more attacks on shooting from Chris Packham

[Scully]

As I've said before, I don't care who or how many oppose what I do, or even if they campaign to have it banned, as long as they do it with honesty and can present the evidence to back up their claims.

As for 'what is their to attack' regarding driven grouse shooting, I have to ask, are you serious?

Many of those who oppose us don't care about sustainability, they don't care about the benefits to the species of creatures which benefit from the conservation work carried out in the name of shooting. They don't care about the conservation work, nor the financial benefits to the local economy. They don't care how many people are employed and they don't give a stuff how much money is generated to the economy by the shooting industry. Anyone who shoots live quarry by choice is doing it for enjoyment, and I mean anyone and everyone. If you don't enjoy it then stop doing it; no one is forcing you. And that is why we are attacked; it is the killing for sport, fun or entertainment.

[Woodlander]

I don't know how they do these bird counts to determine if they are in decline. I would agree that snipe numbers have decreased but on my patch there have been more golden plover in recent years. As for woodcock, you probably wouldn't know that they are there without a gun dog to flush them.

[Whitebridges]

I'd like to think i'm a countryman. I love bird watching amongst other natural history subjects. For years I made submissions to the Norfolk Bird Report.

 

I used to be a member of the RSPB but gave up my membership.

 

These organisations used to sit alongside one another and work towards the greater good. Nowadays it is an absolute battlefield.

 

So you need to fall on one side or the other, I find it impossible to sit on a barbed wire fence.

 

So, I favour supporting shooting. Shooting does itself no favours. Very few participate in all the disciplines, e.g. shoot grouse, pheasant , partridge, ground game, pigeons, vermin, deer, duck .goose, shoot clays, etc. etc. Our community has many facets and as a

 

consequence there is no real unity. For example, my pet hate is this wretched proposal to ban lead shot. The shooting community is divided and divided is WEAK !

 

BTW i think Chris Packham is a joke not only because he doesn't know what he is talking about but because he is most certainly an activist and only interested in political points scoring.

 

I wish Adge would concentrate on giving us horse racing tips than bungle on like middle man Britain. He's a bit fragile after Brexit you know.

Edited September 29, 2016 by Whitebridges

[flynny]

Same old , same old,

 

Shooting has been around a lot longer than tv and social media ballcocks,

 

And it will continue a lot longer than this idiot,

 

( if we all stop bickering amongst ourselves, )

 

A load of tripe for those that are willing to listen and take it all in,

 

 

YAAAAAAAAWWWWWWWN

 

Flynny

[scotslad]

Must admit these type of threads really depress me and show just how far behind we are, when even fellow shooters would rather believe the likes of packham and avery, (and political side of rspb) if any of them told me it was raining i'd go to the window to check.

Doubt they can lie straight in bed.

 

I have absolutely no problem with folk not agreeing with shooting, infact quite understand it, but if ur not a vegan u are a hypocrite.

And i also can see where meat eaters that don't like to think abut the killing/animal are coming from no matter how miisguided it is.

 

U just have to look at that recent jodie marsh tv thing, someone stuanchly anti shooting and vegan compleltely changed her opinion when she seen the facts, and i take my hat off to her for being big enough to do that

 

But for someone who is quite happy to spend money killing a farm pest (i bet ur not as quick to put ur hand in ur pocket to pay for the farmers rat posion?)

 

I do find it very hard to understand someones thinking who are actually happy to kill a species but decides about other species on how cute they look or how rich the folk shooting them are.

 

U have brought up the grouse numbers declining before. Where do u get that info from?? I could imgine their range may be declining due to a lack of keepering/management but there has never been so many grouse shot, EVER.

