More anti shooting propoganda

[Weihrauch17]

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/feb/15/ban-on-hunting-birds-with-lead-shot-in-eu-wetlands-hailed-as-huge-milestone-aoe

If you read down the article Lead shot kills 100,000 birds a year in the UK and the Shooting Community is none compliant with the current restrictions on Lead! 

Edited February 15, 2023 by Weihrauch17

[Penelope]

1 hour ago, Weihrauch17 said:

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/feb/15/ban-on-hunting-birds-with-lead-shot-in-eu-wetlands-hailed-as-huge-milestone-aoe

If you read down the article Lead shot kills 100,000 birds a year in the UK and the Shooting Community is none compliant with the current restrictions on Lead! 

Would expect anything less than lies and half truths from the Guardian?

[NatureBoy]

As we have said many times. Where do they get this (made up) figure from? So who just happens to be finding them all? Where are their field workers? Especially in Winter. How many do they find dead with no traces of lead? Who's counting and paying to testing them? If so, shot or ingested? Where's the proof shot in this country? Some birds/critters carry lead for years.

 Same with their woodcock figures. Out of date by10+ years. Had this argument with Org staff and county recorders for years. Where do your (made up) figures come from? Because we rarely see any field staff!? Unless there's money/publicity or grants involved. And those we do see despite their "qualifications" seem to have very limited knowledge (blinkered thinking) of their patch and don't seem to stay in post long.  .  .  .  . . . Don't get me started on this new wave of guns for hire "ecologists."         NB

[adzyvilla]

Don't worry, the guardian has a tiny circulation and its entire readership is already rabidly anti shooting. No one who matters will see this.

[Weihrauch17]

1 hour ago, adzyvilla said:

Don't worry, the guardian has a tiny circulation and its entire readership is already rabidly anti shooting. No one who matters will see this.

I would imagine a large number of Woke MP's read the Gaurdian.

[PeterHenry]

5 hours ago, adzyvilla said:

Don't worry, the guardian has a tiny circulation and its entire readership is already rabidly anti shooting. No one who matters will see this.

Underestimate the Guardian at your peril - they are funded / supported by the Scott Trust, which means unlike other newspapers, they don't have to sell anywhere near as many copies or adverts.

The up shot of this for them is that they are the only 'quality' newspaper not behind a pay wall. That gives them a lot of clout. Clout that is accurately summed up in their sometime discription of themselves as a campaigning organisation (or at least word's to that effect).

Edited February 15, 2023 by PeterHenry

[Pushandpull]

This article simply derives from yesterday's news release from WWT, which as long campaigned for an end to lead. The original talks of "up to" 100, 00 birds in UK and a million in the 30 countries involved but that phrase has been lost in the journalism.

The argument over lead and waterfowl was lost long ago when the UK signed up to the AEWA. Ironically, the regulations adopted in England were pretty much agreed by all parties as the best compromise at the time.

Easy to knock the Guardian, but they have been very good over the massive  misinformation put out by CBTh over "trophy hunting", which has been uncritically printed by the more populist press and repeated in Parliament by MPs from all sides.

 

[PeterHenry]

2 hours ago, Pushandpull said:

This article simply derives from yesterday's news release from WWT, which as long campaigned for an end to lead. The original talks of "up to" 100, 00 birds in UK and a million in the 30 countries involved but that phrase has been lost in the journalism.

The argument over lead and waterfowl was lost long ago when the UK signed up to the AEWA. Ironically, the regulations adopted in England were pretty much agreed by all parties as the best compromise at the time.

Easy to knock the Guardian, but they have been very good over the massive  misinformation put out by CBTh over "trophy hunting", which has been uncritically printed by the more populist press and repeated in Parliament by MPs from all sides.

 

They do give their journalists quite a bit of leeway it seems - I think from memory the articals you are referring to were mainly by George Monbiot

[JohnfromUK]

7 minutes ago, PeterHenry said:

I think from memory the articals you are referring to were mainly by George Monbiot

Someone who passes his own (rather one sided) opinions off as solid fact. 

I haven't followed the lead/wetlands topic closely but he wrote quite a lot a while ago about heather burning and moor management.  It was after one of the moor wildfires that did much damage and was quite unconnected with planned burning for moor management.  He was commenting to the effect that the wild fire caused the same level of damage as regularly done by landowners and their gamekeepers - which was completely false.

Almost everything he has written (that I have read anyway) takes a genuine factual report, cherry picks sections and twists it to his own views - which are very one sided, superficial, simplistic and by and large discredited by detailed research carried out by qualified scientists and responsible organisations.  In the example above - he maintained burning was ALWAYS bad - which is very plausible to the public when wildfires are on TV, but not supported by extensive research from those who really understand the moorland ecosystems.

If you read what he writes, it is clever and can come across as plausible until you actually study the wider picture.

[Pushandpull]

I was referring to what they haven't printed really.  Monbiot is a journalist who seems to write with passion about whatever is filling his mind currently and is not relevant to what I meant.

They have printed some sound stuff on the trophy hunting nonsense, from Alex Morss (journalist and ecologist) and a little from Professor Amy Dickman, who actually knows what she is talking about - check her twitter feed - you don't need to join. Hunting as as an adjunct to conservation is a huge issue for the countries of southern Africa, and the hypocritical colonial attitude of our MPs is much resented there.

