S Times article on cages

[Simon Clarke]

That spokesman would have been me. We had at the time made our own enquiries and talked to game farmers. We did not, and never have had the agreement of game farmers. Our position has been thoroughly researched, given considerable thought, time and effort and has not waivered. These cages are bad for the birds and bad for the future of shooting.

 

It is our stated aim to secure a stong future for shooting. People who do not shoot are not going to accept driven game shooting if these conditions are allowed to remain part of the process of rearing.

[markbivvy]

it started here.

 

http://forums.pigeonwatch.co.uk/forums/ind...c=12477&hl=

some peoples views have taken a very different turn.

Edited January 19, 2010 by markbivvy

[JRS]

it started here.

 

http://forums.pigeonwatch.co.uk/forums/ind...c=12477&hl=

some peoples views have taken a very different turn.

i think i may have worked out what a "consultation period "is, it is brought up and left open on the agenda , dissregard the membership oppinions or what ever

like all poloticians who remain in power for to long , they turn into dictators

[al4x]

why haven't you got the agreement of gamefarmers Simon?

 

If it is such a good thing they should be the first supporters I know most farmers are for welfare as long as it is welfare. Likening these cages to battery chickens IMHO isn't right this is just to produce eggs during a pretty short laying season, the reforms to the system would seem to make sense hence they are what DEFRA are proposing. Publishing LACS undercover footage from one farm that may be here but may be abroad is definitely going to win you no favours which is why you're in the predicament you are. To me if you are right you don't need to be making veiled threats against the shooting times as far as advertising revenues are concerned, throwing ones weight about as a large organisation when someone doesn't agree with you is at best downright foolish and personally its putting me off the idea of having one organisation to represent everyone if thats the way you're prepared to act.

It may be best to try and sort the behind the scenes politics in private rather than in public.

[David BASC]

BASC has never said game farming is cruel! Its the small cages that some large scale producers use we oppose, and always have done.

 

I say again we support the vast majority of game farmers in the UK who use traditional methods, where the birds have plenty of room, and where they are not kept confined for 2-3 years. We have encouraged our members to use local traditional game farmers (remember the vast majority) How this is stabbing UK game farmers in the back is beyond me.,

 

I say agian its not BASC;s doing that ST are running the story on Wednesday , it is ST's decision!

 

David

 

PS thanks Mark for the link

 

D

Edited January 20, 2010 by David BASC

[JRS]

i do not believe that an honest poll for that paticular type of egg production was ever done because the vast majority of people could not care less and the few that may have passed comments will not be the majority

you keep going on about shooting times like its all their fault , but it was the BASC who condemd that particular type of egg production and appeard to be taking the same stance as the anti's

if your so in the right and shooting times is so wrong can we expect any leagal proceedings ? i doubt it , BASC has taken a stance that will not do them any favours at all but you dont want to face upto it

what seems to be concerning you most is that someone has a different oppinion to the one you have taken

[al4x]

Its a free press that you disagree with though David, as you don't agree with the story you've made veiled threats about the amount of advertising you give them and tried to whip up support on here to complain to them. In this case even if it is as a result of a release by the CA or someone else aren't they free to have an opinion on the matter?

[Sinistercr0c]

I'm a member of the BASC; the reason? It covers me in terms of my shooting for insurance purposes. I shoot over farmland for the purposes of pest control, and maybe once a year (if I'm really lucky) I get invited on a driven pheasant shoot. I have no vested interests; I'm not ordinarily pro this or anti that. I have my own views and opinions and it takes empirical (look it up in the dictionary) evidence to persuade me that my view may not be the right/best/correct one. My point? I'm not blindly biased towards supporting the BASC's view on this (or any other) subject.

 

HOWEVER......

 

I'm also a member of Joe Public. Imagine for a moment I'm speaking purely from this perspective (i.e I know NOTHING about shooting, pheasant rearing or the game industry in general). The concept of rearing 'wild' birds in cages for a minority to go and blast 'em to hell AND pay enormous sums for the privilege is perverse.

 

This view that will be extremely difficult to change in the mind of Joe Public and even more so if publications and bodies who are meant to work together to provide the evidence to balance Joe's blindly biased view are seen to be at odds with each other in such a divisive way.

