The demise of lead shot and small bore shot guns

[Scully]

3 minutes ago, rbrowning2 said:

It needs a proper re assessment as I expect WJ hope the JR they have auctioned this week will achieve  

https://wildjustice.org.uk/general/wild-justice-seeks-judicial-review-of-gamebird-releases/

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/feb/26/defra-challenged-over-unlawful-release-of-57m-game-birds-in-uk

any positive from the press re the lead shot ban has very quickly been replaced by the above, then we have a council calling game shooting barbaric and university ending game shooting on its land.

large estates have made game shooting into an industry to make big money and the conservation benefits are negligible and questionable like heather burning the whole business because it is a business is a failing business model in 2020. 

 

I asked you what you wanted as you appear to be undecided; an ‘end to game shooting’ ( remember, many species are regarded as game ) or a ‘limit to the numbers released’? We can’t debate until you decide what it is you want to debate. 
As an aside, the self regulation of driven shooting and released birds is in hand, according to discussions j had with the NGO yesterday. First you need to decide what it is you want. 

[rbrowning2]

Sheep are humanly killed by a  trained and qualified persons in a slaughter houses monitored by vets.

game birds are made to fly by being chased by a dog or beaters to be shot at and may be injured and either die a slow death if it escapes or whilst injured chased again by a dog finally some time later returned to the dog handler to then have its neck broken. The lucky ones only get chased by the dog  or beater and cleanly killed. Not very stressful for the bird is it so a real win win win for it.

so no we do not do this with sheep.

 

[Scully]

4 minutes ago, mick miller said:

Because the impact to other flora and fauna is lessened as fewer birds are released, there is little waste - most of the shot birds are taken home by people that actually eat them, rather than look on them as simply 'flying targets', less pressure on keepers (usually part-time) to produce 'big bags' and the associated problems with what is poorly termed 'raptor persecution' as a result. It's all less intensive without relying on a fantasy of selling birds into the food industry.
 

I no longer have any involvement with game shooting and haven't for some years, precisely because I struggle with the ethics of it.

Fair points. I don’t know of any part time ‘keepers, but I know loads of full time ones.
Can I ask what this has to do with the banning of lead shot? 
Do you shoot live quarry at all? 

[islandgun]

6 minutes ago, lancer425 said:

Game shooting is a fantastic way of using the countryside, it benefits in so many ways. We release non resident species protect them as young, keep them safe keep them off roads and feed them regularly worm them , stop them being stolen and watch them grow and thrive.  Then when the are grown we round them up drive them with dogs then they come to the final part of their lives.  We do this with SHEEP.  Only they then After rounding up they get to be slaughtered.  The Pheasants get to fly over the guns and are harvested most of them.  Some get to be rounded up and get to breed and the cycle goes on . So in some ways just like the sheep we rear, only sheep are better marketed.

There are no real down sides to game shooting its a win win win situation and a brilliant utilisation of our countryside offering jobs sport health leisure and much more to our beautiful countryside.

The lack of a market for game meat here is down to current trends attitudes and pitt poor marketing.  NOW! The latter we do need to address.  The failure to utilise this commodity is a huge let/loss  down to the game shooting industry as a whole.  It can be turned around for good and i feel this Vaulantary ban is as good a place to start as any. 

 We have reached a bizarre situation in this country where Come the End of a typical shoot day we have guns leaving birds instead of rushing to take them home.

Only to leave the farm gate get on the phone to the wife and probably order in a curry from the local Indian or chines meal etc. It has got that stupid.  Now if this is the fact they do not want the work of preparing the birds and cooking them, or is it they would not eat them, or their spouses / offspring will not eat game. Its about changing hearts and minds, its as fundamental as that.

 Perhaps if shoots attended country fairs with game cookery and started to get the public involved that way directly through their stomachs it might be a positive.  The salesmanship needs to focus on the positive aspects, show the life of a pheasant grouse or whatever, the care devotion that goes into the breeding/ husbandry and growth of the birs through its life, then the harvest we have nothing to fear if its done well, it will be both sporting clean and humane and we at least can show out harvesting with a degree of pride. we have no muddy loading areas hurdles dogs pushing into trucks long travel and unloading into slaughter house and waiting in line cattle prodded to an inevitable end.

Some of our harvest gets another spin of the dice, like other animals we rear in our countryside.

It is about telling others what we do what we are about, the fact we exist is a good thing, we have nothing to fear from the antis knowing what we do, we are not a seedy bunch of closet psychopaths as they would like us portrayed.

We need to get out there sell our sport, not fester away in this us and them mentality, no one wins that way. ignorance is bliss and we will just fade away.

We need to adapt to survive and if swapping a toxic shot type for a non toxic shot type is the start of it then fine lets start now.

Very good points,  I argued on the avery blog at some length about the 2 million hens killed each day [ many which he consumes himself] game shooting is better for the environment and for the individual birds

[rbrowning2]

4 minutes ago, Scully said:

I asked you what you wanted as you appear to be undecided; an ‘end to game shooting’ ( remember, many species are regarded as game ) or a ‘limit to the numbers released’? We can’t debate until you decide what it is you want to debate. 
As an aside, the self regulation of driven shooting and released birds is in hand, according to discussions j had with the NGO yesterday. First you need to decide what it is you want. 

