ethics of game shooting
- Thread starter jonnie drake
- Start date
-
Hey Guest, Early bird pricing on the Summer Moot (29th July - 10th August) available until April 6th, we'd love you to come. PLEASE CLICK HERE to early bird price and get more information.
wow some great reading. I agree that we have a right to hunt, we are born meat eaters and should carry on to do so. I don't agree that we should roll over about animal cruelty. Im not saying all farmed produce is bad, just a handful of examples like battery farms. It makes me sad to look at a cow and realise the devoltion we have brought upon it through farming though, which is why I have a slight gripe about rearing animals and domesticating them, it's just the early stages of the process that you see though. I always amazed at by how many people are ignorant to all the discussed issues. Some don't even know what animal the joint of meat they are purchasing came from or looked like. Ignorance is definately bliss.
Bothwell craig I apologise on the behalf of all fishermen for the crap they have left behind on loch awe. not cool, hypocrytic too.
I think it is a pipedream to source everything you need or want ethically, and even if you manage that there will be some unethical knock on effect from it.
Bothwell craig I apologise on the behalf of all fishermen for the crap they have left behind on loch awe. not cool, hypocrytic too.
I think it is a pipedream to source everything you need or want ethically, and even if you manage that there will be some unethical knock on effect from it.
I forgot about it! Sorry.
The biggest problem in trying to give REAL figures is that by the time many of the accused come to court and are convicted (or otherwise) they are no longer gamekeepers employed by an estate or members of the Gamekeepers Association. Something that I have witnessed first hand and have listened to the representatives of such organisations making great play on however the fact remains that, at the time of the offence, they were employed as keepers.
It does happen in England, as you say there are good and bad in every profession. Interestingly I did some work and spent some time living and working with an English keeper now employed on a Scottish shooting estate and he was quite clear that many Scottish practices were years if not decades behind English practice. I can't vouch for that but he did know his stuff.
There is (or can be) a huge pressure on keepers on shooting estates, especially in tied housing and when they do get caught out the sad fact is that many estate owners will just cast them aside and deny all knowledge of such practices. They may not actually tell the keeper to "take care" of raptors or other such "pests" but the pressure to ensure a viable shoot falls squarely on the keepers shoulders.
It's a vicious catch 22.
MMmm
I hear of very, very few succesful prosecutions of people involved in game shoots (past or current). Indeed the last group of people I heard of getting a bad press for poisoning raptors were pigeon fanciers!
I maintain though (as someone who has never shot a driven shoot or worked on one) that they do far more good than harm. I don't know how it works on grouse moors, but I can't see how a sterile, monoculture wheat field supports more wildlife than mixed broadleaf woodland stretching for miles. Those are the choices in Hampshire - clear fell the entire woodland and grow cereals or use woods for pheasant and partridge. Those woods teem with wildlife. I know which I think promotes biodiversity best. Pretty much the same as the fox coverts did. I watched the JCBs grubbing the remains of one of those out last week
I hear of very, very few succesful prosecutions of people involved in game shoots (past or current). Indeed the last group of people I heard of getting a bad press for poisoning raptors were pigeon fanciers!
I maintain though (as someone who has never shot a driven shoot or worked on one) that they do far more good than harm. I don't know how it works on grouse moors, but I can't see how a sterile, monoculture wheat field supports more wildlife than mixed broadleaf woodland stretching for miles. Those are the choices in Hampshire - clear fell the entire woodland and grow cereals or use woods for pheasant and partridge. Those woods teem with wildlife. I know which I think promotes biodiversity best. Pretty much the same as the fox coverts did. I watched the JCBs grubbing the remains of one of those out last week
http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/E...itats/paw-scotland/news/Gamekeeperfined171110
http://www.fakenhamtimes.co.uk/news/country_estate_head_gamekeeper_charged_1_782567
http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/s...ps-find-gun-stash-at-his-home-86908-22794614/
Just a couple from the last few months.
Prosecutions are difficult for a number of reasons but the incidents involving keepers DO happen and DO happen on a regular basis.
Just to be clear...only one of those cases you mentioned (the top one) relates to a prosecution on wildlife matters - and there is no evidence that any wildlife was injured. The second case is someone charged (not found guilty) and the third a firearms offense.
I'm not even going to attempt justify your logic on the first one BR. I've read lots of your posts and I've admired many but come on?
The second one I don't know the full details save for info that I was privvy to from prosecution circles but keep an eye on it and we'll see the outcome when it comes to trial.
Case three. I'm not going to comment on further for a variety of reasons but you can read plenty on it if you google Bridge of Orchy Golden Eagle you'll find a lot more in relation to the prosecution attempts in relation to the poisoning of the Eagle. There may still be more to come on that one.
And there are several other prosecutions (in Scotland anyway) that are pending or are due sentencing.
