! If you shoot anything for sport then you're doing it for your own enjoyment and nothing else. If you don't then fine; it's your choice, but I fail to see why you're taking part in this thread if you don't! If you kill living creatures as part of your living, then it has absolutely nothing to do with this thread, so what point are you trying to make?

Packham doesn't care what you do for living either; he is trying to ban shooting for sport, and it is this which forms the gist of this thread; not small scale butchery for retail supply.

If you're bored then block me or just ignore me; it's no biggie.

[ShootingEgg]

If we are going to argue and nit pick amongst ourselves we may aswell let packham win...

 

I use what I shoot as food too but also do pest control for local farmers etc. And I'd still see it as sport even though im doing someone a service.. What ever type of shooting you want to dress it up as, if obe gets banned then thats the lot gone.. Simple really.. Now can the toys go back in the prams please...

 

We should not be going at each other in here. We should be united as one sticking up for the outdoor activities we love to do.

[Muddy Funker]

There's an awful lot of presumption going on in these posts, and no small amount of arrogance.

 

Why would one assume that everyone who is in favour of shooting a grouse, duck, pigeon, woodcock or wigeon has a blood lust for taking life for the sake of it? Over many years, I have met the odd few shooters who enjoy going out and shooting at anything that moves, needless to say, I'm not one of them, nor condone shooting for fun just because I can. In fact, I've argued vehemently with those who think that they have a God given right to shoot anything just because they can, as that sort of thing disgusts me. Many shooters, like myself, have respect for their quarry and for conservation. On a personal level, I shoot for the pot, for pest control or on occasion, both (where they tally up) Do I enjoy it? Yes. I wouldn't do it if I didn't. Why do I enjoy it? Partly because it gets me out, partly as I'm doing my bit for crop and livestock protection, partly because of the challenge and partly because I enjoy the fruits of my labours and it helps feed the family. There's no getting away from the benefits of all of these things.

 

What amuses me, having read these posts, is the self congratulatory and downright smugness of some of the responses by the main protagonist which hint in no small way of "I'm alright Jack because I believe in conservation. I'm right...you're all wrong". You can say it as much as you like, and quote or paraphrase other's posts as much as you like, but it still doesn't make your opinion any more valid than anyone else's. Nor does it make you right. In fact, it goes as far as being disrespectful, suggesting that people are being melodramatic when in some of your own posts, one could imagine a Shakespearean actor taking on the role of narrator! Hypocrisy (...wait for it "ohhhhh noooo it's not, and don't forget "he's behind you!"...that's a good one at kiddies plays too).

 

As has already been very reasonably pointed out by several people, the more reasonable minded members on here are absolutely not in objection to Packham or whoever wants to raising petitions or canvassing public opinion on conservation matters. What is objectionable, and must be fought by the shooting community (note the last word )is when some lie, or otherwise twist the truth or misrepresent in order to garner a favourable outcome for their own agendas, agendas that threaten our current freedoms, and without the evidence of support.

 

No-one would argue with genuine conservation aims and goals. It's in the interests of the shooting community for the future of our countryside and what it supports (and that includes employment and ways of life), to be mindful, respectful and supportive of species conservation. However, it is our right to kick up a fuss and object when devious minded people like Packham rear their snide little heads above the battlements intent on imposing their own views on others, and by garnering support of people, quite often, who are completely ignorant of countryside matters and conservation. It may be called democracy, but that is not what it is in reality. It is using the system of democracy to further one's own loaded agendas. Who gives a fig what happened on each side during BREXIT campaigning. That has nothing to do with anything and is just another example of trying to win a point of debate by the metaphorical "so-what?" argument.

 

Another thing is puzzling for someone who only shoots the odd pigeon for crop protection. Being a member shooting forum where you know that the vast majority hold similar opinions and shoot for similar reasons is one thing, but imposing such a narrow minded view on others when you know in advance what the likely outcome will be is quite another. I guess that some people enjoy debates or arguments for the sake of it, or because they get a buzz from pressing other people's buttons. That's social media for you. It attracts all sorts.

 

That's a great post right there. I might not bother reading anything else

Edited October 1, 2016 by Muddy Funker

[Duckandswing]

I assume that everybody who wants to ban grouse shooting is vegetarian?

[islandgun]

 

That's a great post right there. I might not bother reading anything else

 

I think thats a very wise decision

[Scully]

I honestly don't think Packham, beyond stirring up trouble, will make much headway with his attacks unless there is evidence there to back up his claims, and unless I'm mistaken,it just isn't there.

Those who matter won't make decisions on the basis of what he tells them. There may be studies undertaken as a result of a vociferous and prolonged campaign, but it will take hard evidence to commit to a change in legislation, in my view anyhow.

