Chris Packham/Grouse Shooting - Merged Threads

[panoma1]

Couple of points

 

1. The RSPB couldn't support the Hen Harrier project on active Grouse Moors because the bird itself is in decline, being on the amber list status. It would have been seen to supporting shooting of a declining species to preserve another.

 

2. M&S will only put on their shelves what people want to buy. I looked for some grouse in Waitrose a couple of weeks back couldn't find any..asked the duty manager why they didn't have any..."because there's no demand for it and we end up chucking it away." nothing more sinister than that

I don't believe the RSPB ever wanted to join the Hen Harrier project, as it would undermine their attempts to use the alleged decline in the Hen Harrier population as a means of attacking shooting, I further believe they reluctantly agreed after months of prevarication and were finally forced into it because they didn't want to appear to not support a project to protect a much publicised declining bird species.........they pulled out after Seven months saying it wasn't working......they couldn't pull out quick enough!.....seven months is nowhere near enough time to evaluate whether the project is working or not!...........but by joining the project in the first place, be it reluctantly, they could pretend they tried!

Edited September 4, 2016 by panoma1

[scotslad]

Couple of points

 

1. The RSPB couldn't support the Hen Harrier project on active Grouse Moors because the bird itself is in decline, being on the amber list status. It would have been seen to supporting shooting of a declining species to preserve another.

 

2. M&S will only put on their shelves what people want to buy. I looked for some grouse in Waitrose a couple of weeks back couldn't find any..asked the duty manager why they didn't have any..."because there's no demand for it and we end up chucking it away." nothing more sinister than that

 

I think the big problem rspb had with the HH recovery program was the brood management element and not actually shooting (well apart fromthe fact they hate shooting full stop) another amber listed species.

if i'm honest i doubt if they actually really care about the HH but it is a very handy tool to club shooters with and suits there agenda. HH are on the rise whereas kestral numbers are in free fall yet never mentioned?

Must admit was surprised red grouse are even on it, but probably due to a decline range rather than a drop in numbers and red grouse are sort of unquie to UK so none elsewhere.

The places with grouse have pronanly never ever had so many. There's quite a famous print taken on a famous moor that shows a pack going over the guns when the artist counted them got 800 in that 1 pack

 

If u look down the amber list both teal and wigeon are on it along with greylag geese which are now on the GL which the rspb or any other charity objected to greylag being added to the GL, u will probably find rspb and wwt will be 2 of the main orgs actually kiiling/injecting/oiling eggs of greylags so not against reduce amber species numbers

 

2 Ur quite right there not the best tasting bird, and not the easist to cook well either, esp if u get an old bird.

Out of couriousty do u know wot sort of money they were selling them for?

 

About 8-10 years ago keepers would hardly sell u an august grouse and dealer rate was arounf 14-16 quid a brace for young and half for an old brace, althou it would drop off as season went on, last time i paid for a brace was a few years ago about 4 quid for young but nowadays usually get them given for nowt if i want any.

A mates wife was paying 6 quid a rabiit from abutcher in glasgow a while back

[Scully]

I asked the RSPB why they had left the programme, and they told me it was clear the programme wasn't working ( but failed to tell me why they thought this ) and said they would push for licensing for driven grouse moors from outside the programme.

Raptors are big business for the RSPB, and the bigger the raptor the BIGGER the business. They are romantically majestic and linked with the freedom of soaring above the woods and moors in an uncluttered sunlit sky.

The Common Buzzard is now more common than Cormorants I believe ( am happy to be corrected ) yet requests for licenses to shoot Cormorants are given with a minuscule amount of opposition compared to that which is met with regarding Buzzards. We all know why.

[scotslad]

Scully

 

Really can't get where ur coming from.

If u look at my full quote (and not taken it out of context, was post #152) where i said pheasant shooting would be far harder to defend than grouse shooting, it's hardly a stinging critism and wasn't intened as a thinly vieled threat or anything else.

I've not said anything thats not obvious it not not meant to be divisive (hell i run a pheasant shoot) and definately have not pointed any fingers or cast wide asspirtions about wot lowland keepers may or may not do.

 

It was meant to get everyone behind grouse shooting, there really is NO case for it to answer, it has done nothing wrong.

But if u can not defend shooting a 100% sustainable native bird, it is going to get an awfull lot harder to argue for releasing many non native birds purely to shoot.

So no matter wot u shoot wether rough, driven or wildfowling u may have no interest in grouse shooting but u do need to get behind it.

