Why Shooting Times rejected RSPB hotline advert (1 Viewer)

[Barred Wobbler]

I kind of see where you're coming from, but if the RSPB tries to include shooters in the debate and they remove themselves from it, where do we go from there?

Why would you think that there are no shooters in the RSPB? They don't all have horns and pointed tails, I'm sure.

There are shades of grey in every picture.

 

[Tideliner]

Is it really so surprising that the Shooting Times rejected the ads on raptor protection after all would you expect the RSPB mag to have an Advert for duck shooting.

 

[martin kitching]

You can't really compare a legal activity, which some people just happen to find distasteful, with a wholly illegal activity, that some people just happen to find acceptable.

cheers
martin

Is it really so surprising that the Shooting Times rejected the ads on raptor protection after all would you expect the RSPB mag to have an Advert for duck shooting.

 

[mikfoz]

You can't really compare a legal activity, which some people just happen to find distasteful, with a wholly illegal activity, that some people just happen to find acceptable.

cheers
martin

I agree. The issue here isn't whether shooting is distasteful but whether illegally killing protected species because discredited and archaic principles of livestock protection persist among some luddite gamekeepers is actively covered up and tacitly encouraged. The question is, really, whether shooters are prepared to rid themselves of a few frankly embarrassing individuals for the greater good. Effectively sweeping the issue under the carpet is what Shooting Times stands accused of.

The stance taken by the wider shooting community is that it's a "few bad apples." This is manifestly true and I'm prepared to accept that by and large the trade of gamekeeper has moved with the times and tries its hardest to dovetail with conservation. So why, then, can't RSPB and gamekeepers find some common ground in wilfully eradicating the bad apples?

 

[ColonelBlimp]

I agree. The issue here isn't whether shooting is distasteful but whether illegally killing protected species because discredited and archaic principles of livestock protection persist among some luddite gamekeepers is actively covered up and tacitly encouraged.

But grouse shooting is just like any other agricultural livestock pursuit in that to maintain viable populations of the harvested prey, you have to have some predator control. In grouse moors, if harriers are taking too many grouse etc. for the shooting to be viable, you can understand the gamekeeper's viewpoint on the dichotomy that they are allowed to control one kind of these predators (eg. corvids), but not others (eg. the harriers).

The issue is not whether they should be allowed to pest control, as this will be decided by economic necessity-rather whether it is such a vital industry that it is worth it. In my opinion, that is hardly the case.

 

[mikfoz]

I wonder just how many Grouse are actually taken by Harriers etc. Does anyone have reliable data on this (as opposed to other forms of death-by-not-shooting such as disease, parasites and so on)?

It's easy to think "Grouse numbers down again, I'll catch it from His Lordship. And there's the blasted Harrier again. Now if only I could take its body to His Lordship he might think I'm a very good and proactive gamekeeper battling bravely to protect his moving targets and he won't sack me..." This kind of thinking does not equal effective livestock management but it does equal good paypacket management.

 

[Barred Wobbler]

Reading this thread and one in the "Birds and Birding" section, I'm coming to the conclusion that the average shooter probably knows a lot more about birds and conservation than the average birder knows about shoots and shooting.

 

[mikfoz]

Reading this thread and one in the "Birds and Birding" section, I'm coming to the conclusion that the average shooter probably knows a lot more about birds and conservation than the average birder knows about shoots and shooting.

While staying on topic, please inform as to why the shooting community cannot find common ground on not killing protected species on purpose and bringing those who do so to book, then.

I agree that there needs to be a meeting of minds on this, and I don't see how shutting the door on the debate serves any purpose.

 

[Barred Wobbler]

Not being one of the "shooting community" I can't answer for them.

 

[mikfoz]

Not being one of the "shooting community" I can't answer for them.

Drat! Thought you were...

I know a few shooters via archery and they all can't stand people giving them a bad name by shooting non-quarry species and encroaching on other interests.

 

[Barred Wobbler]

Exactly.

But I know several people who shoot and I know what they think about the countryside and wildlife, and if they were to read some of the more asinine comments on this board about them, I'd be amazed if they would be in any mood to have a "meeting of minds" with the minds of people who so completely misrepresent them, their motives and their sport.

All this nonsense about how they do it because they are a bunch of toffs, they do it because they love killing things, they like to shoot anything that moves, they want birds that are tame and don't fly up because they want an easy shot; none of this is remotely near what shooting is actually about.

Which is why I made my comment about the average shooter knowing more about birds and conservation than it appears on the evidence here the average birder knows about shooting.

 

[mikfoz]

Exactly.