 

The reality is the cage rearing of birds is NOT good for our sport. It smacks of commercialism and big business and 'out to make a buck' whoever or whatever has to suffer for it, and all the fat cat, back scratching and profiteering that is associated with it. We as shooters will be the poorer for it. The birds will suffer because of it (how anybody can argue that cage rearing is OK is personally beyond me).

 

I believe that what the BASC is trying to achieve are minimum standards which can be applied to the production of pheasants in the UK and to ensure those standards comply with what we all surely believe must be the case; that there should be a reasonable amount of living space associated with individual birds, and that this space is aligned in some way to their natural behaviour, so as to minimise stress and ultimately mortality rates.

 

In the end, what would you rather shoot and eat? A bird who's origins are cage derived? I sincerely hope not.

[David BASC]

Anyone is free to have a view of course, as am I. I am old enough and wise enough to know that not every one will agree on everything!

 

And no I have not made threats about advertisingin ST. Others asked about advertising in ST and i answered, simple as that, so don't try to read more into my answer than there is!

 

As i have said, the BASC position is clear and has been public knowledge for years, and we robustly defend our position and very keenly if we feel we are being attacked, if you take that as 'throwing our weight around' so be it. And don't forget BASC throwing our weight behind the OGL was welcomed by you guys....

 

As is always the case, there are two sides to the story, and BASC's 'side' has been published in our mag and on our web site, so by all means read both and make up your own mind. I am sure members of this forum are big enough to make up their own minds and don't need me to try and influence what they do or don't do. All I want is to make sure is that non members who may not have seen what BASC has written about cages in our mag etc know our point of view.

 

The GFA are sticking to their view that enriched cages are the answer, that is up to them, although as I have said I am not too sure how many of their members use cages as the use of cages is so rare in the UK, . Like I say, that very fact should tell you somthing! If tiny cages, enriched or otherwise, were so great why dosent everyone use them?

 

As for the game farmers, I suspect you will be hard pressed to find a UK game farmer that does NOT agree with BASC encouraging its members, and others, to buy their eggs and birds from local traditional farmers!

 

Anyway, maybe enough for now from me (tired- need to go to bed!), lets see what ST brings, I am working away all day on Weds, but I am sure Simon will keep up to speed on here and answer any questions you may have.

 

Best wishes to all

 

David

[Guest stiv24]

I'm a member of the BASC; the reason? It covers me in terms of my shooting for insurance purposes. I shoot over farmland for the purposes of pest control, and maybe once a year (if I'm really lucky) I get invited on a driven pheasant shoot. I have no vested interests; I'm not ordinarily pro this or anti that. I have my own views and opinions and it takes empirical (look it up in the dictionary) evidence to persuade me that my view may not be the right/best/correct one. My point? I'm not blindly biased towards supporting the BASC's view on this (or any other) subject.

 

HOWEVER......

 

I'm also a member of Joe Public. Imagine for a moment I'm speaking purely from this perspective (i.e I know NOTHING about shooting, pheasant rearing or the game industry in general). The concept of rearing 'wild' birds in cages for a minority to go and blast 'em to hell AND pay enormous sums for the privilege is perverse.

 

This view that will be extremely difficult to change in the mind of Joe Public and even more so if publications and bodies who are meant to work together to provide the evidence to balance Joe's blindly biased view are seen to be at odds with each other in such a divisive way.

 

The reality is the cage rearing of birds is NOT good for our sport. It smacks of commercialism and big business and 'out to make a buck' whoever or whatever has to suffer for it, and all the fat cat, back scratching and profiteering that is associated with it. We as shooters will be the poorer for it. The birds will suffer because of it (how anybody can argue that cage rearing is OK is personally beyond me).

 

I believe that what the BASC is trying to achieve are minimum standards which can be applied to the production of pheasants in the UK and to ensure those standards comply with what we all surely believe must be the case; that there should be a reasonable amount of living space associated with individual birds, and that this space is aligned in some way to their natural behaviour, so as to minimise stress and ultimately mortality rates.

 

In the end, what would you rather shoot and eat? A bird who's origins are cage derived? I sincerely hope not.