 

Any moral or ethical argument is the exact same no matter which species of bird it is, and the bottom line they will not be happy until all sport shootng is banned, but once a precedent is set where banning 1 sport or bag limits for driven it will very quickly filter down

 

Sadly u will never ever have a year with no raptor's dying, (just as u will never have a year with no drink driving convictions yet no one accuses all drivers of drink driving) sadly there will always be the odd rogue old school keeper out there, but there is also a few other folk who would kill BoP, pigeon fanciers for 1.

Even all the headlines about 'scotlands biggest/worst wildlfie crime' where 20 odd BoP where posioned has went very quiet since it turns out there was a very good chance they were posioned accidentally by the local feeding station and contminated meat.

Anytime a dead BoP turns up it is headline news no matter how it died as thats revinue for them and good Pr, the follow up story (if it happens) stating it died of natural causes will be tiny/non existant.

 

Grouse keepers ARE NOT responsible for widespread killing of raptors and the same comment is equally true for low ground keepers, any cases are very isolated and quite uncommon now.

There is absolutely no evidence to support the anti's claim that this is the case and i'd say the refusal to adopt the HH recovery plan when every other agency (inc government 1's) has shows they're not overly bothered about the species just using it for political gain.

Wot about hte pair of nesting Eagle owls that mysterously went missing off 1 of their resrves? Far rarer than HH, should of been a big bonus for them but doesn't suit their agenda

Brood management is quite common in many parts of europe to deal with problem populations of BoP

 

The HH is being used in the exact same way as lead shot as a political football. I can understand rspb/wwt's interrest in leads shot in the environment but why fund research into lead levels in meat? Seems completely out of their remit.

But just another politicl/PR tool to weaken shooting

 

The only reason they are targeting grouse shooting is because it is only done by a tiny tiny % of shooters who are already in a vast minority, they also tend to be the richest land owner classes. Wot makes a better photo oppotunity a load of 'toffs' lording it about or a group of working class boys walking miles fr the slim chance of a shot?

The big problem with shooters is many would happily throw other forms of shooting under the bus if they thought it would save there own sport, many wildfowlers would happily see the inland released duck shoots banned, many rough/diy syndicate shooters would happily see big commercial days restricted/banned.

The fact is the antis don't care wot or how many u shoot the fact u shoot is enough and there just picking off the easier targets first

 

There is absolutely no scietific evidence or any good reason why grouse shooting should have to defend itself in this way, the attacks are 100% class driven or jealousy of the land rulling classes.

In fact most of the scientific evidence stacks up pretty conclusively in grouse shooting corner, these attacks are just pure PR/political point scoring

 

If the anti's ever target fishing, wot aspect do u think they'll target first?? Will the target be some toff paying thousands for a day/week on the tweed/tay/spey or a father and son huddled round some canal, quarry hole?

 

Scully u mentioned earlier that most of the vast ammount of money spoent won't filter its way down to the beaters. Do the shoots not pay the beatrs in ur area?

I'm sure all the school kids out 4,5 and 6 days a week @50 quid are loving it before the holidays end, same with the many farm workers and shepherds that a few days on moor evry week fairly susidises there farm income, never mind the boys doing the loading/stuffing.

U also say u know loads of boys that work onthe moors as keepers, is that not filtering down into local shops, pubs, vets, garages etc kjeeping ruaral schools filled. Did i not read in this thread u have a kid that works in a pub busy with shooters?

 

 

We really ALL do need to get behind grouse shooting as any restrictions will filter down to every other aspect of shooting very quickly this is not the time to believe all the BS spouted which is trying to divide us, and i'd say its working althou possibly doubtful if we were ever actually unified

[TommyB]

Done.

[Scully]

Scully

 

Really can't get where ur coming from. Ok, last attempt.

If u look at my full quote (and not taken it out of context, was post #152) where i said pheasant shooting would be far harder to defend than grouse shooting, it's hardly a stinging critism and wasn't intened as a thinly vieled threat or anything else. Why is pheasant shooting any harder to defend than driven grouse shooting? What do keepers do differently regarding the rearing of pheasant than the rearing of grouse? Grouse may be indigenous but that is the only difference between the two birds, and when those two species are reared for the same reason, how can you deem one is more defensible than the other? Seems rather strange to me if not hypocritical. So let me ask again; what do keepers do differently to ensure there are sufficient pheasant or grouse to shoot? Pest control? Creating a favourable habitat? Interfering with the natural habitat and creating conditions to cater for a certain species? Whatever the differences, keepers try to ensure favourable conditions for both species for one reason, and one reason only...to shoot for sport.

