What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
New profile posts
New review items
Latest activity
Forums
New posts
Search forums
Gallery
New media
New comments
Search media
Reviews
New items
Latest content
Latest reviews
Latest questions
Brands
Search reviews
Opus
Birds & Bird Song
Locations
Resources
Contribute
Recent changes
Blogs
Members
Current visitors
New profile posts
Search profile posts
ZEISS
ZEISS Nature Observation
The Most Important Optical Parameters
Innovative Technologies
Conservation Projects
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
BirdForum is the net's largest birding community dedicated to wild birds and birding, and is
absolutely FREE
!
Register for an account
to take part in lively discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.
Forums
Birding
Birds & Birding
Countryside Alliance urges BBC to sack Chris Packham in conservation rrwo
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Craig H" data-source="post: 3279070" data-attributes="member: 30046"><p>Before anyone says it I am of course well aware that Hen Harrier persecution is an illegal activity too often associated with Grouse shooting but that doesn't make Grouse shooting itself an illegal activity and the idea that banning it is the answer is nothing more than an opinion. Expressing that opinion is one thing,using your position to try and influence other peoples opinions is a whole other matter and not one the BBC should be involved in.</p></blockquote><p></p><p>I've been in agreement with you before Adam, but not this time I'm afraid. I'm not sure, how exactly, you can state an opinion, without influencing another persons take on that subject. To take the above eg of Top Gear again. Presenters state their opinions of cars, it may or may not influence you to buy. 'Wish you were here' contained opinions of holiday resorts (generally in the positive if I remember correctly) you may or may not have paid a visit as a result. The point is that CA were offended because it conflicts with their interests. Everyone gets offended, they need to just get over it.</p><p></p><p>Ultimately they have no recognisable figurehead like CP, and I think that hurts them, because they struggle to influence the public. Some of the tweets and remarks I've seen from the 'shooting side' doesn't exactly help their own situation either I suspect. </p><p></p><p>I have, in the past, been of the same opinion as you that if its legal then as much as I dislike something then I need to lump it. I have even supported legal shooters to an extent. DGS is legal, but only possible because it is supported by illegal activities - Langholm showed that. The Badger Cull is legal, but its costing £7000 per animal of taxpayers money (my money) to do it and it is scientifically and ethically wrong and ineffective. I am sick of videos showing farmers looking teary eyed at a cow that has to be put down because it has TB when they'll quite happily send beef cows to slaughter and do who knows what with dairy bull calves. It's about cash. Nothing to do with welfare.</p><p>[/QUOTE]</p>
[QUOTE="Craig H, post: 3279070, member: 30046"] Before anyone says it I am of course well aware that Hen Harrier persecution is an illegal activity too often associated with Grouse shooting but that doesn't make Grouse shooting itself an illegal activity and the idea that banning it is the answer is nothing more than an opinion. Expressing that opinion is one thing,using your position to try and influence other peoples opinions is a whole other matter and not one the BBC should be involved in.[/QUOTE] I've been in agreement with you before Adam, but not this time I'm afraid. I'm not sure, how exactly, you can state an opinion, without influencing another persons take on that subject. To take the above eg of Top Gear again. Presenters state their opinions of cars, it may or may not influence you to buy. 'Wish you were here' contained opinions of holiday resorts (generally in the positive if I remember correctly) you may or may not have paid a visit as a result. The point is that CA were offended because it conflicts with their interests. Everyone gets offended, they need to just get over it. Ultimately they have no recognisable figurehead like CP, and I think that hurts them, because they struggle to influence the public. Some of the tweets and remarks I've seen from the 'shooting side' doesn't exactly help their own situation either I suspect. I have, in the past, been of the same opinion as you that if its legal then as much as I dislike something then I need to lump it. I have even supported legal shooters to an extent. DGS is legal, but only possible because it is supported by illegal activities - Langholm showed that. The Badger Cull is legal, but its costing £7000 per animal of taxpayers money (my money) to do it and it is scientifically and ethically wrong and ineffective. I am sick of videos showing farmers looking teary eyed at a cow that has to be put down because it has TB when they'll quite happily send beef cows to slaughter and do who knows what with dairy bull calves. It's about cash. Nothing to do with welfare. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes...
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Birding
Birds & Birding
Countryside Alliance urges BBC to sack Chris Packham in conservation rrwo
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
Accept
Learn more...
Top