Nightranger
Senior Moment
Corbett and Adamson were big game hunters.
-
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.
RSPB allows "wildfowling" (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter birdieboy123
- Start date
Corbett and Adamson were big game hunters.
KnockerNorton
Well-known member
And remember that both of them gave it up, denounced it, and never did it again. That's not an expression of my personal opinion, but a comment on theirs.
I think there are 2 camps in this. Those that consider the BIRDS bit in the RSPB's title to refer to individual birds, and those that consider it to refer to populations. In the former camp, wildfowling will always be bad bacause it impacts on the individual bird. But it does not necessarily impact on populations. Personally, i think in terms of populations. Wild geese numbers are mostly at record levels, so whatever wildfowling is going on right now isn't doing them much harm.
KnockerNorton
Well-known member
And George W Bush, the wildfowler!
Twite
Well-known member
Craig H
Well-known member
[QUOTE
Times change, people learn, and society is slowly dragging itself from a history of animal abuse.[/QUOTE]
You need to be careful what you class as abuse. If you deem killing for food abuse then you need to qualify that, otherwise you could be unfairly tarring a lot of people with a very nasty brush.
Times change, people learn, and society is slowly dragging itself from a history of animal abuse.[/QUOTE]
You need to be careful what you class as abuse. If you deem killing for food abuse then you need to qualify that, otherwise you could be unfairly tarring a lot of people with a very nasty brush.
Last edited:
saluki
Well-known member
. . . as was his friend James Robertson Justice, the actor (he had his own puntgun named Irish Tom) and, perhaps surprisingly, Colin Willock, who produced over 500 episodes of the wildlife program 'Survival'.
Jonathan
rozinante
Anarchism is order
If the cap fits...
Last edited:
KnockerNorton
Well-known member
I trust you'll be remembering that the next time you evacuate your bowels and consign several million gut-dwelling animals to a watery grave...
or do you have a spectrum of sentience? If so, I'd love to know where you draw the line.
KnockerNorton
Well-known member
And we must'n't forget that lovable Cockernese couple Guy Ritchie and Madonna, who have done more for the pheasant-shooting industry since Edward VII!
CrimsonTopaz
Aves, The Stars, And Beyond...
Why can't we all just have a Bhuddist's point of view and just stop killing anything that moves.:-C
If it's for food then fair enough, but if it's for sport than that to me is just not right. Why destroy beauty? isn't there enough of that sort of thing going on in the world?.
If it's for food then fair enough, but if it's for sport than that to me is just not right. Why destroy beauty? isn't there enough of that sort of thing going on in the world?.
rozinante
Anarchism is order
Guilty as charged!
I think the more important question is where we collectively draw the line.
(Phew! it's a good thing you didn't know I'm on anti-biotics)
Robin Edwards
Well-known member
I'm sure I can't be the only one to have witnessed wild-fowling from the hides at the Ouse Washes reserve in Cambridgeshire ?
Personally I don't have an issue with responsible and sustainable shooting. I can't for the life of me see the fun or sport in killing however. Unless I became so hungry it became a simple case of kill or starve !
A visit to Ouse Washes in January 2006 surprised me when from the hide I was in, the seated birdwatchers had a prime view of two wild fowlers training their dogs with Teal that they had shot and injured. The birds eventually drowned following a demonstration of how to deliver a lingering death to several ducks.
Whilst I'm confident this did nothing to dent the population of wintering duck on the washes, it could also be said that it does little to encourage people into bird watching and visiting RSPB reserves if they go home having watched such things.
Personally I don't have an issue with responsible and sustainable shooting. I can't for the life of me see the fun or sport in killing however. Unless I became so hungry it became a simple case of kill or starve !
A visit to Ouse Washes in January 2006 surprised me when from the hide I was in, the seated birdwatchers had a prime view of two wild fowlers training their dogs with Teal that they had shot and injured. The birds eventually drowned following a demonstration of how to deliver a lingering death to several ducks.
Whilst I'm confident this did nothing to dent the population of wintering duck on the washes, it could also be said that it does little to encourage people into bird watching and visiting RSPB reserves if they go home having watched such things.
saluki
Well-known member
You should have phoned the police. Throwing a dead duck for a dog to retrieve is one thing, throwing a live bird is something else - they are causing uneccessary suffering. Neither are the dogs gaining any more experience than they would if the bird were dead.
Must say, it's not something I've ever seen - or heard of for that matter. Retaining injured duck to train one's dog seems bizzare and maybe more than a little difficult! Then, to throw them for retriever training, in front of witnesses . . . they must have been complete idiots!
Jonathan
Jonathan
KnockerNorton
Well-known member
Craig H
Well-known member
Please tell me the difference.
A duck (free range). Hatched in a hatchery. Lives in a field and herded into a shed at night. Killed by a man in a white coat with plastic hat and wellies on. Plucked and cleaned. Vacpacked and sold for food. Eaten by a man/woman/family for sunday lunch.
A duck (Wild). Hatched in a nest somewhere. Lives where it chooses. Killed by a man in a camouflage jacket with wooly hat and wellies on. Plucked and cleaned by he who shot it. Eaten by a man/woman/family for sunday lunch.
As I've said before, if you are a vegetarian fine, but why must everyone else accord with your view. I know people who shoot, and none would condone animal abuse.
Twite
Well-known member
Craig. Judging by the answer to your post, it seems that lumping is reserved for everyone but the animal rights brigade. See response to my earlier mention of terrorism.