 

I've not said anything thats not obvious it not not meant to be divisive (hell i run a pheasant shoot) and definately have not pointed any fingers or cast wide asspirtions about wot lowland keepers may or may not do. Yes you have; many times! Read back through some of your posts.

 

It was meant to get everyone behind grouse shooting, there really is NO case for it to answer, it has done nothing wrong. Claiming driven grouse shooting is more defensible than driven pheasant isn't going to 'get everyone behind grouse shooting'. I'm 100% behind grouse shooting but you seem blinkered as to what is going on; there IS a case to answer, just as there is a case to answer regarding pheasant shooting when illegal acts are carried out in the name of game shooting. The antis will still oppose us whatever we do, but why oh why do we keep giving them good reason to point the outraged finger.

But if u can not defend shooting a 100% sustainable native bird, it is going to get an awfull lot harder to argue for releasing many non native birds purely to shoot. There you go again! If I had hair I'd be pulling it out at this point! The only reason grouse are sustainable is due to the work and money involved to ensure it. You cannot defend the indefensible! We are killing living creatures for no other reason than we enjoy it...do you not understand that!? You can dress it up any way you like, but that is a fact. I'm not ashamed of that; are you? At the moment it is legal, but everytime there is even a sniff of persecution it takes us another little step closer to becoming illegal. It wouldn't matter if there were no raptor persecution, but because there has been ( and possibly still is ) in the past it has given antis a pretty big stick with which to beat us, and because of keeper persecution, everytime a raptor disappears the finger is pointed at us. Now tell me.....whose fault is that? It certainly isn't the fault of M&S, or the RSPB, or Packham, or Avery.

So no matter wot u shoot wether rough, driven or wildfowling u may have no interest in grouse shooting but u do need to get behind it.

 

Any moral or ethical argument is the exact same no matter which species of bird it is, and the bottom line they will not be happy until all sport shootng is banned, but once a precedent is set where banning 1 sport or bag limits for driven it will very quickly filter down I have never claimed otherwise.

 

Sadly u will never ever have a year with no raptor's dying, (just as u will never have a year with no drink driving convictions yet no one accuses all drivers of drink driving) sadly there will always be the odd rogue old school keeper out there, but there is also a few other folk who would kill BoP, pigeon fanciers for 1. Yes, there are many reasons why raptors die, we just have to ensure that we can prove we aren't one of them.

Even all the headlines about 'scotlands biggest/worst wildlfie crime' where 20 odd BoP where posioned has went very quiet since it turns out there was a very good chance they were posioned accidentally by the local feeding station and contminated meat. ​Totally irrelevant, but have you done anything to determine what really did happen? If it concerns you have you lobbied your shooting organisation to find out what really happened, and call for the findings to be made public? I'm sure if the boot was on the other foot Avery et al would have pursued it vigorously. If the finger was pointed at game shooting estates, why haven't those estates queried what really happened? I would, if the finger had been pointed at me.

Anytime a dead BoP turns up it is headline news no matter how it died as thats revinue for them and good Pr, the follow up story (if it happens) stating it died of natural causes will be tiny/non existant.

Those who oppose us make much of every opportunity, yet we seem to regard keeping a low profile as a worthy tactic; why is that?

 

Grouse keepers ARE NOT responsible for widespread killing of raptors I can't recall claiming they were responsible for the WIDESPREAD killing of raptors, nor that it was widespread, but they have been in the past, and mud sticks unfortunately. Raptors are dying, or at least disappearing, so someone or something is responsible; lets just hope it isn't us eh? It wont stop the finger wagging, but if it isn't us and the antis can't prove otherwise, I'm happy. and the same comment is equally true for low ground keepers, any cases are very isolated and quite uncommon now.

There is absolutely no evidence to support the anti's claim that this is the case and i'd say the refusal to adopt the HH recovery plan when every other agency (inc government 1's) has shows they're not overly bothered about the species just using it for political gain. Of course it's for political gain. Everyone has an agenda where there is class war or money at stake.

Wot about hte pair of nesting Eagle owls that mysterously went missing off 1 of their resrves? Far rarer than HH, should of been a big bonus for them but doesn't suit their agenda ​I have no idea; have you asked them?

Brood management is quite common in many parts of europe to deal with problem populations of BoP

 

The HH is being used in the exact same way as lead shot as a political football. Yes, it is, so we need to show we are squeaky clean. I can understand rspb/wwt's interrest in leads shot in the environment but why fund research into lead levels in meat? Seems completely out of their remit.

But just another politicl/PR tool to weaken shooting Yes, but totally irrelevant to the topic.