The truth will out. Right, I'm off shooting; loads of ducks on pond! 🙂

[norfolk dumpling]

As I've said before he has a mental illness so we should pity him (or lock him away!). Hopefully he will overstep the mark and BBC etc will drop him.

[panoma1]

I honestly don't think Packham, beyond stirring up trouble, will make much headway with his attacks unless there is evidence there to back up his claims, and unless I'm mistaken,it just isn't there.

Those who matter won't make decisions on the basis of what he tells them. There may be studies undertaken as a result of a vociferous and prolonged campaign, but it will take hard evidence to commit to a change in legislation, in my view anyhow.

The truth will out. Right, I'm off shooting; loads of ducks on pond!

I do not disagree with this.........however in politics, expediency will, when convenient, take precedent over truth and science!

[CharlieT]

I honestly don't think Packham, beyond stirring up trouble, will make much headway with his attacks unless there is evidence there to back up his claims, and unless I'm mistaken,it just isn't there.

Those who matter won't make decisions on the basis of what he tells them. There may be studies undertaken as a result of a vociferous and prolonged campaign, but it will take hard evidence to commit to a change in legislation, in my view anyhow.

The truth will out. Right, I'm off shooting; loads of ducks on pond!

 

Come on Scully, you don't really believe this do you.

 

At the end of the day, it's our MP's who will vote on such issues. If Mr P can stir up public opinion enough and MP's are deluged with anti letters, he or she will vote for a ban. Science won't come into it.

[Scully]

 

Come on Scully, you don't really believe this do you.

 

At the end of the day, it's our MP's who will vote on such issues. If Mr P can stir up public opinion enough and MP's are deluged with anti letters, he or she will vote for a ban. Science won't come into it.

Well if I'm wrong, and you're right, and that's all it takes for him to succeed, by your logic we had better hope he never gets involved in rhe LAG!

[scotslad]

I wish and hope ur right scully but i sadly doubt it.

 

I'm more with charlie, MP's will do wot ever they can to keep themselves in a job if voting for some bill that the majority of folk don't really care about will get a quick tabloid headline and then be forgotten about, and only affects a tiny minority of population uk wide. In some/many MP's constintancies affected voters will be so small u can hardly measure it.

 

It won't matter how good the science is if they need cheap vores or an easy win most wouldn't hesitate to vote against shooting.

 

LAG is the prime example, allegedly a science based approach, but most of the science was designed to give the result they wanted and accepting studies that reviewing peers threw out.

The anti's are now picking round the edges at any possible weaknesses and anything esp science/survey based they can use for leverage. Why else would the WWT be involved in a study of lead in human food, no where near there remit.

That grouse petion is another classic example, there is masses of scientifc evidence of the benefits of grouse shooting and the habit it provides, more so than any other type of shooting, yet its the 1 in the dock??

[scobydog]

If Woodcock/Snipe are supposedly in such decline and need protection which I would be happy to support if it is true, can someone explain why numbers seen on the shoots In my syndicate are rising year on year. This has been noticed by quite a few of our members who have shot on these places for many years, 1 of our shoots never used to get any Woodcock but last season I saw quite a lot of them and lots of Snipe too, I don't shoot them as I like to see them around but if someone else does that is fine by me. As for grouse shooting I fully support this even though I don't do it myself, if someone who is wealthier can do it good on them, shooting is always portrayed as an upper class sport but in relative terms i'm sure far more working class people do it than anyone else, in my syndicate we have everyone from window cleaners to builders to retired people and not one of them is upper class and neither am I. And if grouse shooting is banned what will happen to all the moors, they will fall into decline the heather will get out of hand and grow too high for anything to survive underneath it, hen harriers will disappear with no predator control being done and a lot of people will lose their jobs, country pubs and hotels who rely on shooters through the colder months will shut and the younger generation will move to the towns and cities to get jobs. Anyway on a brighter note my daughter went out for the first time on the shoot yesterday, said she had a great time, got a few shots off with the 410 but sadly nothing in the bag for her, asked lots of questions about various things and slept all the way back in the truck.

 

S

[Scully]

I wish and hope ur right scully but i sadly doubt it.

 

I'm more with charlie, MP's will do wot ever they can to keep themselves in a job if voting for some bill that the majority of folk don't really care about will get a quick tabloid headline and then be forgotten about, and only affects a tiny minority of population uk wide. In some/many MP's constintancies affected voters will be so small u can hardly measure it.

 

It won't matter how good the science is if they need cheap vores or an easy win most wouldn't hesitate to vote against shooting.

 

LAG is the prime example, allegedly a science based approach, but most of the science was designed to give the result they wanted and accepting studies that reviewing peers threw out.