I personally am not qualified to do that, it needs as others have said proper impact assessment of how many non native birds should be released on x acres given the type of land in can not be right to just keep increasing the numbers to make money to meet customer demand without knowing the impact on the other native wild life on that land.

[Old farrier]

3 minutes ago, rbrowning2 said:

I personally am not qualified to do that, it needs as others have said proper impact assessment of how many non native birds should be released on x acres given the type of land in can not be right to just keep increasing the numbers to make money to meet customer demand without knowing the impact on the other native wild life on that land.

Have you thought or considered what the land would be used for if not for game shooting? 

[rbrowning2]

Banning lead shot is just a smoke screen to try and take the moral high ground.

[Smokersmith]

4 minutes ago, rbrowning2 said:

I personally am not qualified to do that, it needs as others have said proper impact assessment of how many non native birds should be released on x acres given the type of land in can not be right to just keep increasing the numbers to make money to meet customer demand without knowing the impact on the other native wild life on that land.

There are plenty of studies that show the benefits to wildlife from shooting related activity.

[rbrowning2]

Just now, Old farrier said:

Have you thought or considered what the land would be used for if not for game shooting? 

No but that is irrelevant, more native wildlife more nature reserves, more trees to fight global warming, solar farms, more houses none of which will be labelled barbaric. Life will go on.

[islandgun]

10 minutes ago, rbrowning2 said:

Sheep are humanly killed by a  trained and qualified persons in a slaughter houses monitored by vets.

game birds are made to fly by being chased by a dog or beaters to be shot at and may be injured and either die a slow death if it escapes or whilst injured chased again by a dog finally some time later returned to the dog handler to then have its neck broken. The lucky ones only get chased by the dog  or beater and cleanly killed. Not very stressful for the bird is it so a real win win win for it.

so no we do not do this with sheep.

 

To use an  anthropomorphic argument I would much rather be a Pheasant and spend my life free range and free, than a broiler and spend 30 days in a shed along with 25,000 others 

[rbrowning2]

2 minutes ago, Smokersmith said:

There are plenty of studies that show the benefits to wildlife from shooting related activity.

And plenty to show otherwise like raptor persecution.

[Smokersmith]

Just now, islandgun said:

To use an  anthropomorphic argument I would much rather be a Pheasant and spend my life free range and free, than a broiler and spend 30 days in a shed along with 25,000 others 

This

[rbrowning2]

1 minute ago, islandgun said:

To use an  anthropomorphic argument I would much rather be a Pheasant and spend my life free range and free, than a broiler and spend 30 days in a shed along with 25,000 others 

But two wrongs don’t make a right, so call for better treatment of the broilers.

[mick miller]

19 minutes ago, Scully said:

Can I ask what this has to do with the banning of lead shot? 

As mentioned by rbrowning2, it's a sop, a smokescreen to legitimise what is essentially illegitimate, namely intensive, large bag, commercial shoots which put live birds up as little else than flying targets.

There is no problem with lead, the science then is the science now. With fewer massive shoots and the inherent lost and wasted birds there is a subsequent reduction in risk to raptors or carrion consuming lead shot, therefore fewer mortalities. There will still be mortality by lead shot, but this poses no greater risk than that posed by windfarms, power lines, motor vehicles, other predators, disease or anything else.

Getting rid of lead is simply an appeasement. It won't work. In fact I think this has now opened a pandora's box, whereby the banning of lead for rifles and air rifles is more likely than ever to come about. It's difficult to argue that lead shot is harmful but lead bullets are not. Great work from our orgs. I think not.

Edited February 26, 2020 by mick miller

[Penelope]

1 minute ago, rbrowning2 said:

But two wrongs don’t make a right, so call for better treatment of the broilers.

Do  you shoot live quarry?

[islandgun]

Just now, rbrowning2 said:

But two wrongs don’t make a right, so call for better treatment of the broilers.

Yes we could free range 820 million broilers into our countryside per year

[Scully]

19 minutes ago, rbrowning2 said:

I personally am not qualified to do that, it needs as others have said proper impact assessment of how many non native birds should be released on x acres given the type of land in can not be right to just keep increasing the numbers to make money to meet customer demand without knowing the impact on the other native wild life on that land.

So which do you want, an ‘end to game shooting’ or a ‘limit to the numbers released’? I’m guessing the latter? 

[Old farrier]

3 minutes ago, rbrowning2 said:

No but that is irrelevant, more native wildlife more nature reserves, more trees to fight global warming, solar farms, more houses none of which will be labelled barbaric. Life will go on.

irrelevant  you make me laugh 

If my grandfather had been more interested in growing carrots than shooting there would be nothing to have a shoot on the copses and covers wouldn’t be there for the other wildlife the farm would be one big field 

and if game shooting ceased to be viable the estates will bulldozer them to grow anything that shows a profit where is your flora and fauna then 

I’m sure you enjoyed game shooting when you did it what turned you away from it?