 

The only reason they are targeting grouse shooting is because it is only done by a tiny tiny % of shooters who are already in a vast minority, they also tend to be the richest land owner classes. Wot makes a better photo oppotunity a load of 'toffs' lording it about or a group of working class boys walking miles fr the slim chance of a shot?

The big problem with shooters is many would happily throw other forms of shooting under the bus if they thought it would save there own sport, many wildfowlers would happily see the inland released duck shoots banned, many rough/diy syndicate shooters would happily see big commercial days restricted/banned.

The fact is the antis don't care wot or how many u shoot the fact u shoot is enough and there just picking off the easier targets first We know all of the above in this paragraph, but it has nothing to do with this subject. Shooters are divided in this country ( you yourself have questioned the moral or ethical practice of rearing non- indigenous species for shooting for sport when compared to indigenous species ) and never have been united; not even the organisations want to be united, and it wouldn't make a jot of difference if they were, but again, it has nothing to do with this topic.

 

There is absolutely no scietific evidence or any good reason why grouse shooting should have to defend itself in this way, Then why do you feel the need to do so? the attacks are 100% class driven or jealousy of the land rulling classes.

In fact most of the scientific evidence stacks up pretty conclusively in grouse shooting corner, these attacks are just pure PR/political point scoring

 

If the anti's ever target fishing, wot aspect do u think they'll target first?? Will the target be some toff paying thousands for a day/week on the tweed/tay/spey or a father and son huddled round some canal, quarry hole?

 

Scully u mentioned earlier that most of the vast ammount of money spoent won't filter its way down to the beaters. Do the shoots not pay the beatrs in ur area?Yes, they pay them, but adults get nowhere near 50 quid, let alone the kids!

I'm sure all the school kids out 4,5 and 6 days a week @50 quid are loving it before the holidays end, same with the many farm workers and shepherds that a few days on moor evry week fairly susidises there farm income, never mind the boys doing the loading/stuffing. ​Stuffers get good money; my Dad used to load for Lord Ingleborough, and occasionally Lord Lowther, but again it's totally irrelevant.

U also say u know loads of boys that work onthe moors as keepers, is that not filtering down into local shops, pubs, vets, garages etc kjeeping ruaral schools filled. Did i not read in this thread u have a kid that works in a pub busy with shooters?

I see all the points you're making Scotslad, and totally agree with the revenue driven game shooting attracts to the locally economy, but that doesn't mean I'm blinkered to the other aspects of shooting which attract attacks by antis. Believe me, I'm as passionate about shooting as you are, which is why I can't afford to view it through rose tinted spectacles. If there are wrong doings within shooting ( and no one can deny there are ) then they need to be weeded out and eradicated for the future of us all.

 

We really ALL do need to get behind grouse shooting as any restrictions will filter down to every other aspect of shooting very quickly this is not the time to believe all the BS spouted which is trying to divide us, and i'd say its working althou possibly doubtful if we were ever actually unified It may be BS, but some of that BS has its basis in fact. Like I've said, I look forward to the ( hopefully ) forthcoming parliamentary debate, where with a bit of luck, the facts and figures surrounding all aspects of driven grouse shooting will be made public. Hopefully it will give us a sound basis on which to start rebuilding faith in the role and practices of keeping and ownership of grouse moors. We certainly can't continue as we are, with claim and counter claim, suspicion and deceit. It just seems to roll on; a bird disappears, fingers are pointed, denials made but no resolution one way or another, so suspicion reigns; then that suspicion is aired in public on Countryfile or wherever, feeble denials issued but nothing resolved yet again, and round we go again, and so on and so on.

As you say, if it's totally defensible, what have we to worry about?

Edited September 5, 2016 by Scully

[scotslad]

 

Scully

 

Really can't get where ur coming from. Ok, last attempt.

If u look at my full quote (and not taken it out of context, was post #152) where i said pheasant shooting would be far harder to defend than grouse shooting, it's hardly a stinging critism and wasn't intened as a thinly vieled threat or anything else. Why is pheasant shooting any harder to defend than driven grouse shooting? What do keepers do differently regarding the rearing of pheasant than the rearing of grouse? Grouse may be indigenous but that is the only difference between the two birds, and when those two species are reared for the same reason, how can you deem one is more defensible than the other? Seems rather strange to me if not hypocritical. So let me ask again; what do keepers do differently to ensure there are sufficient pheasant or grouse to shoot? Pest control? Creating a favourable habitat? Interfering with the natural habitat and creating conditions to cater for a certain species? Whatever the differences, keepers try to ensure favourable conditions for both species for one reason, and one reason only...to shoot for sport.