I posted on this thread because of the comments about how the hunting, shooting, fishing brigade are the only ones who care about the wildlife and my original opinion, based on considerable experience, good and bad, hasn't changed.
I don't disagree that the first one was definitely a wrong un - but the fact is he wasn't convicted of killing a raptor.
As for the rest, accusation is not the same as conviction - and its invidious to pretend that a trial is not required to show that these people have committed an offence. Innocent until proven guilty is a cornerstone of our justice system. Whilst you might indeed have information and a viewpoint, that determination rests with a jury.
As for the rest, accusation is not the same as conviction - and its invidious to pretend that a trial is not required to show that these people have committed an offence. Innocent until proven guilty is a cornerstone of our justice system. Whilst you might indeed have information and a viewpoint, that determination rests with a jury.
Last edited:
I never said that a trial is not required. Like I said watch this space in relation to both.
Cheers
The only reason all of this is happening, is there is no legal route to deal with problem raptors!!
No you didn't, but when I asked about "succesful prosecutions of people on game shoots" (in the context of wildlife crime), you posted three links with the comment
There is a clear implication there that these were all
.
One was a conviction for careless (criminally stupid) use of poison - in which no wildlife died. One has not been tried and one was a firearms offense.
So....one succesful prosecution (although no wildlife were killed).
In the words of Dragnet "Just the facts".
Red
Quite
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/3597952.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/derbyshire/4083487.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/shropshire/7808839.stm
http://www.perthshireadvertiser.co....-former-perthshire-gamekeeper-73103-26110898/
You know BR, these convictions are out there. Many take several years to come to fruition, some never make it to court but they are out there and in Scotland, 2009 was one of the worst years on record for raptor persecution.
Last edited:
As I said before, the Buzzard is so common now that they are well and truly established in urban areas. Is there an argument to look at "control measures"?
Probably
But until such times as they do it's still an offence to kill them and the use of something as indiscriminate as poisoned baits is abhorrent in my opinion.
Just my opinion (and the laws)
I don't doubt it - but lets not blow it out of proportion either,
Two of your links above date back to 2004. Two more are from more than two years ago and are different publications covering the same offense.
One relates to a 2009 offense prosecuted last year and covering the death of a buzzard a bird you describe as
I'm not trying to pick a fight here, but there are thousands of game shoots in England, all the ones I walk are teeming with wildlife that simply would not have a habitat in which to live were it not for those shoots. Thats a pretty good reason to encourage them in my book.
Its simpler than "sometimes a tiny minority do wrong". I see very few people out there investing millions of pounds in creating and maintaining diverse woodland habitat. Shoots do. Thats all I need to know (again, I have never shot a driven shoot or been employed by one, just calling it as I see it).
Red
And I dont want an argument either. However (just like Dragnet) the facts are there and there are many more cases than ever come to court.
I removed the duplicate link. Yes there are two from 2004
2010 - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/hereford/worcs/8635231.stm
2006 - http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-418206/Royal-Gamekeeper-fined-illegal-trap.html
I could go on and on.
The bottom line for me is, regardless of how common they are, the law is the law (THEE fundamental cornerstone of our justice system. The determination of outcome which rests with a jury (or Sheriff in Scotland) regardless of any viewpoint)
It's NOT a minority, not from what I can see. It's common and accepted practice and only the "unfortunate" few are caught and fewer still prosecuted.
I'll reiterate. I work closely with many countryside workers and representing organisations on all sides. It's not my job to take sides, only deal with facts. Sometimes those facts get heard in a court of law, sometimes they dont.
I have hunted and shot, I eat game, I count some of the "hunting, shooting, fishing brigade" as colleagues and friends but PLEASE dont say that they are the only ones who have the interests of the countryside and wildlife at heart. It's just NOT true!
Craig
I removed the duplicate link. Yes there are two from 2004
2010 - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/hereford/worcs/8635231.stm
2006 - http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-418206/Royal-Gamekeeper-fined-illegal-trap.html
I could go on and on.
The bottom line for me is, regardless of how common they are, the law is the law (THEE fundamental cornerstone of our justice system. The determination of outcome which rests with a jury (or Sheriff in Scotland) regardless of any viewpoint)
It's NOT a minority, not from what I can see. It's common and accepted practice and only the "unfortunate" few are caught and fewer still prosecuted.
I'll reiterate. I work closely with many countryside workers and representing organisations on all sides. It's not my job to take sides, only deal with facts. Sometimes those facts get heard in a court of law, sometimes they dont.
I have hunted and shot, I eat game, I count some of the "hunting, shooting, fishing brigade" as colleagues and friends but PLEASE dont say that they are the only ones who have the interests of the countryside and wildlife at heart. It's just NOT true!
Craig
Just on that point alone. The Scottish Government enquiry into the value of Wildlife Tourism on the Scottish economy every year is net £65 million to Scotland's economy and creates the equivalent of 2,760 full time jobs
Thats just to watch them.
Similar threads
