Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Fellside

  • Rank

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Yes - a very worth while reminder. Let’s all stay street wise on this!
  2. In my area there’s a lot of ferals near any large cattle sheds - but also a good population of stock doves. Sometimes they can look virtually identical in profile. I have therefore taken to only shooting birds with a significant amount of white in their plumage. This means that some ferals slip through the net - but I still manage a good number of ‘flying rats’ in with the woodies.
  3. Hopefully in time he will gain trust and permission elsewhere and spread out his efforts - or get sick of empty skies.
  4. Bags do vary enormously from one area to another etc. However, I find the biggest silly claims are about cartridge / kill ratio. I was shooting over laid barley on a friend’s farm last year. I had been there most of the day and shot perhaps twenty odd - quiet really. At about 3 in the afternoon, there was a sudden a step change, and the birds came thick and fast. In no time the bag was fiftyish. Then two characters appeared and set up in the next field down wind. I still managed a shot now and then, but for the remaining 4 hours or so they had nearly all the shooting. Just for something t
  5. There are plenty of reasons why some (and only some) estates don’t want shooting activity - or indeed random people around - during poult rearing time. That’s their choice really - and I won’t let anyone near my pheasants either. However, game rearing aside, there are good legitimate reasons for pigeon shooting over stubbles: 1. Pigeons need thinning out when at peak population density (late summer) - prior to anticipated winter crop damage. 2. Pigeons, being very social birds and habit forming, will build up in a stubble area - and cause damage in the general locality to other cr
  6. If you can as get as much as poss’ out on the shoot (i.e in to feeders), then it has less chance of issues. In other words ‘in store’ and ‘in use’ all in one. Big feeders are great for this - as long as they are stable, watertight and regularly checked / unblocked etc. We tend to get 2 or 3 tonnes out in one visit - and do this just a few times in a season We do store some wheat bagged up in metal drums, but not very much. Hope that helps - good luck!
  7. It has been made clear in this thread that ag’ intensification has occurred via central policy drivers - and was never a farmer lead construct. In other words ag’ intensification was imposed upon farmers not initiated by them. The opposite to farmer bashing in fact. No one could be more pro farming than I am. And yes, the pace of change has slowed (or even been slightly reversed in some systems) over the last two decades - primarily due to European directives on ‘Agri-environment’ schemes. However we are still essentially operating an intensive legacy model. That’s just an evidence
  8. What is not so well known - is the high numbers of tragic farm bankruptcies which occurred post war, mostly resulting from a failure to embrace the new intensive model.
  9. I think we have to straighten something out here. You have to understand the history of post 2nd war ‘agricultural intensification’ to realise that farmers were systematically driven towards the current production model. They didn’t chose it. It chose them! Ag’ intensification was adopted / ratified by successive UK governments during the 60s and 70s. It was driven by policy and incentives - inspired by Canadian and Australian methods where big yields were being realised. Farmers had little choice but to comply / scale up - or fade away. This resulted in the largely remaining intensiv
  10. Conor, Please see above. You have cited the study and appear to consider it credible. May I suggest that you take some constructive (and hopefully helpful) feedback to your science team and rework the message somewhat. Good luck and no hard feelings.
  11. Thanks for that Conor. Still confused though. Matt Ellis of BASC (2015) in response to the paper’s publication - per your attachment- said: “BASC’s position remains the same; no sound evidence, no change.“ A perfectly sensible stance. Why therefore cite the paper as credible evidence now? Every organisation is entitled to a mistake occasionally, but I’m afraid this is a ‘credibility bomb‘ which requires safe disposal.
  12. Conor, Please don’t think you’re being discredited or ‘picked on’. This is not personal. The reason you’re getting some push-back is simply because your cited paper (re 50,000 to 100,000 toxicity deaths / year) is not credible - or evidential in any way. For your own sake, I would give up flogging that very dead horse. I can only speak for my self, in that I am not pursuing an anti lead ban agenda (as you appear to assume). It’s just that I don’t wish to witness the shooting community discredited in PR terms by the promotion of bias pseudo science. Does that seem reasonabl
  • Create New...