Most keepered moors in england esp have never had so many grouse as the last 10 yrs. And even in scotland there has never been as many grouse keepers employed as now

 

1 small family moor i go to has since it started keepering again (about 8yrs) seen the black grouse numbers explode as well as the grey partridge numbers, there up to 48 cock on 1 lek now and involved in catching them to relocate them elsewhere

 

I used to be a keen game fisherman when i had more time but that does not mean i'd like to see coarse fishing banned, far too many shooters are happy to believe anything they read and throw other fieldsports under the bus if they thought it would save there own for a few years

[Woodlander]

Myself and thousands of other volunteers undertake BTO breeding bird surveys,which involves walking a transect twice in Spring and recording the results. I have walked my transect for nearly 20 years and as everyone else in my area,have firsthand knowledge of the decline of Snipe,Golden Plover,Curlew and many more species that are legally shot because they happen to be on an antiquated list of birds designated "Game".

[scotslad]

Same old , same old,

 

Shooting has been around a lot longer than tv and social media ballcocks,

 

And it will continue a lot longer than this idiot,

 

( if we all stop bickering amongst ourselves, )

 

A load of tripe for those that are willing to listen and take it all in,

 

 

YAAAAAAAAWWWWWWWN

 

Flynny

 

Sorry i think ur completely wrong thou. I don't do any of theis socail media carp.

 

Look at the ban shooting on ilkely moor, 1 complete nut job with animal rights convictions has made it his mission to get it banned and is all over everywhere trying to do it. Before social media he would just be the lone nutter, now he could get thousands off likes without folk even knowing wot he's talking about.

It has never been so easy for random nutters to have an influence over things.

 

Its no longer who shouts the loudest or most often but who has the most tweets, and we're a long way behind.

[motty]

Curlew in decline because of what, exactly?

[Whitebridges]

 

...............

 

Its no longer who shouts the loudest or most often but who has the most tweets, and we're a long way behind.

 

What's the score in the USA then? Do the rednecks tweet?

 

You make a good point though, this "popular" vote is dangerous. It's a bit like the Scots voting in the SNP. Fat lot of good they'll do to support shooting and field sports.

 

The tories are the only hope if we want to keep our guns and the countryside going.

[scotslad]

Myself and thousands of other volunteers undertake BTO breeding bird surveys,which involves walking a transect twice in Spring and recording the results. I have walked my transect for nearly 20 years and as everyone else in my area,have firsthand knowledge of the decline of Snipe,Golden Plover,Curlew and many more species that are legally shot because they happen to be on an antiquated list of birds designated "Game".

 

Where are u? Is ur land on a shooting estate? I take it if u do the counts u know a bit abut the stats/analysis etc

Unless u also do counts on both a shooting estate and a non shooting estate ur observations are completely worthless is respect to shooting. Have a look at the GWCT's work up at Otterburn whih was mainly on wader numbers and predation with no habitat change.

Curlew been of the quarry list for a long time, never ever met somone who has shot a plover.

 

If u honestly believe these birds were shot to the low numbers u really have no idea.

 

Grey partridge and Black game are the prime examples even shoots which extsively manage habitat for them usually have fines for shooting them.

Shooters are not stupid there is no sport in shooting the last bird of a species in an area.

Same if u go back to the old otter hunting days, my local pack stopped hunting otters well before the ban came in as could see numbers declining, game fishing is the same many scottish rivers have been voulantry catch and realse for years/decades now.

 

Adge/woodlander. U don't seem to give any answers about who will manage and pay for all this management and feed that is put out if/when shooting is stopped?

Do u really think all these birds will just miraculously recover when shooting is banned?

[Savhmr]

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.

[Adge Cutler]

I'd like to think i'm a countryman. I love bird watching amongst other natural history subjects. For years I made submissions to the Norfolk Bird Report.

 

I used to be a member of the RSPB but gave up my membership.

 

These organisations used to sit alongside one another and work towards the greater good. Nowadays it is an absolute battlefield.

 

So you need to fall on one side or the other, I find it impossible to sit on a barbed wire fence.

 

So, I favour supporting shooting. Shooting does itself no favours. Very few participate in all the disciplines, e.g. shoot grouse, pheasant , partridge, ground game, pigeons, vermin, deer, duck .goose etc. etc. Our community has many facets and as a

 

consequence there is no real unity. For example, my pet hate is this wretched proposal to ban lead shot. The shooting community is divided and divided is WEAK !

