• Welcome to BirdForum, the internet's largest birding community with thousands of members from all over the world. The forums are dedicated to wild birds, birding, binoculars and equipment and all that goes with it.

    Please register for an account to take part in the discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.
ZEISS DTI thermal imaging cameras. For more discoveries at night, and during the day.

new petition re driven grouse shooting (1 Viewer)

I am pleased to see that the CAs claims about Chris Packam have been thrown out. I love it when the bullies are shown up for what they are.
Chris has a new, further petition running calling for responsible shooting and a halting of killing those species in sharp decline. Woodcock, Snipe & Golden Plover for sure need every helping hand they can get.
 
Glad to see my thin end of the wedge fears were ss unfounded as i was assured on here they would be, Didn't take long to get to the next campaign did it?
 
But another valid case, long overdue. This one is simply calling for a ceasation but I guess as you have called out before Adam, killing is about conserving, even if the species are heavily in decline.
As you have already said, you choose no Hen Harriers rather than curtailing of a sporting tradition for a minority. I would hardly expect you to side with science any time soon.
 
But another valid case, long overdue. This one is simply calling for a ceasation but I guess as you have called out before Adam, killing is about conserving, even if the species are heavily in decline.
As you have already said, you choose no Hen Harriers rather than curtailing of a sporting tradition for a minority. I would hardly expect you to side with science any time soon.

I'm not saying it isnt a valid case but thats not the point, the point i was making was that the Grouse shooting petition was never going to stop there it would simply move on to the next case which is exactly whats happened despite what everyone here said. Out of interest Robin seen as you've always claimed to not be anti shooting at what point would you consider the cases against shooting to be no longer valid? What types of shooting would you have to see stopped and what would be left before you 'd be happy to leave it alone and stop supporting campaigns against it?
As for the science, as we've discussed many times the science does not show shooting to be the cause of the problem so there no scientific reason to think stopping shooting would in anyway solve the problem.
 
If there was better 'self-policing/governing' then these issues wouldn't keep coming up/round.

The Woodcock is a prime example, migrating timings and patterns have changed but the shooting 'season' hasn't. Interestingly, in France it has (dates put back) to protect local populations. Generally, the migrating population is not at risk but the local birds are. This is sensible and correct - this shouldn't be seen as the thin edge of the wedge.

We have seen with lots of birds that routes, breeding patterns, breeding numbers change over time and so should the shooting fraternity.
 
Adam, that's a very easy question.
I am not against all shooting and never have been. If the shooting industry were more accountable and responsible then some of these petitions wouldn't be necessary but I don't see the masses of responsible sportsman hanging their rogues out to dry; in fact if you follow CA or BASC then you would find the opposite to be true. Their knowledge of the country is to be found lacking.
Negative shooting for me would include :
Any business that profits from illegal activity or large scale predator control to optimise population of another single species for lesiure killing
Any activity where it is scientifically proven that shooting has consequence of environmental damage, over burning for instance, flooding
Spread of toxic metals when non-toxic alternatives are available
Shooting of wild species where evidence shows a worrying downward trend in populations whether native breeding or wintering.
I would be against issuing of licences to cull species where collateral damage to commercial interests relies on ignorance & conjecture rather than scientific evidence-based research.
If it were appropriate in UK, I would also be against trophy or canned hunting.
 
Last edited:
So Robin can you actually think of s single type of shooting that you wouldn't find a way of fitting into one of those catagories? You keep saying you aren't anti shooting but i'm struggling to find any bits that you aren't anti about.
 
So Robin can you actually think of s single type of shooting that you wouldn't find a way of fitting into one of those catagories? You keep saying you aren't anti shooting but i'm struggling to find any bits that you aren't anti about.

As I read his reply, it would include any regulated shooting of species that are not declining or of particular environmental concern, provided illegal persecution is not commonplace alongside or toxic shot is used when an alternative is available. Could theoretically incorporate rather a lot of shooting.
 
As I read his reply, it would include any regulated shooting of species that are not declining or of particular environmental concern, provided illegal persecution is not commonplace alongside or toxic shot is used when an alternative is available. Could theoretically incorporate rather a lot of shooting.

Could yes, but could therorectically include none of it if you really want to find a why of wedging any type of shooting into one of those catagories.
 