 

I've not said anything thats not obvious it not not meant to be divisive (hell i run a pheasant shoot) and definately have not pointed any fingers or cast wide asspirtions about wot lowland keepers may or may not do. Yes you have; many times! Read back through some of your posts.

 

It was meant to get everyone behind grouse shooting, there really is NO case for it to answer, it has done nothing wrong. Claiming driven grouse shooting is more defensible than driven pheasant isn't going to 'get everyone behind grouse shooting'. I'm 100% behind grouse shooting but you seem blinkered as to what is going on; there IS a case to answer, just as there is a case to answer regarding pheasant shooting when illegal acts are carried out in the name of game shooting. The antis will still oppose us whatever we do, but why oh why do we keep giving them good reason to point the outraged finger.

But if u can not defend shooting a 100% sustainable native bird, it is going to get an awfull lot harder to argue for releasing many non native birds purely to shoot. There you go again! If I had hair I'd be pulling it out at this point! The only reason grouse are sustainable is due to the work and money involved to ensure it. You cannot defend the indefensible! We are killing living creatures for no other reason than we enjoy it...do you not understand that!? You can dress it up any way you like, but that is a fact. I'm not ashamed of that; are you? At the moment it is legal, but everytime there is even a sniff of persecution it takes us another little step closer to becoming illegal. It wouldn't matter if there were no raptor persecution, but because there has been ( and possibly still is ) in the past it has given antis a pretty big stick with which to beat us, and because of keeper persecution, everytime a raptor disappears the finger is pointed at us. Now tell me.....whose fault is that? It certainly isn't the fault of M&S, or the RSPB, or Packham, or Avery.

So no matter wot u shoot wether rough, driven or wildfowling u may have no interest in grouse shooting but u do need to get behind it.

 

Any moral or ethical argument is the exact same no matter which species of bird it is, and the bottom line they will not be happy until all sport shootng is banned, but once a precedent is set where banning 1 sport or bag limits for driven it will very quickly filter down I have never claimed otherwise.

 

Sadly u will never ever have a year with no raptor's dying, (just as u will never have a year with no drink driving convictions yet no one accuses all drivers of drink driving) sadly there will always be the odd rogue old school keeper out there, but there is also a few other folk who would kill BoP, pigeon fanciers for 1. Yes, there are many reasons why raptors die, we just have to ensure that we can prove we aren't one of them.

Even all the headlines about 'scotlands biggest/worst wildlfie crime' where 20 odd BoP where posioned has went very quiet since it turns out there was a very good chance they were posioned accidentally by the local feeding station and contminated meat. ​Totally irrelevant, but have you done anything to determine what really did happen? If it concerns you have you lobbied your shooting organisation to find out what really happened, and call for the findings to be made public? I'm sure if the boot was on the other foot Avery et al would have pursued it vigorously. If the finger was pointed at game shooting estates, why haven't those estates queried what really happened? I would, if the finger had been pointed at me.

Anytime a dead BoP turns up it is headline news no matter how it died as thats revinue for them and good Pr, the follow up story (if it happens) stating it died of natural causes will be tiny/non existant.

Those who oppose us make much of every opportunity, yet we seem to regard keeping a low profile as a worthy tactic; why is that?

 

Grouse keepers ARE NOT responsible for widespread killing of raptors I can't recall claiming they were responsible for the WIDESPREAD killing of raptors, nor that it was widespread, but they have been in the past, and mud sticks unfortunately. Raptors are dying, or at least disappearing, so someone or something is responsible; lets just hope it isn't us eh? It wont stop the finger wagging, but if it isn't us and the antis can't prove otherwise, I'm happy. and the same comment is equally true for low ground keepers, any cases are very isolated and quite uncommon now.

There is absolutely no evidence to support the anti's claim that this is the case and i'd say the refusal to adopt the HH recovery plan when every other agency (inc government 1's) has shows they're not overly bothered about the species just using it for political gain. Of course it's for political gain. Everyone has an agenda where there is class war or money at stake.

Wot about hte pair of nesting Eagle owls that mysterously went missing off 1 of their resrves? Far rarer than HH, should of been a big bonus for them but doesn't suit their agenda ​I have no idea; have you asked them?

Brood management is quite common in many parts of europe to deal with problem populations of BoP

 

The HH is being used in the exact same way as lead shot as a political football. Yes, it is, so we need to show we are squeaky clean. I can understand rspb/wwt's interrest in leads shot in the environment but why fund research into lead levels in meat? Seems completely out of their remit.

