Taste of Game

[Lloyd90]

1 minute ago, old'un said:

Mate of mine used to keeper a big estate in Staffordshire, most of the shoots were by invite only where the guns were wealthy business men, landed gentry and a few lords, plus the odd celebrity, it was all about putting on a good show of birds for the guests and dinner back at the big house, after the shoot the beaters and picker-ups were offered a brace and the rest went to the game dealers, the average bag for the shoot was 300+ birds although there were two let days per season with bags of 500+.

In all the years I helped on the shoot only a couple of the guns ever came to look at what was on the game cart, none of the guns were interested in taking any birds, they were there for one thing, the shooting.

 

Yes, and that's the whole point of it. The shooting to be fair is amazing. Driven birds off peaks and hills, parts of the UK are famous for it, and rightly so. Just like driven Grouse off a moore, or stalking a monster Red Stag in the Highlands. 

It just seems odd to me that some of us get our knickers in a twist about guns not taking birds for the pot. 

As long as they get put into the food chain I think thats a good use of the birds, and commend some shoots that have started to process and make birds oven ready, I believe the ones that do so have had no problem getting rid of game at the end of shoots. All shoots should process and move on game like this.

I think BASC should do more work to get game into food like curries and ready meals for the homeless and the needy to be quite honest. 

[Jim Neal]

On 27/10/2020 at 14:40, Scully said:

Can I also assume that once you've all shot a brace or two each then you call it a day? If not then why not? I too find it puzzling, given your objections to the way others do it, why you're shooting a surplus? You've already stated that it isn't a pleasure when you take home to process a disproportionate amount of birds, so you're obviously shooting more than you need. Why? Why don't you stop shooting once you've shot a couple of brace each, or enough for those who want a brace or two? 

I never once suggested that the 'rich boys paying stupid money' ( I think I can see where your resentment is coming from ) are less obliged to take a brace home, I said it was their choice. They're paying to shoot, what happens to the birds is the estates business. 

The death of our 'sport' will be the lack of tolerance by some shooters who harbour a burning resentment for those shooters who see and do things slightly differently, while at the same time turning a hypocritical blind eye when it's pointed out that they too are shooting for exactly the same reasons as those 'rich boys'. Weird eh? 

To rescind someone's membership because they refuse to take home a brace or two smacks of arrogance and ignorance. 

 

Apologies for the interlude

Firstly I have to say, whether deliberately or not,  you're mixing up two completely different worlds within game shooting.  I'm talking from the perspective of rough/walked up/syndicate shoots where the people involved are all equally responsible for dividing up the bag and putting it to good use.

It's an interesting point you raise regarding the numbers shot.  The day in question when I took home a car full was by far the most productive day our syndicate has ever had, or probably will ever have as long as we operate in the same way.  We simply had a bumper bag.

I've never said we are only taking birds to satisfy a pre-determined culinary requirement.  Do you do that?  Do you go out with your syndicate and say to yourself "Right, we've got pheasant stew tomorrow and duck fritters on Thursday, therefore I'm going to take home a brace of pheasant and a brace of duck and I'll be damned if I'll fire another shot after that!" ??  Of course not.  You get what you get on the day and deal with it accordingly.  Sometimes on leaner days it means you go home empty handed, having graciously stepped aside and offered someone else the game instead.

We shoot for sport, and the pre-requisite of participating is that we all do the right thing.  On a working man's shoot it is a given that everyone shares the bag no matter what the size and that it doesn't get left to the same few people every time if a good day is had.

We're 20 guns plus usually 15-20 additional helpers beating, flagging, picking up, stops, game cart etc... 73 brace divided by that many people shouldn't be a problem if everyone plays the game.  Obviously we don't put any obligation upon those who volunteer to help us to take birds away but, on top of the customary brace offered to our helpers, plenty will gladly accept additional birds.

On the day I referred to above, it would have been down to each gun to take 2 or 3 brace away with them to evenly distribute the bag.  However, predictably the usual shirkers drive away waving their hands saying "No thanks!" and this is what I take issue with.  It's well within the capacity of each gun to take and either use or gift 2 or 3 brace of pheasants.  But they don't, because they are lazy and selfish.

I harbour no resentment for anyone who has the money to pay for expensive driven shooting, but I do have a dislike for those who take from the sport without giving back.  I have a loathing for those who feel that money immunises them from the need to respect the activity they are taking part in.

You've either not read my previous post correctly, or have deliberately misquoted me; I most certainly did not say that memberships had been rescinded because they didn't take a share of the bag.  I said it was part of the reason, the other reasons being related to their general lack of willingness to get involved with the syndicate in the spirit of what it should be: a group of like-minded people working together towards common goals to run a shoot.

Everyone pays their money to shoot, be it a couple of hundred quid to go on a farm shoot a few times a season or an eye-wateringly expensive bought day.  The magnitude of money changing hands in no way buys anyone out of the underlying traditions and obligations of the sport.  THAT is arrogance and ignorance, and to excuse it based on money paid is completely nonsensical.

You have said several times that as long as the shot game gets used you couldn't care less who takes it home or not.  Let's transpose that to another situation:  Say, for example, I live next door to you and instead of putting my rubbish my bin I just dump it on your front lawn.  Naturally, you'd kick off about the rubbish all over your front lawn that someone else put there, but then imagine how you'd feel if I popped my head over the garden fence and said "well, as long as it all gets picked up and put in the bin, I couldn't care less!"

Do you see the problem there?  I'm offloading my responsibility onto you.  Is that fair?

This is what it's like when you share a syndicate with people who don't feel like they have to complete the circle and deal with the shot game accordingly.