The anti's are now picking round the edges at any possible weaknesses and anything esp science/survey based they can use for leverage. Why else would the WWT be involved in a study of lead in human food, no where near there remit.

That grouse petion is another classic example, there is masses of scientifc evidence of the benefits of grouse shooting and the habit it provides, more so than any other type of shooting, yet its the 1 in the dock??

Not sure I understand you there regarding the outcome of the LAG. Wasn't the science and claims of those involved on the opposing side of the LAG proved to be false or at the very least grossly exaggerated? It was peer reviewed and debated by MPs and relevant parties and found to be lacking, and therefore there is no lead shot ban; or have I missed something?

The petition for the banning of driven grouse will get its hearing and the evidence and claims will be peer reviewed and debated by MPs and other relevant parties, and all claims and counter claims will be aired. Why should we be worried? There is no mandate or political will to ban driven shooting, nor any emotive media campaign to do so, unlike fox hunting or banning handguns.

The financial benefits of shooting for sport far outweigh those of either fox hunting or shooting with pistols.

So long as there are no skeletons in the cupboard I'm not too concerned, are you?

[Adge Cutler]

I wish and hope you are right scully butt I sadly doubt it.

 

I'm more with charlie, MP's will do wot ever they can to keep themselves in a job if voting for some bill that the majority of folk don't really care about will get a quick tabloid headline and then be forgotten about, and only affects a tiny minority of population uk wide. In some/many MP's constintancies affected voters will be so small u can hardly measure it.

 

It won't matter how good the science is if they need cheap vores or an easy win most wouldn't hesitate to vote against shooting.

 

LAG is the prime example, allegedly a science based approach, but most of the science was designed to give the result they wanted and accepting studies that reviewing peers threw out.

The anti's are now picking round the edges at any possible weaknesses and anything esp science/survey based they can use for leverage. Why else would the WWT be involved in a study of lead in human food, no where near there remit.

That grouse petion is another classic example, there is masses of scientifc evidence of the benefits of grouse shooting and the habit it provides, more so than any other type of shooting, yet its the 1 in the dock??

 

 

You may well be right, and indeed I've suggested this in my previous posts. Packhams personal opinion wont enter the equation nor will ours of him. He might well be deranged but he is a figurehead for the anti shooting lobby which numbers millions. When it comes to the crunch and it should develop into a vociferous and prolonged campaign I am afraid as with Foxhunting the majority will prevail. It will come down to the will of the incumbent MP's constituents which way the MP's vote.

 

There's no doubting the facts that Game and particularly Grouse shooting is seen as the preserve of the wealthy and privileged, if not of American, European, Asian or Arab nationality these would predominately be conservative voters. I appreciate there are thousands of working class voters who work in the shooting industry, many, including some on this forum no doubt voted for Labour or UKIP in the last election which when you think about it is as obtuse as me being an admirer of Packham. One forum member suggested that Shooting would be safe as long as a conservative government was returned and I also believe that to be the case.

 

 

I would be out hunting with the Berkeley or VWH in a few weeks time if the Hunting fraternity had unified and got their act together and advocated self reform at the turn of the millennium rather than adopt the attitude of burying their heads in the sand and being arrogant enough to assume the minority march of the CA would sway public thinking and the PMB would never be passed.

 

 

Ultimately its difficult to counter people like Packham who are in the public eye..for everyone who thinks he's mentally deranged there's 50 who don't and It doesn't matter one jot if his claims have no substance. There are about 600,000 people who shoot in the UK, but about 25,000,000 who regularly feed garden birds. The BASC has short of 150,000 members ...There were 4 million viewers at peak of the last series Spring Watch !

 

If shooters want to preserve their pastime its important to present a united front which has the maximum voice in the event it did come to parliamentary representation, so perhaps organisations like the BASC, GWCT, & CA (Perhaps even the NFA ) should amalgamate in to one organisation and find a talisman popular as Packham ? Collectively that would be quite a voice. ! I'm afraid neither the BASC and GWCT would have the clout of volume of membersip to successfully lobby parliament if it came to it even though they may have Royal Patronage ( of very questionable value )

[Scully]

If there is a massive public and media outcry similar to that regarding handguns or fox hunting then I could agree with you, but the political will just isn't there at the moment.

The amalgamation of our shooting org's wont make a jot of difference either, even if it were to happen, and there isn't even a snowballs chance in hell of that happening.

Regarding fox hunting; even reform wouldn't have saved it as hunters constantly shot themselves in the foot and couldn't even make up their minds why they were doing it; and none of their claims stood up to scrutiny when all was said and done; not a financial benefit; a commercial benefit, an economic benefit, nor a benefit to the farmers nor a benefit to conservation...nothing.