 

I agree completely

[brian28]

Im with sinistercr0c on this

[Mungler]

I am relatively ambivalent on the subject.

 

It's not a pleasant way to rear birds, but it's an imperfect world we live in and it strikes me that there are plenty of animal husbandry practices that would warrant attention and action before this particular issue.

 

So, my question - is this issue of battery cages for game birds on a political party agenda and under scrutiny right here and now i.e. is it a case of pressing for a ban ourselves and look grown up to the world about policing our own sport before the Government does it for us, OR, are we making an issue about something that is not on any political party's immediate agenda.

 

If this issue is not a live issue either politically or with the public then I consider it an error on the part of those pressing the issue.

[Diceman]

This debate seems to be hinging on the fact that BASC is 'siding with the Antis"

Much as I dislike the grubby fox cuddling soapdodgers, I'm afraid that we can't automatically disagree with everything they say on a point of principle. If they said we shouldn't stamp on a puppy's head or poke toddlers in the eye I'm sure most of us would agree, but is doesn't mean we have therefore moved over to their "side".

Personally I think that BASC is promoting a sensible and considered attitude whereas ST is just getting hung up on the 'agreement' with LACS for a shock horror headline (lets face it, they need something to pad out their annually recycled articles and gun reviews) In the eyes of the general public BASC's stance should demonstrate that we shooters do have some consideration for animal welfare, despite the best efforts of the antis to prove otherwise. In contrast (though I haven't read the ST article) it doesn't sound as if they are doing our reputation much good.

[Sinistercr0c]

@ Mungler & Diceman - both good points and well put....

 

Anyone objectively assessing the points put forward by the BASC could not fail to come to the conclusion that they appear reasonable on face value and nowhere near those of the 'anti' brigade. To state otherwise (as ST seem to be doing) is either naive or a deliberate ploy to stir up a storm. Why this might be the case only ST can answer, as I have no idea.

 

The idea that this whole issue could be politicised fills me with dread. Imagine if one of the main parties decided it could be a real vote winner, and pushed to get pheasant shooting banned due to the cruel nature in which the birds were reared. Its not beyond the bounds of possibility in my view, to end up in this kind of situation.

 

Surely the powers that be who have editorial control over what ST prints understand the risk they are taking by their actions?

[MC]

Just to add my opinion...

 

BASC siding with the antis makes them (in my eyes) traitors and therefore will never get a penny from me.

 

I personally dont like raised laying cages for pheasants but dont think it should be banned, each to their own.

 

For partridges, its the only cost effective way.

 

GH

 

p.s - BASC is full of know it all toffs that spend too much time in the office talking about shooting while sipping champers and sloe gin and not enough in the real world!

 

 

Oh dear has someone not had their hot milk and been tucked in by mummy?

 

You obviously know nothing and think you are clever by having a pop at BASC. You don't realise what they are trying to do and while none of us like the anti's it doesn't mean we have to disagree with them all the time. If they said the sky is blue would you still disagree with them?

 

Surely it can only help to portray shooter as wanting to do the right thing in rearing birds in the best possible way and if that means getting rid of cages then so be it. How many people dislike the battery hens? or are you george hare a confirmed 3 chickens for a fiver type of person?

 

Sinistercroc has it bang on

[al4x]

The issue isn't as simple as it looks from an animal husbandry point of view. Those pictures are LACS pictures being used by BASC, now what they don't show is chronic overcrowding like battery hens ok they show a dead pheasant and some in slightly less than top condition. However these are breeding birds and used to the attention of a less than gentle cock bird, being raised keeps them out of the mud and lets all the droppings drop through the mesh so they are at least clean. Ok they can't roost and aren't covered which to me are both issues that need to be addressed which is what the draft document is suggesting is changed. The birds are kept in the cages for the period required to lay eggs so chicks can be released for the forthcoming season so they aren't in them all year. Ok the addition of astroturf is probably not a good thing as its something to stop the droppings falling through. In an ideal world we wouldn't rear pheasants for release and this is where dodgy ground is being trodden joining forces with animal aid and LACS, were we to only shoot wild birds that would really make it an elitist sport and kill most of the small syndicates straight away. Once you start focussing on one thing and highlighting how bad it is (if it is) then you start bringing the whole industry into the spotlight especially when the people you're with would like to see all shooting stopped.