 

BTW i think Chris Packham is a joke not only because he doesn't know what he is talking about but because he is most certainly an activist and only interested in political points scoring.

 

I wish Adge would concentrate on giving us horse racing tips than bungle on like middle man Britain. He's a bit fragile after Brexit you know.

I will try and get some together soon.

 

As a final word though I'm not at all against game shooting...my family have been involved in organised game shoots for five generations.. its only about 7 or 8 years ago my interest in it waned and I became more interested in the conservation of native species (of which the pheasant and red-legged Partridge is not.) Particularly because at that time the gamekeeper on the main estate I shot over. ( now sadly dead ) wanted buzzards, sparrow hawks, kestrels, tawny owls all shot and made it perfectly clear that he expected them to be. I'm afraid being an active BTO member that rather stuck in my craw.

 

Like I said each to his own..

 

I'm very thick skinned and can be insulted and ridiculed until the cows come home and wont take offence but any body who thinks Packham is a fool is sadly deluded.

 

On the contrary, hes intelligent, articulate and extremely knowledgable in his subject and most importantly.... the public like him. We don't have an equivalent with the same appeal

 

Shooting organisations like the BASC can publish counter propaganda and lobby government all they like.... sooner or later they will have to engage with people like Packham because its only by reaching a compromise with the likes of the RSPB, BTO et al will shooting be accepted by the wider public and its future safeguarded.

[Adge Cutler]

Adge Cutler. I don't like your point of view, one little bit.

You shoot pigeons for crop protection. Do you need to?

No.

[Woodlander]

To my knowledge,no one is laying the blame totally on the shooters. Habitat destruction, changes in weather patterns(especially wetter springs)availability of food,all play a much larger part in species decline than shooting ever does, but it certainly isn't going to help. Can you not go and shoot something else ***.

[islandgun]

Curlew in decline because of what, exactly?

 

well its not shooting as shooting curlew has been banned for years

 

Myself and thousands of other volunteers undertake BTO breeding bird surveys,which involves walking a transect twice in Spring and recording the results. I have walked my transect for nearly 20 years and as everyone else in my area,have firsthand knowledge of the decline of Snipe,Golden Plover,Curlew and many more species that are legally shot because they happen to be on an antiquated list of birds designated "Game".

 

what are the many more spp legally shot ?

[Adge Cutler]

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 very good post.. However I have never implied that anyone else is wrong or been smug enough to suggest that I am alright Jack as you put it.

I respect other peoples views always have done. Certainly not narrow minded either that's the last thing I am...I can see both sides of the coin and am after all a trained professional mediator so impartiality is the keyword.

[panoma1]

As I've said before, I don't care who or how many oppose what I do, or even if they campaign to have it banned, as long as they do it with honesty and can present the evidence to back up their claims.

As for 'what is their to attack' regarding driven grouse shooting, I have to ask, are you serious?

Many of those who oppose us don't care about sustainability, they don't care about the benefits to the species of creatures which benefit from the conservation work carried out in the name of shooting. They don't care about the conservation work, nor the financial benefits to the local economy. They don't care how many people are employed and they don't give a stuff how much money is generated to the economy by the shooting industry. Anyone who shoots live quarry by choice is doing it for enjoyment, and I mean anyone and everyone. If you don't enjoy it then stop doing it; no one is forcing you. And that is why we are attacked; it is the killing for sport, fun or entertainment.

I agree with the majority of your post but personally I don't kill things for fun, sport or entertainment! I shoot for fun, sport, and entertainment! the enjoyment of being in the countryside and wild places, the satisfaction I feel when I'm accurate with a gun, seeing my quarry, outwitting my quarry by my own field craft, success with my homeloaded cartridges, the unpredictability of your quarry, the tiredness I feel after a day in the field, the enjoyment of a day in the field with friends and likeminded folk etc, etc, etc...............Killing something does provide a welcome supply of free range meat..........but is still merely a byproduct of my enjoyment of the sport of shooting!