[rbrowning2]

10 minutes ago, Penelope said:

Do  you shoot live quarry?

Yes more game in my younger years than now and still do crop protection, but game shooting has changed from rearing a sensible number of birds killed by the people who daily lovingly look after them and finally eat them to a very large commercial business making money with an end product that the guns don’t want and a consumer level which is behind that of the numbers produced.

 

 

[rbrowning2]

2 minutes ago, Old farrier said:

irrelevant  you make me laugh 

If my grandfather had been more interested in growing carrots than shooting there would be nothing to have a shoot on the copses and covers wouldn’t be there for the other wildlife the farm would be one big field 

and if game shooting ceased to be viable the estates will bulldozer them to grow anything that shows a profit where is your flora and fauna then 

I’m sure you enjoyed game shooting when you did it what turned you away from it?

I am sure when your grandfather reared game he did so in a compassionate and considerate way enhance the enjoyment from the farm was it to make money?

flora and fauna as I understand it gets substantial subsidy money paid to farmers these days so may be the value of land need to be considered in a bigger picture.

 

[islandgun]

2 minutes ago, Old farrier said:

irrelevant  you make me laugh 

If my grandfather had been more interested in growing carrots than shooting there would be nothing to have a shoot on the copses and covers wouldn’t be there for the other wildlife the farm would be one big field 

and if game shooting ceased to be viable the estates will bulldozer them to grow anything that shows a profit where is your flora and fauna then 

I’m sure you enjoyed game shooting when you did it what turned you away from it?

Exactly, Almost all old woodland was planted to hold game. Take away the income from shooting along with the farmers recreation, then increase the demand for vegetables from our beloved vegans.. see how many conservation headlands, hedges, woodlands exist in a few years.. this is the danger that WJ want to overlook in their hatred of toffs..  if you want to plant trees instead of crops then why not utilise the new woodland by running pheasants under them

[mick miller]

To be fair, I live on a farm that runs a small shoot for the landowners and their friends. Few birds are put down but there is very little in the way of 'enrichment', the cover crop is a running joke and virtually non-existent, margins are grass and weeds, the woods are mostly overgrown and badly managed, the footpaths and tracks turned into a quagmire every winter as soon as the 4x4s turn up.

So, not sure if there were no shooting here not much of anything would unduly suffer, in fact, some of it may be a little better off.

Edited February 26, 2020 by mick miller

[rbrowning2]

Farmers are only temporary owners of the land for the benefit of society, Is it not possible to financially reward farmers to look after the land for the benefit of future generations and where they can grow insect and bird friendly crops and maintain hedges and trees after all they get subsidies and grants for all sorts of things. So why not to help keep nature in balance and fight global warming, and maintaining the countryside?  

Moorland Association set out their shopping list for stopping damaging upland areas wants from defra

so why not treat farmers the same if they had to reduce their income from game shooting.

 

[Scully]

51 minutes ago, rbrowning2 said:

I personally am not qualified to do that, it needs as others have said proper impact assessment of how many non native birds should be released on x acres given the type of land in can not be right to just keep increasing the numbers to make money to meet customer demand without knowing the impact on the other native wild life on that land.

You seem reluctant to make up your mind, as you refuse to answer! So from the above can I assume you don't want to ban game shooting, but want to restrict the amounts of released birds? If so, and bearing in mind that you have stated you shoot game, how do you think restricting the amounts released makes shooting birds for sport any more palatable to those who oppose us? 

[Scully]

44 minutes ago, mick miller said:

As mentioned by rbrowning2, it's a sop, a smokescreen to legitimise what is essentially illegitimate, namely intensive, large bag, commercial shoots which put live birds up as little else than flying targets.

There is no problem with lead, the science then is the science now. With fewer massive shoots and the inherent lost and wasted birds there is a subsequent reduction in risk to raptors or carrion consuming lead shot, therefore fewer mortalities. There will still be mortality by lead shot, but this poses no greater risk than that posed by windfarms, power lines, motor vehicles, other predators, disease or anything else.

Getting rid of lead is simply an appeasement. It won't work. In fact I think this has now opened a pandora's box, whereby the banning of lead for rifles and air rifles is more likely than ever to come about. It's difficult to argue that lead shot is harmful but lead bullets are not. Great work from our orgs. I think not.

Really? I can agree WJ have used the toxicity of lead as a means with which to attack us. In truth they aren't bothered what we kill birds with, it's the killing for sport they object to. Banning lead wont placate the likes of WJ etc, but it may make game meat more saleable. If game dealers wont buy lead shot game because their customers wont buy it, then what do you suggest we do? 

Big bag days aren't a recent trend; the landed gentry and aristocracy have gathered together on their country estates for generations to shoot thousands upon thousands of reared game birds each season. All the evidence is there if you care to look for it, and we have had opponents since then also...LACS have been around since the 1920's. You seem to have taken your time in reaching the conclusion that game shooting wasn't for you! 

I find it quite baffling and more than a little amusing how some shooters have the impression that opposing a type of shooting they disapprove of will be any better thought of by those who oppose us, than the type of shooting they do approve of! You're still killing something you don't need to kill...for sport! Is it me?