But just another politicl/PR tool to weaken shooting Yes, but totally irrelevant to the topic.

 

The only reason they are targeting grouse shooting is because it is only done by a tiny tiny % of shooters who are already in a vast minority, they also tend to be the richest land owner classes. Wot makes a better photo oppotunity a load of 'toffs' lording it about or a group of working class boys walking miles fr the slim chance of a shot?

The big problem with shooters is many would happily throw other forms of shooting under the bus if they thought it would save there own sport, many wildfowlers would happily see the inland released duck shoots banned, many rough/diy syndicate shooters would happily see big commercial days restricted/banned.

The fact is the antis don't care wot or how many u shoot the fact u shoot is enough and there just picking off the easier targets first We know all of the above in this paragraph, but it has nothing to do with this subject. Shooters are divided in this country ( you yourself have questioned the moral or ethical practice of rearing non- indigenous species for shooting for sport when compared to indigenous species ) and never have been united; not even the organisations want to be united, and it wouldn't make a jot of difference if they were, but again, it has nothing to do with this topic.

 

There is absolutely no scietific evidence or any good reason why grouse shooting should have to defend itself in this way, Then why do you feel the need to do so? the attacks are 100% class driven or jealousy of the land rulling classes.

In fact most of the scientific evidence stacks up pretty conclusively in grouse shooting corner, these attacks are just pure PR/political point scoring

 

If the anti's ever target fishing, wot aspect do u think they'll target first?? Will the target be some toff paying thousands for a day/week on the tweed/tay/spey or a father and son huddled round some canal, quarry hole?

 

Scully u mentioned earlier that most of the vast ammount of money spoent won't filter its way down to the beaters. Do the shoots not pay the beatrs in ur area?Yes, they pay them, but adults get nowhere near 50 quid, let alone the kids!

I'm sure all the school kids out 4,5 and 6 days a week @50 quid are loving it before the holidays end, same with the many farm workers and shepherds that a few days on moor evry week fairly susidises there farm income, never mind the boys doing the loading/stuffing. ​Stuffers get good money; my Dad used to load for Lord Ingleborough, and occasionally Lord Lowther, but again it's totally irrelevant.

U also say u know loads of boys that work onthe moors as keepers, is that not filtering down into local shops, pubs, vets, garages etc kjeeping ruaral schools filled. Did i not read in this thread u have a kid that works in a pub busy with shooters?

I see all the points you're making Scotslad, and totally agree with the revenue driven game shooting attracts to the locally economy, but that doesn't mean I'm blinkered to the other aspects of shooting which attract attacks by antis. Believe me, I'm as passionate about shooting as you are, which is why I can't afford to view it through rose tinted spectacles. If there are wrong doings within shooting ( and no one can deny there are ) then they need to be weeded out and eradicated for the future of us all.

 

We really ALL do need to get behind grouse shooting as any restrictions will filter down to every other aspect of shooting very quickly this is not the time to believe all the BS spouted which is trying to divide us, and i'd say its working althou possibly doubtful if we were ever actually unified It may be BS, but some of that BS has its basis in fact. Like I've said, I look forward to the ( hopefully ) forthcoming parliamentary debate, where with a bit of luck, the facts and figures surrounding all aspects of driven grouse shooting will be made public. Hopefully it will give us a sound basis on which to start rebuilding faith in the role and practices of keeping and ownership of grouse moors. We certainly can't continue as we are, with claim and counter claim, suspicion and deceit. It just seems to roll on; a bird disappears, fingers are pointed, denials made but no resolution one way or another, so suspicion reigns; then that suspicion is aired in public on Countryfile or wherever, feeble denials issued but nothing resolved yet again, and round we go again, and so on and so on.

As you say, if it's totally defensible, what have we to worry about?

 

 

 

Ok Scully finally figured out where ur coming from. U do know u DON'T rear and release Grouse!!!! I dont think ur a knowledgable as u would like to think u are.

 

Everyone has there own moral/ethics wot ever u want to call it, wether its shooting/not shooting woodcock, But can u not see an ethical difference between rearing and releasing a bird purely to shoot. In my mind it does make a difference

I do run a pheasant shoot so do have a fair idea

 

Look at the 3 pieces i've enlarged, all grouse keepers can do is manage habitat and prey for good weather and they can only shoot if the numbers can support it throu a good breeding season, plenty of moors in scotland don't shoot that often and even when they do shoot rarely make a profit.

Never hear of many pheasant shoots not shooting due to a poor breeding year (apart from the very few wild bird shoots), even if have a bad releasing season (fox or disease) will just buy extra in

 

I just hope when the political debate comes the folk on our side are better informed than urself.