At the moment a huge number of the eggs that are hatched in the uk come from the continent and they will pretty much all be laid like this because its a simple system to do on a big scale, this equates to cheap eggs. These then get incubated and the birds are started in a more conventional way so your poult you release was only in a cage at the egg stage. As said its only used by a few of the big producers here so isn't that important and won't stop smaller farmers going due to increased competition from abroad its just our guys trying to compete with foreign competition and the BASC trying to shoot them down.

The side issue is its just a draft document so will be interesting to see if they get their way or whether the middle ground option gets put forward.

 

Sinistercroc the shooting times is highlighting whats going on, BASC and the other organisations against them are lobbying back bench labour MP's and trying to stir up the issue, would you prefer it kept quiet and brushed aside or is it right that a shooting magazine despite who advertises in it should publish the details, its not making them up its just what is being done on our behalf as members.

[MC]

Where have BASC stated that they "Have joined forces with LACS"? I think you are reading far too much into this Al4x. So they have used a few photo's big deal. This is to show what a breeding cage is like, nothing else.

 

These people want to see all shooting stopped anyway, even if every pheasant was reared in someones house with the best possible welfare ever. Agreeing with them on this level doesn't alter that in any way, shape or form.

 

As for the earlier comment about the end of partridge production in the UK, the poster os that comment obviously hasn't read the tread properly as it is mentioned several times that this stopping using CAGES doesn't affect partridge BOXES.

 

To quote your post

 

" ok they show a dead pheasant and some in slightly less than top condition"

 

Isn't that enough? or are you saying that it doesn't really matter as long as your shoot gets cheap birds to shoot at because they are only targets at the end of the day.

[al4x]

but birds in traditional systems can look less than healthy in particularly a wet year, If you go onto the LACS site you'll find equally shocking photos relating to most modern methods of farming, then more on shooting that if you didn't know better you would think were representative of the whole country. Hell they still think game shoots just shoot to kill birds and Bury them.

there are unsavoury things in certain industries the milk you have on your cereal in past years has contributed to day old bull calves being destroyed at birth and thats not very nice but if you want milk and have no where for bull calves to go then it gets done. Not to say its right but in this case DEFRA and the people most involved are saying they have a place in production and working to make them more ethical which makes sense whereas theres a blinkered view on the other side that wants them done away with altogether. Be interesting to hear if anyone has worked on a farm that uses them and what they think as to me it really isn't much different to partridge boxes,

 

I'm sure you have full confidence in the government to distinguish between a box and a cage, whichever you use its still to confine birds and obviously thats what is scaring the Game farmers association and the shooting times etc

 

have a little look here MC shows a bit more information and not quite what is being portrayed

 

http://www.bettwshall.com/gamefarm/ph_chicks.htm

Edited January 20, 2010 by al4x

[MC]

Al4x

 

You seem to be arguing for arguings sake, I am fully aware about bull calves being destroyed, if we were to eat more properly raised free range veal instead of importing it from the crates abroad then it would be a start to sorting that issue out. As has been done with free range eggs and battery cages. I would be amazed if you can still find battery hens eggs anywhere except perhaps Poundland

 

Your link to a game farm website shows a few pretty pictures but not a lot else.

 

I do not have confidence in the government to tie their shoelaces each morning let alone distinguish between a box and a cage which is why I put my support in an organisation such as BASC.

 

My ST has just arrived so the kettle is on and I am going to read the article now, although scanning through it quickly it seems the issue is space and having 1 square metre per bird which isn't unreasonable is it? After all isn't that the formula on how release pens are constructed?

[al4x]

ok under the pictures it describes the following, which is a game farm actually using their version of the system that would be stopped. You know what governs release pen size? its the space needed to reduce the amount of mud/**** they create to minimise disease risk. Its all about disease not crowding.

 

Traditions 10’ x 10’ Pens

 

Pheasant eggs were traditionally produced by holding up to 14 hens and a cock in 10 foot by 10 foot pens. The pens would be placed in a grass field with a net over the top to prevent the pheasants from escaping. The birds would be held for approximately five months and eggs would be laid on the floor.