Adam, there's plenty of responsible shooting that wouldn't make my list but I'm sure you're aware of these just as well as anyone else.
Check out Mark Avery's blog on the subject (or as I remember you can't bring yourself to read it so I'll help you out)

In this case for giving declining species a helping hand he says :

Whatever you think of him, you’ve got to admit that Chris Packham has guts. Despite being abused on social media, and despite the shooting lobby gunning for his job at the BBC, Chris has today launched a new e-petition calling for a moratorium, not an all-out ban, on shooting Woodcock, Snipe and Golden Plover (did you know that Golden Plover can be shot legally in the UK for fun?).

This is unlikely to make his life easier, and it is unlikely to endear him more deeply to the likes of Tim Bonner and others. But Chris stands up for nature and fights for his beliefs.

Shooting is not properly regulated in the UK – there are no bag limits set and there is no proper monitoring of the numbers killed. This is the type of thing that might be addressed by a licensing scheme as proposed by the RSPB for shooting estates (although grouse shooting is so bad that we should just ban it completely).

I don’t think anyone is suggesting that shooting is the main cause of the declines in these waders’ populations but there are good previous examples of shooting being curtailed voluntarily or by law when species are brought to low numbers by other factors.

I’ve signed Chris’s e-petition and I suggest you should too – here’s the link.
 
So basically Robin when you say you are not anti shooting what you actually mean is that you theroretically wouldn'tbe anti so long as every single thing about shooting as we know currently in this country was changed to the way you personally think it should be?
 
So Robin can you actually think of s single type of shooting that you wouldn't find a way of fitting into one of those catagories? You keep saying you aren't anti shooting but i'm struggling to find any bits that you aren't anti about.

So, Adam, are you saying that being in any of those categories isn't a reason for cleaning up - not stopping - any kind of shooting? Are you saying that those are not things that the shooting community could and should address in order to make them more acceptable to modern society?

How many of the boxes do you tick personally?

John
 
Cleaning up yes there are certainly areas where we could do more to improve things but i dont believe the petition was to clean up driven Grouse shooting was it? I know this new petition isn't technically for an out right ban but lets face it were it to be sucessful thats what would happen there's no way shooting of Waders would restart no matter what any evidence said and lets be honest the vast majoriry that will support the campaign will want a total ban anyway.
How many catagories do i fall into well a couple at least, Ive shot species that have declined and i use lead where its legal.
I'm not expecting you to agree with me but surely you can see what has been my whole point from the start which is how can i feel comfortable joining forces with someone who will go on to directly campaign against me? If i were to give my support to both of these campaigns and help them be a success then i will have helped people like Robin get two steps closer to campaigning against me which will happen because Robin has told us everything he is opposed to and ive admitted that some of it will include me.
As i said i dont expecct you to agree with my opinions but surely you can see why i would be uncomfortable with any of these campaigns.
 
Cleaning up yes there are certainly areas where we could do more to improve things but i dont believe the petition was to clean up driven Grouse shooting was it? I know this new petition isn't technically for an out right ban but lets face it were it to be sucessful thats what would happen there's no way shooting of Waders would restart no matter what any evidence said and lets be honest the vast majoriry that will support the campaign will want a total ban anyway.
How many catagories do i fall into well a couple at least, Ive shot species that have declined and i use lead where its legal.
I'm not expecting you to agree with me but surely you can see what has been my whole point from the start which is how can i feel comfortable joining forces with someone who will go on to directly campaign against me? If i were to give my support to both of these campaigns and help them be a success then i will have helped people like Robin get two steps closer to campaigning against me which will happen because Robin has told us everything he is opposed to and ive admitted that some of it will include me.
As i said i dont expecct you to agree with my opinions but surely you can see why i would be uncomfortable with any of these campaigns.

No, absolutely not. If you do the sensible things you make your position for continuing with what is, to a meat eater, a reasonable activity, much stronger. So long as you don't react to problems with population levels (and I am aware that local bans have been enforced for e.g. Woodcock by shooters in some parts of the country) or lead poisoning or any other genuine issue, the more you look like a mindless blood luster as per driven grouse moor managers: and that is something you do not want to look like.

Smart shooters will put in place a voluntary ban on woodcock shooting precisely because (a) it means the legal position is unaffected and (b) they then have only themselves to consult when an increase in population would permit shooting to restart sustainably. Smart shooters will use steel shot without being legally forced to, because it will enable them to distance themselves from anyone not doing so and to virtuously answer conservationists by agreeing lead poisoning of wildfowl is unacceptable. Only stupid people won't protect their own hobby by doing the right thing.

Your choice.