 

I also hope we don't turn on ourselves, there is still a fair bit of resentment from shooters about how some of the hunt fraternity tryed to point out the obvious that very few foxes are wounded by the hounds

[Scully]

 

 

Ok Scully finally figured out where ur coming from. U do know u DON'T rear and release Grouse!!!! I dont think ur a knowledgable as u would like to think u are. For crying out loud! Of course I know grouse aren't reared! Is that all you have to base your argument on? Really? Do you really believe I don't know grouse aren't reared from eggs by keepers? Do you really believe I think keepers buy grouse eggs or chicks from game dealers? Really? I'm an adult of 57 years of age; not six! Grouse are provided with a habitat biased towards their flourishment, by keepers, by exactly the same means that pheasant are; and you know damn fine that that is what I meant be 'rearing'! Is this your method of avoiding answering my questions? If not then tell me.....what do keepers on grouse moors do differently from keepers on pheasant shoots to ensure that their birds flourish? You can mention dogging in if you like, but then I'll really know you're stuck for an answer.

Aren't both in the business of creating a modified habitat biased towards the welfare of their birds to the extent they control the breeding and lifecycle of other living creatures which would otherwise predate them?

 

Everyone has there own moral/ethics wot ever u want to call it, wether its shooting/not shooting woodcock, But can u not see an ethical difference between rearing and releasing a bird purely to shoot. In my mind it does make a difference​ Are you serious? If so you have a skewed logic in my opinion! There is no difference because you have ensured the survival of one species in favour of another so you can kill the former for entertainment! Where do morals or ethics come into that?

I do run a pheasant shoot so do have a fair idea As do I.

 

Look at the 3 pieces i've enlarged, all grouse keepers can do is manage habitat and prey for good weather and they can only shoot if the numbers can support it throu a good breeding season, plenty of moors in scotland don't shoot that often and even when they do shoot rarely make a profit.

Never hear of many pheasant shoots not shooting due to a poor breeding year (apart from the very few wild bird shoots), even if have a bad releasing season (fox or disease)will just buy extra in ​So what? Do you seriously believe that is going to save grouse shooting? What difference is that going to make to those who oppose us? We're killing for fun....don't you see that? Do you seriously believe those who oppose us are going to turn round and say 'I think pheasant shooting should be banned, but let's leave those nice grouse shooters alone as their birds are wild and totally sustainable' ? Do you? That's the way it's starting to sound, and if you really believe one is more defensible than the other then you're unbelievably naive. The only reason grouse are sustainable is through the time and money invested in them in order for them to be killed for sport. That's fact.

 

I just hope when the political debate comes the folk on our side are better informed than urself. And I hope they have their feet firmly planted in reality, unlike yourself.

 

I also hope we don't turn on ourselves, Too late chum; you started the ball rolling. there is still a fair bit of resentment from shooters about how some of the hunt fraternity tryed to point out the obvious that very few foxes are wounded by the hounds ​Totally different topic, but if you want to start one I'll play. They're even more deluded than you regarding public perception.

[Brixsmaid]

The Vocal Yokel lives on https://skylarkwarrior.wordpress.com/2016/09/03/buzzards-and-badgers-and-bigots/

[ShootingEgg]

The Vocal Yokel lives on https://skylarkwarrior.wordpress.com/2016/09/03/buzzards-and-badgers-and-bigots/

A very good read that

[Penelope]

As are all his pieces.

 

A very good read that

[Scully]

I've always liked his writing; it is just a shame he is denied a platform from which to voice it anymore. Critical of the party line you see; can't be having that.

I didn't realise he had tried to interview Mr Packham, nor that those attempts had been resisted. Interesting. Perhaps someone should ask Mr Avery or Packham if they would care to have a debate with the the Vocal Yokel. Just a thought. 🙂

[David BASC]

Dear All,

 

You may or may not have seen this: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/sep/07/mps-to-debate-ban-on-grouse-shooting

 

We look forward to this debate where will destroy all the lies told about grouse shooting!

 

David

[Penelope]

Interesting to see that the last two paragraphs are almost identical. Perhaps it shows who the Government ministry listens to most.

[David BASC]

And our latest press release on this issue, sent out a few moments ago: https://basc.org.uk/blog/press-releases/latest-news/lobby-your-mp-ahead-of-grouse-shooting-debate/

 

David

[panoma1]

Averys comments about priviledge and the rich mans sport expose the real reason he, and his fellow zealots such as Packham, Oddie, the RSPB and the LACS etc (and no doubt a high percentage of the petition signatories) want driven grouse shooting curtailed (they really want it banned but know this is a wish too far!)