Glib oneliners like this don't contribute anything to the debate. Granted you feel strongly about the welfare of animals, but a lot of reasonable points have been made here about what conservation is all about. Forums are a place for debate not dogma.
Twite.
Craig H
Well-known member
Agree 100% with your last sentence, and it is refreshing when you do get to have a decent discussion.
Just looking back I realised one point has probably never really been answered in all this - the question of policing. Yes the wildfowlers will almost certainly help stop uninvited hunters, but by having a recognised club where all the members shoot within the law i.e. no non-quarry species, complete bag returns and only shoot during specific times of day there is quite some control as opposed to just letting folk get on with it.
Some people dont like killing animals, or animal abuse. Fine I dont care for the latter either. And to be honest meat/non-meat eaters are never likely to agree. Doesnt mean either is right or wrong. But, I'll say again, if you are a meat eater, or if you have a leather bag/coat/watch strap etc etc etc, youre hands are as dirty as anyone involved directly in the death of an animal. Pots and kettles....supply and demand....
In my opinion of course
Last edited:
John Sherratt
Well-known member
There's a lot of good points been made here. Maybe I can chip in?
I'm not a vegetarian (although I do find myself eating less meat now than I used to) and I can see an argument for allowing shooting of game birds and wildfowl within tightly controlled limits if the bird in question is going to end up on a plate and be eaten, even if on a personal level I'm not comfortable with the idea. But, I can see some argument for it.
On the other hand, surely shooting birds for nothing more than a sole reason of sport has to be wrong at some basic level in a modern society?
Also, how well is it "policed" how much control exactly is there over what is shot and when? Surely some poor "wrong" birds are getting killed or wounded either through accident or as a result of indifference on the part of the shooter.
Does shooting for sport in this country not also weaken our arguments and attempts to stop illegal hunting in Malta, Cyprus and other spots around the med? After all it could be argued back at us, why should some forms of hunting be allowed and not others? I know this position is full of holes, and I am not making it myself of course, just being a bit of the devil's advocate. I am just saying I think it could be made at "us" and undermine our attempts to have the law enforced and bring an end to this killing of migrants in these places.
I'm not a vegetarian (although I do find myself eating less meat now than I used to) and I can see an argument for allowing shooting of game birds and wildfowl within tightly controlled limits if the bird in question is going to end up on a plate and be eaten, even if on a personal level I'm not comfortable with the idea. But, I can see some argument for it.
On the other hand, surely shooting birds for nothing more than a sole reason of sport has to be wrong at some basic level in a modern society?
Also, how well is it "policed" how much control exactly is there over what is shot and when? Surely some poor "wrong" birds are getting killed or wounded either through accident or as a result of indifference on the part of the shooter.
Does shooting for sport in this country not also weaken our arguments and attempts to stop illegal hunting in Malta, Cyprus and other spots around the med? After all it could be argued back at us, why should some forms of hunting be allowed and not others? I know this position is full of holes, and I am not making it myself of course, just being a bit of the devil's advocate. I am just saying I think it could be made at "us" and undermine our attempts to have the law enforced and bring an end to this killing of migrants in these places.
Nightranger
Senior Moment
This is the single most important question in the entire subject although before I go on, I should point out this is solely welfare question as it stands and not a onservation question. See my comments to peewit on another thread talking about Bill Oddie on Saturday Kitchen but the definitions have become a little mixed in recent years. Generally, game shooting puts food on the table (whether it is necessary, is a completely different question and could be asked alongside the Faeroese pilot whale 'grind') and just happens to be a sport too. However, the fairly recent concept of overbagging of densely reared pheasants does not sit so comfortably on any horizon and I believe there is some discomfort in the game industry. Nevertheless, sport shooting in the UK is limited and does not involve wild birds so is no directly comparable to Malta/Cyprus (but see the comment).
This is a point Bill was trying to make on Saturday Kitchen and I am slightly sceptical depite being neutral about the concept of shooting (from a welfare perspective, it seems unnecessary, from a conservation perspective, it is largely benign). I would like to see some kind of evidence for a sweeping statement such as this because this smacks of side-swipe at the ruddy duck eradication programme. What I mean by this is that anti-cull people have pointed to non-target species being hit (in fact this seems to be a re-hash of an incident that happened in the trial cull many years ago but I digress) during the programme. To postulate that seasoned hunters do not know a mallard from a black-necked grebe (by extension) infers DEFRA contracted shooters do not know either. Bill did not go this far but what he said was enormously significant if true because it genuinely brings shooting into the conservation spotlight.
Note of caution 1: even if Bill's comments are valid, is the impact on rare and endangered species likely to be significant?
Note of caution 2: technically, the accidental shooting of a non-licensed species is still illegal. It would be difficult to prove that the shooter's ID skills were deficient in court if he claimed the bird was in a large flock but it is an excuse that can look extremely thin.
It already is perceived that way and our questions here in the UK can be formulated in this way:
Q1, does providing incidental food as a result of sport shooting compare with shooting for the trophy cabinet?
Q2, is overbagging with its attendant waste any different than putting a bird in the display cabinet?
Q3, are all forms of shooting wild birds needless anyway given that this is not a supplementary food that is required by the modern European diet?
I think we can all find a place somewhere in there but it is less easy to say whether any of the answers to the questions are right. Shooting in the Mediterranean is hitting migratory birds and is certainly contributory to declines in some species (slender-billed curlew could be one of the most significant examples although habitat loss on the breeding grounds may also be significant) making it a conservation question.
Ian