John
 
I pretty much agree in principle John but I still think you're asking too much. If it were a case of a few little changes and a bit of compromise then fair enough but certainly going by Robin's criteria I don't think there's a single part of shooting as we know it that Robin doesn't want to see at least some change to. Now that's not compromise that's just one side getting it's own way and telling the other side what it can and can't do whether the other side likes it or not which you can hardly expect me to be happy with.
A question to Robin, Is there a single example you can give me of a form of shooting in this country today that you are 100% happy with in its exact current form and wouldn't support any campaign that was in any way against it?
This is of course all irrelevant to my original point which going back to the start was simply that even if I 100% agreed with a ban on driven Grouse shooting or indeed Wader shooting I still as a shooter wouldn't be comfortable joining forces with the very people who would then go on to campaign against me and by that I never meant the more reasonable people like you or Robin but the thousands of people who already have their minds made up that all shooting is wrong and wont stop until it's all been banned and no amount of changes or compromise from the shooting world will ever change that.
 
There would be no 'thin end of the wedge' if the shooting industry acted more responsibly. Systemic persecution of raptors on grouse moors (and elsewhere) - let's pretend it's not happening and deny, deny, deny even if it makes us look stupid. Problems associated with the industrial production of pheasants - let's legitimise killing Buzzards. Lead shot as an environmental poison - lets widely ignore strictures over its use in wildfowling and deny, deny, deny again regarding its use in general. As others have pointed out the call for a moratorium in shooting waders in drastic decline is not the same thing as calling for an outright ban. It's something that the shooting industry themselves ought to support if they were serious about the 'conservation' afterthought they like to tag onto their activities.
 
I'm a bit confused john, just a few weeks ago i simply stated that there was a thin end of the wedge situation thats all i did. i didnt pass any judgement on whether there should be or not be but i was told quite clearly by a number of people including you that there was no thin end of the wedge situation and nor did i have any grounds to be concerned that there ever would be yet here we are with you now telling me that the thin end of the wedge situation we have is the shooters own fault, now that may or may not be true but how can you blame shooters for a situation you assured me doesn't and will not exist?
 
I pretty much agree in principle John but I still think you're asking too much. If it were a case of a few little changes and a bit of compromise then fair enough but certainly going by Robin's criteria I don't think there's a single part of shooting as we know it that Robin doesn't want to see at least some change to. Now that's not compromise that's just one side getting it's own way and telling the other side what it can and can't do whether the other side likes it or not which you can hardly expect me to be happy with.
A question to Robin, Is there a single example you can give me of a form of shooting in this country today that you are 100% happy with in its exact current form and wouldn't support any campaign that was in any way against it?
This is of course all irrelevant to my original point which going back to the start was simply that even if I 100% agreed with a ban on driven Grouse shooting or indeed Wader shooting I still as a shooter wouldn't be comfortable joining forces with the very people who would then go on to campaign against me and by that I never meant the more reasonable people like you or Robin but the thousands of people who already have their minds made up that all shooting is wrong and wont stop until it's all been banned and no amount of changes or compromise from the shooting world will ever change that.

Adam - it feels like your'e throwing baby out with it's bath-water as a reaction to my list. I'm sure you can see that this doesn't preclude that all shooting should stop?

How's about a bit of steel-shot wood pigeon shooting on a local farm. The species is abundant and what's wrong with you taking a few birds for the table?

This is about being responsible Adam - very straightforward.
 
So the answer to my question was no, There is not one single form of shooting that you are happy to accept in its normal current form ss im sure you are aware the vast majority of Pigeon shoiting is done with lead. No i'm not saying your are wrong in that issue or any other individual issue but surely you can see why i'd be concerned if even people who are openly not anti shooting still want to change every part of it to they way they want?
My whole point from the start wasn't whether any of these campaigns were valid or not just simply that i was comfortable supporting them because i know that one will lead to another and so on. Now i was told in no uncertain terms that was not the case but here we are just a few weeks down the line and we already have the next campaign and you've just admitted that you wont stop until at the very least every single aspect of shooting has been changed which is bound to eventually include changes i dont want and dont agree with. I was never arguing about the rights and wrongs just simply stating that this is what would all i'm saying now is that you just proven all those people that said it wouldn't were wrong.
 
Last edited:
Warning! This thread is more than 7 years ago old.
It's likely that no further discussion is required, in which case we recommend starting a new thread. If however you feel your response is required you can still do so.

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top