It will be interesting to see in the debate whether their bought and paid for MP's can prevent their spiteful class jealousy from seeping out!

I believe if the sound scientific, social and economic argument for driven grouse shooting cannot vanquish the dubious claims, emotional rubbish and pathetic class driven attacks from the anti's........then shooting is done!

Edited September 7, 2016 by panoma1

[scotslad]

Very well put panoma,

 

There is absolutely no scientific, envorinmental or ecological evidence or reason for this attack, the benefits to local economies and communities are also pretty obvious too. grouse shooting is 100% sustainable and conservation/land management at its best esp in such a harsh landscape.

 

The only thing they have is it is a very rich mans sport so can play on the class war or jealousy, there is absolutely no evidence of raptors being routinely or widely shot on moors

 

The quote "Grouse shooting is economically, ecologically and socially unnecessary. This is ‘canned hunting’" shows how little of a clue they really have. Just so wrong on every level

 

They obviously have never seen a grouse drive, I've been on drives over 3 miles long if they think it is easy getting birds over the butts they don't know how wrong they are. Even on relatively short drives if winfd the wrong way (last day i was out) seen very few birds in some return drives as pushing them into a strong headwind

 

Mibee even be a good thing if it can put some of these lies, myths and half truths to bed once and for all

Edited September 7, 2016 by scotslad

[Scully]

Looking forward to this; interesting times ahead.

[Brixsmaid]

Just seen this, I'll leave it up to members if they want to participate.

 

Poll: is it time to ban grouse shooting?

 

Its nearly as close as the Brexit vote at the moment!

[panoma1]

Averys comments about priviledge and the rich mans sport expose the real reason he, and his fellow zealots such as Packham, Oddie, the RSPB and the LACS etc (and no doubt a high percentage of the petition signatories) want driven grouse shooting curtailed (they really want it banned but know this is a wish too far!)

It will be interesting to see in the debate whether their bought and paid for MP's can prevent their spiteful class jealousy from seeping out!

I believe if the sound scientific, social and economic argument for driven grouse shooting cannot vanquish the dubious claims, emotional rubbish and pathetic class driven attacks from the anti's........then shooting is done!

Quoting my own posting I see that Tim Bonner from the CA in the editorial of their e-news, also concludes that the anti's opposition to driven grouse shooting is more to do with spite, jealousy and hatred for the rich, than any real concern for animal welfare!

The anti's really are a bunch of charmless lying scumbags!

I also note the CA are bullish about winning the arguement when this issue is debated in parliament! I hope it televised, I for one would not miss a second of it!!.......it stands a chance of being more entertaining than the debate in Westminster Hall on lead ammunition!!! What a wheeze that was!

[Scully]

I hope so...http://us8.campaign-archive1.com/?u=ce598cb66b49390b21df1f52c&id=ad4188e934&e=d9591bd57b

[Geo]

No response as yet from Yvette Cooper.

 

There's a basc website where you type your details in and it contacts them for you.

I've just done this , it couldn't be easier, go through the correct channels , it's the only way to make any progress with politicians.

[Penelope]

I'm waiting on a letter from Mark Francois. Automatic email communication said this is his preferred method of communicating with constituents. I'll scan it when it arrives and post it up.

[CharlieT]

I, like all who signed the "keep grouse shooting" petition, will have received an email today confirming there will be a debate in the house.

 

I was, however, more than a little surprised to note the omission of the BASC name in the list of those submitting evidence, particularly given some of Davids comments in this thread.

Good to see that the CA are in the thick of it and fighting our corner.

 

On Tuesday 18 October at 2.15pm, MPs will hear from Mark Avery, the creator of e-petition 125003, and representatives from the RSPB, the Moorland Association and the Countryside Alliance.

[Scully]

I, like all who signed the "keep grouse shooting" petition, will have received an email today confirming there will be a debate in the house.

 

I was, however, more than a little surprised to note the omission of the BASC name in the list of those submitting evidence, particularly given some of Davids comments in this thread.

Good to see that the CA are in the thick of it and fighting our corner.

 

On Tuesday 18 October at 2.15pm, MPs will hear from Mark Avery, the creator of e-petition 125003, and representatives from the RSPB, the Moorland Association and the Countryside Alliance.

 

Yes, I too received the email. I am looking forward to the debate with interest, and the outcome.

Alasdair Mitchell wrote a very good article regarding the issue in last weeks ST.