 

However, the ground becomes sodden and the grass soon subsided leaving the pheasants to parade around in the dirt and their own excrement, creating additional issues such as disease and the subsequent ability to medicate effectively. All this is of course compounded by the traditionally bad British wet weather.

 

Eggs are picked out of the mud, or wet and dirty straw which has been laid down, they then have to be washed before being graded and set in the incubators.

 

vs

 

Raised Pens

 

As an alternative to the traditional method, new raised laying pens have been introduced at Bettws Hall. The pens measure eight foot by six foot and house six hens and a cock. There are hidden laying areas, perches, scratching blocks and dusting areas for the birds.

 

As the pens are raised there is no fear of sodden and trampled dirt and their manure falls away below leaving a continually clean floor. The welfare of the birds is of paramount importance and their feed and water are closely monitored and medicated when necessary. The eggs are easily collected along one side of the pen, minimising bird stress from human interaction.

 

Lighting is used to gradually increase the daylight hours which enables the hens’ performance to peak earlier and thus reduce the time kept in captivity. After four months the birds are released back into the wild.

[Simon Clarke]

I'm posting this on behalf of Christopher Graffius, Director of Communications at BASC, who is in the process of registering for the site:

 

 

 

After reading this interesting thread I wanted to make a few points that may help.

 

Not all the photos posted here are stills from the antis. The two of partridges were taken by me on a visit to a cage user, as was the picture of hens fluttering in the cage. This was at the start of the season before the cocks had been put in with the hens and the game farmer told us that their condition would be very bad by the end of the season. It was the conditions in which the partridges were being kept for three years – a subdivided pheasant cage, 8 compartments with a pair in each - that really upset the game keeper that was with me.

 

Take another look at the photo of the cock and the dead hen. This is at the end of the season so the birds are in about the worst condition they will sink to. Originally there would have been ten hens and a cock in this cage. There are now four live hens and a cock, one dead hen and four missing. This suggests a mortality rate of 50% in this cage alone. A Game farmer who has used cages and then abandoned them in disgust told us that his mortality rate overall was 20%. This compared to 1-5% in traditional pens and partridge boxes. As cage users and the GCT vet have said; management is far more difficult in a cage than in a pen system and problems occur more easily. They also said that there was no difference in hatchability and fertility, the difference was in the mortality rate and the staffing costs. The latter plummeted with cages.

 

So there you have it. The game farmer reduces his costs and if he sells well increases his profits. The price? A higher mortality rate, poor welfare, the status of game meat as “wild, natural and free range” compromised and the future of shooting put in doubt the minute a national newspaper runs a shock expose. As one Conservative MP said to me “cages are a no-brainer”.

Edited January 20, 2010 by Simon Clarke

[Simon Clarke]

As an alternative to the traditional method, new raised laying pens have been introduced at Bettws Hall. The pens measure eight foot by six foot and house six hens and a cock. There are hidden laying areas, perches, scratching blocks and dusting areas for the birds.

 

The pictures mainly come from Bettws Hall, which is one of the largest users of cages in the UK.

[al4x]

Have you looked at Bettws Hall who seem to have modified the system to improve welfare? or are you just focussing on the worst end as thats more shocking? Everybody is suggesting the cages you mention should be banned but even the NFU think there is a way to use them to improve things if they are vastly modified which it seems certainly the first one I found on a search seem to have done.

 

edit:- the pictures aren't 8ft by 6ft pens so are they lying on their web site?

Edited January 20, 2010 by al4x

[Simon Clarke]

These are cages at Bettws:

 

 

These are pheasants in cages:

 

 

These are pheasants in an "enriched" cage:

 

 

This is a pair of partridge in a cage, bearing no resemblance to traditional partridge pair boxes:

 

 

This is the minimum standard which BASC is seeking:

 

 

This is the ideal pheasant laying system:

 

[MC]

In my opinion there is no competition, if enriching a cage means putting half a broom handle in it yet the roof of the cage is so low the birds can't roost anyway then it is a joke. How so many supposed shooting organisations can support that I do not know.

 

What the BASC is calling for is the way to go as far as I see it, and as for Bettws Hall website maybe a little artistic licence I feel.