But I know several people who shoot and I know what they think about the countryside and wildlife, and if they were to read some of the more asinine comments on this board about them, I'd be amazed if they would be in any mood to have a "meeting of minds" with the minds of people who so completely misrepresent them, their motives and their sport.

All this nonsense about how they do it because they are a bunch of toffs, they do it because they love killing things, they like to shoot anything that moves, they want birds that are tame and don't fly up because they want an easy shot; none of this is remotely near what shooting is actually about.

Which is why I made my comment about the average shooter knowing more about birds and conservation than it appears on the evidence here the average birder knows about shooting.

True, that, and I guess I've been as guilty as others in letting myself get sucked into generalising etc. It's just frustrating to see people blatantly bending the law like this and getting away with it because of their connections.

 

[nirofo]

Reading this thread and one in the "Birds and Birding" section, I'm coming to the conclusion that the average shooter probably knows a lot more about birds and conservation than the average birder knows about shoots and shooting.

I thought that was obvious ages ago, judging by some of the comments on here!

Incidentally, some of the higher echelons of the RSPB own shooting estates.

nirofo.

 

[Barred Wobbler]

I thought that was obvious ages ago, judging by some of the comments on here!

Incidentally, some of the higher echelons of the RSPB own shooting estates.

nirofo.

I was attempting to be gentle.

 

[ColonelBlimp]

All this nonsense about how they do it because they are a bunch of toffs, they do it because they love killing things, they like to shoot anything that moves, they want birds that are tame and don't fly up because they want an easy shot; none of this is remotely near what shooting is actually about.

Well to be honest the socioeconomic grouping of grouse moor enjoyers is fairly skewed, and as for the "they do it because they love killing things", I would have thought that would be fairly self-evident, the whole point of grouse shooting being to kill grouse! As for the last point, I don't know enough to comment.

 

[Farnboro John]

Well to be honest the socioeconomic grouping of grouse moor enjoyers is fairly skewed, and as for the "they do it because they love killing things", I would have thought that would be fairly self-evident, the whole point of grouse shooting being to kill grouse! As for the last point, I don't know enough to comment.

I've never shot live targets, just paper, but I can assure you that an element of the attraction is that its actually not very easy even when the target is stationary (or stationery).

In addition, I hear tell the beasties are good to eat. There is more to culinary life than battery chickens.

John

 

[ColonelBlimp]

I've never shot live targets, just paper, but I can assure you that an element of the attraction is that its actually not very easy even when the target is stationary (or stationery).

I know what you mean, being an archer myself, but I really can't see the attraction of shooting an animal. But I digress...

 

[Nightranger]

But grouse shooting is just like any other agricultural livestock pursuit in that to maintain viable populations of the harvested prey, you have to have some predator control. In grouse moors, if harriers are taking too many grouse etc. for the shooting to be viable, you can understand the gamekeeper's viewpoint on the dichotomy that they are allowed to control one kind of these predators (eg. corvids), but not others (eg. the harriers).

This is the one area where there is a distinct lack of honesty because (supressed) data from game estates revealed that less than 5% of losses were attributable to predators. I am not entirely sure whether the above relates to all predators (I cannot recall seeing the precise details) or just raptors (with mammalian and corvid predators being a separate element) but the basic premise was that over 90% of losses were attributable to the weather. The figures genuinely come from within the shooting industry but it is difficult to give a reference because the figures were supressed and decried by many people (if I can find a source I will gladly post it for you).

Therefore, the only way to increase yield would be to find a way to control the weather and not to control predators (particularly, raptors). However, where there is to be had some understanding (I draw the line at sympathy) is that the easiest way an estate can show its clients of its efficiency is to have a row of dead predators (even if it is just lines on a ledger). The gamekeepers know this is pointless but they are forced into it by estate owners and of course, most of the shooting clients know any different nor do they care. It is sad that only gamekeepers ever get convicted due to limitations in UK law but it would take an enormous effort to make estate owners culpable, as was done in the subject of drug-users vs drug pushers.

 

[Nightranger]

Incidentally, some of the higher echelons of the RSPB own shooting estates.

Could you qualify this comment please? Even though I no longer work for the RSPB I can see this as potentially libellous and needs to be explained. I don't know anyone in the RSPB that has the kind of money to own an estate unless you are talking about the Royal patron.

 

[nirofo]

Could you qualify this comment please? Even though I no longer work for the RSPB I can see this as potentially libellous and needs to be explained. I don't know anyone in the RSPB that has the kind of money to own an estate unless you are talking about the Royal patron.

Do your homework, in any case why would this be libellous, to whom and for what reason?

nirofo.