[PeterHenry]

13 minutes ago, JohnfromUK said:

Someone who passes his own (rather one sided) opinions off as solid fact. 

I haven't followed the lead/wetlands topic closely but he wrote quite a lot a while ago about heather burning and moor management.  It was after one of the moor wildfires that did much damage and was quite unconnected with planned burning for moor management.  He was commenting to the effect that the wild fire caused the same level of damage as regularly done by landowners and their gamekeepers - which was completely false.

Almost everything he has written (that I have read anyway) takes a genuine factual report, cherry picks sections and twists it to his own views - which are very one sided, superficial, simplistic and by and large discredited by detailed research carried out by qualified scientists and responsible organisations.  In the example above - he maintained burning was ALWAYS bad - which is very plausible to the public when wildfires are on TV, but not supported by extensive research from those who really understand the moorland ecosystems.

If you read what he writes, it is clever and can come across as plausible until you actually study the wider picture.

I'm no fan of his - what normally happens when I read one of his articals is that I agree with what at first seems a laudable ambition, but turn away once it starts descending into dogmatism.

Anyway, that's was a long way of saying I agree with you.

However, his articles on trophy hunting are worth reading - and show that he is capable of changing his mind from his ingrained / default position.

By the by, he also enjoys fly fishing - not that it has any bearing on the subject above.

5 minutes ago, Pushandpull said:

I was referring to what they haven't printed really.  Monbiot is a journalist who seems to write with passion about whatever is filling his mind currently and is not relevant to what I meant.

They have printed some sound stuff on the trophy hunting nonsense, from Alex Morss (journalist and ecologist) and a little from Professor Amy Dickman, who actually knows what she is talking about - check her twitter feed - you don't need to join. Hunting as as an adjunct to conservation is a huge issue for the countries of southern Africa, and the hypocritical colonial attitude of our MPs is much resented there.

👍

Edited February 16, 2023 by PeterHenry

[JohnfromUK]

1 minute ago, Pushandpull said:

They have printed some sound stuff on the trophy hunting nonsense

I can't really comment on that as it isn't something I follow closely and not on my 'radar'.  I am just very cautious about what Monbiot writes because he has (in my view and admittedly done cleverly) a tendency to selectively pick and twist facts to suit is own "passion about whatever is filling his mind currently".  Heather burning was the main example because moorland management is on my radar.

 

1 minute ago, PeterHenry said:

However, his articles on trophy hunting are worth reading - and show that he is capable of changing his mind from hid ingrained / default position.

As my post above - I haven't followed the trophy hunting topic, so my (negative) views on him have been based mainly on the heather burning topic.

[udderlyoffroad]

2 minutes ago, PeterHenry said:

By the by way, he also enjoys fly fishing - not that it has any bearing on the subject above.

He's been out stalking too, apparently.

He wields far too much clout, is excellent at twisting opening premises to suit his agenda.  Some years ago, he used to rail against taking kids out shooting, then appeared on Newsnight chopping up a squirrel saying we should be eating them.  More recently, he's railed against farming, saying food should be produced in, er, factories. 

Usual columnist, big on criticism, short on practical solutions.

Unfortunately however, he is one of the people BASC et al must 'court' as he is, unlike the WJ mob, capable of changing his mind, and possibly bringing his followers along with him.

[Pushandpull]

The lead issue appears to be a bit more complicated in practice. Check out David Scallan on twitter (multiple posts) for some detail.

He is the Secretary-General of FACE.

[Smudger687]

On 15/02/2023 at 13:59, Weihrauch17 said:

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/feb/15/ban-on-hunting-birds-with-lead-shot-in-eu-wetlands-hailed-as-huge-milestone-aoe

If you read down the article Lead shot kills 100,000 birds a year in the UK and the Shooting Community is none compliant with the current restrictions on Lead! 

The study they quote to demonstrate poor compliance was published in 2015, nearly 10 years out of date. In fairness, however, even in my limited circle of shooting acquaintances, I know of at least two that continue to use lead shot for everything, including ducks and geese, and are quite open about it. There may well be more that do so but keep their cards close to their chest. 

And you don't have to look far to find people using lead if ducks come over on a driven day.

Reading up on some of the lead ban responses on this forum, I really wouldn't be surprised if compliance was still low. 

Edited February 21, 2023 by Smudger687

[Weihrauch17]

33 minutes ago, Smudger687 said:

The study they quote to demonstrate poor compliance was published in 2015, nearly 10 years out of date. In fairness, however, even in my limited circle of shooting acquaintances, I know of at least two that continue to use lead shot for everything, including ducks and geslese, and are quite open about it. There may well be more that do so but keep their cards close to their chest. 

And you don't have to look far to find people using lead if ducks come over on a driven day.

Reading up on some of the lead ban responses on this forum, I really wouldn't be surprised if compliance was still low. 

Compliance on Game shoots possibly because there the law is farcical in that scenario.  On the foreshore AFAIK there is strict compliance. 

[Smudger687]

2 hours ago, Weihrauch17 said:

Compliance on Game shoots possibly because there the law is farcical in that scenario.  On the foreshore AFAIK there is strict compliance. 

That us my experience with foreshore shooting too, however it's a fraction of the volume compared to game shoots. Inland pond shooting also, I would suspect, has low compliance. 

Edited February 21, 2023 by Smudger687