 

I might have moral reservations about killing things for sport, enjoyment or fun.......but I have no such moral reservations about shooting for sport, enjoyment or fun!

[Whitebridges]

I will try and get some together soon.

 

As a final word though I'm not at all against game shooting...my family have been involved in organised game shoots for five generations.. its only about 7 or 8 years ago my interest in it waned and I became more interested in the conservation of native species (of which the pheasant and red-legged Partridge is not.) Particularly because at that time the gamekeeper on the main estate I shot over. ( now sadly dead ) wanted buzzards, sparrow hawks, kestrels, tawny owls all shot and made it perfectly clear that he expected them to be. I'm afraid being an active BTO member that rather stuck in my craw.

 

Like I said each to his own..

 

I'm very thick skinned and can be insulted and ridiculed until the cows come home and wont take offence but any body who thinks Packham is a fool is sadly deluded.

 

On the contrary, hes intelligent, articulate and extremely knowledgable in his subject and most importantly.... the public like him. We don't have an equivalent with the same appeal

 

Shooting organisations like the BASC can publish counter propaganda and lobby government all they like.... sooner or later they will have to engage with people like Packham because its only by reaching a compromise with the likes of the RSPB, BTO et al will shooting be accepted by the wider public and its future safeguarded.

 

Good man, the champions festival just down the road at Newmarket is a good place to start.

 

I think the destruction of handsome and important species has become a thing of the past. Yes, there has been some incidents in recent years. Land owners and estate managers do not direct their keepers to do this.

What you mention is a thing of the past. It is not normal practice, far from it.

 

Adge I think Packham is a fool and if not a complete buffoon because he will get sacked from his job ( or contract). He is a short termer. He will fill his boots (with money) and get out. A self promoter who will fall on his bottom soon. There are plenty of other smart

 

presenters who can make a better career on TV than that idiot. An intelligent man does not make him the next Attenborough does it?

 

As a shooting man i'm quite horrified you like the bloke.

[Woodlander]

 

well its not shooting as shooting curlew has been banned for years

 

 

what are the many more spp legally shot ?

[Adge Cutler]

 

Good man, the champions festival just down the road at Newmarket is a good place to start.

 

I think the destruction of handsome and important species has become a thing of the past. Yes, there has been some incidents in recent years. Land owners and estate managers do not direct their keepers to do this.

What you mention is a thing of the past. It is not normal practice, far from it.

 

Adge I think Packham is a fool and if not a complete buffoon because he will get sacked from his job ( or contract). He is a short termer. He will fill his boots (with money) and get out. A self promoter who will fall on his bottom soon. There are plenty of other smart

 

presenters who can make a better career on TV than that idiot. An intelligent man does not make him the next Attenborough does it?

 

As a shooting man i'm quite horrified you like the bloke.

Don't be horrified..

 

I believe he will be the next Attenborough to be honest ...the people like him and he's already filthy rich.

 

He also spent a lot of his own money taking on the indiscriminate guns in Malta

 

Packham is only the conservation equivalent of Jeremy Clarkson.

[Whitebridges]

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.

 

Excellent post. Thank you. Your boots are on the right feet Sir.

[Whitebridges]

Don't be horrified..

 

I believe he will be the next Attenborough to be honest ...the people like him and he's already filthy rich.

 

He also spent a lot of his own money taking on the indiscriminate guns in Malta

 

Packham is only the conservation equivalent of Jeremy Clarkson.

 

If your political forecasts and aspirations are anything to go by Adge you will be so so wrong!

[Woodlander]

 

 

well its not shooting as shooting curlew has been banned for years

 

 

what are the many more spp legally shot ?

[Whitebridges]

Does anyone know if Packham is a Vegetarian?

[Woodlander]

Apologies,Curlew was removed from the list in the 80s,but there is a lobby by wildfowlers to get both Curlew and Redshank re instated on the list of legal quarry.