Pheasant shooting curtailed

ashley

Active member
Messages
230
Reaction score
83
This is only a tweek to the current laws and only on certain sites. HOWEVER, it is illegal to release a non-native species in the UK, and yes, pheasants do alot of damage to our native flora and fauna. This is without doubt. I genuinly do think that this is the first nail in the coffin of the driven gamebird community. But when you look at it; it's just releasing birds to be shot....with little or no regard to anything else. On the bigger estates it's all about money....
 

Loxie

Well-known member
Messages
10,624
Reaction score
962
This is only a tweek to the current laws and only on certain sites. HOWEVER, it is illegal to release a non-native species in the UK, and yes, pheasants do alot of damage to our native flora and fauna. This is without doubt. I genuinly do think that this is the first nail in the coffin of the driven gamebird community. But when you look at it; it's just releasing birds to be shot....with little or no regard to anything else. On the bigger estates it's all about money....

The same can be said of golf. It damages native flora and fauna and is largely all about money. Mind you it's probably also true of fishing, football, motorsports, cricket, swimming and pretty much every leisure activity. Rural communities need employment and leisure the same as everyone else so why shouldn't large commercial pheasant shoots be allowed to operate.

As an aside how do you define non native?
 

ibm59

Well-known member
Messages
13,071
Reaction score
1,279
Like it or not , the ‘ general public ‘ will simply no longer put up with photographs of piles of dead birds or animals surrounded by grinning guns.
The shooting fraternity has scored a massive own goal with this one.
Ably assisted by digital photography and the ease of posting of photographs on social media , of course.
 

SP8

Well-known member
Messages
3,252
Reaction score
72
Location
North Yorkshire
As somebody who spends the shooting season beating I could not be accused of being anti shooting. However I am not alone in feeling that the numbers involved with pheasant shooting have got out of hand and I tend to agree with ibm59 that the shooting community has scored an own goal on this one. Packham doesn't need an excuse to push his anti field sport agenda but I can't help thinking he had this one handed on a plate to him.

SP8
 

Loxie

Well-known member
Messages
10,624
Reaction score
962
Like it or not , the ‘ general public ‘ will simply no longer put up with photographs of piles of dead birds or animals surrounded by grinning guns.
The shooting fraternity has scored a massive own goal with this one.
Ably assisted by digital photography and the ease of posting of photographs on social media , of course.

I'm not a great fan of big bags of tame birds, wild birds are a different matter but all the extensive private polling on attitudes to shooting have shown that there is almost no public resistance to large bags or big release densities but the key concern is whether the shot game goes in to the food chain.
 

ibm59

Well-known member
Messages
13,071
Reaction score
1,279
Aye , right.

Your battle lies with public perception.
I wish you well.
 

ashley

Active member
Messages
230
Reaction score
83
The same can be said of golf. It damages native flora and fauna and is largely all about money. Mind you it's probably also true of fishing, football, motorsports, cricket, swimming and pretty much every leisure activity. Rural communities need employment and leisure the same as everyone else so why shouldn't large commercial pheasant shoots be allowed to operate.

As an aside how do you define non native?
I would define a non-native as a bird that is not naturally occuring here. In fact, should the release of pheasant and RLP be stopped they would slowly die out anyway for they aren't really suited to the UK. Even wild bird shoots aren't as such, they all get 'topped up' by released birds, no matter what people say. Yes, every leisure activity does have impacts on the environment, of course. But rearing MILLIONS of gamebirds and releasing them in the uk countryside to eat everything in their path just so they can be shot>? Hhmmm, whats the real end result and is it really sport? The mass rearing of pheasants causes biodiversity to plummet, they destroy our native wildlife.
I am actually surprised that 'ducks havent been more of a target because the reared duck shooting is about as unsporting a thing ive ever seen. Hundreds of ducks on a muddy, ****-laden pond, that holds ZERO other life, then pushed off the water , often they dont even want to fly. When they do they fly around in a circle to get blatted out of the sky. The crazy thing here is that i'm not even an anti, i'm a fieldsport enthusiast....but just I don't agree with alot of the things i see.... things are changing folks.....this is just the start...
 

Loxie

Well-known member
Messages
10,624
Reaction score
962
Aye , right.

Your battle lies with public perception.
I wish you well.

to be honest I have retired from any commercial interest in pheasant shooting and excessive bags and poor behaviour have made that a very easy decision to make. My point was really that everyone involved in big commercial shooting is fully aware of public perception and the potential issues of too much negativity. Over the last 3 or 4 years extensive polling has been undertaken on public perception and this has shown that the only serious widespread concern is about usage of shot game.

there have been great strides to get ahead of the curve, especially over lead shot and plastic wads.
 

ashley

Active member
Messages
230
Reaction score
83
to be honest I have retired from any commercial interest in pheasant shooting and excessive bags and poor behaviour have made that a very easy decision to make. My point was really that everyone involved in big commercial shooting is fully aware of public perception and the potential issues of too much negativity. Over the last 3 or 4 years extensive polling has been undertaken on public perception and this has shown that the only serious widespread concern is about usage of shot game.

there have been great strides to get ahead of the curve, especially over lead shot and plastic wads.
I honestly think that the only thing that is stopping driven (pheasant)shooting from getting a lot of hassle is driven grouse. When they finally get that licenced they will put all their energy into stopping and restricting driven pheasant.... i should imagine grouse in Scotland will be licenced within a couple of years and england will follow suit. With regards shot game...you can't give it away! Some shoots are paying 50p a bird to get rid of it, whilst others are just slinging them. There were dozens dumped in a layby last year...
 

SalmoNewf

Member
Messages
65
Reaction score
92
Nobody in the salmon, trout, whatever fishing world should be complacent about this. It is another in a long series of little cuts that will ultimately lead to the banning of all field sports. The “anti-almost everything I don’t like myself” brigade are playing a long game and are good at it in a world increasingly dominated by artificial people leading artificial lives.
 

Loxie

Well-known member
Messages
10,624
Reaction score
962
I honestly think that the only thing that is stopping driven (pheasant)shooting from getting a lot of hassle is driven grouse. When they finally get that licenced they will put all their energy into stopping and restricting driven pheasant.... i should imagine grouse in Scotland will be licenced within a couple of years and england will follow suit. With regards shot game...you can't give it away! Some shoots are paying 50p a bird to get rid of it, whilst others are just slinging them. There were dozens dumped in a layby last year...

The driven grouse situation sums up the motivation of the antis perfectly. The is not a single valid or sustainable argument for any restrictions, licensing etc to driven grouse shooting. It is easily one of the most sustainable and beneficial land management practices and yet the antis are determined to contually spread lies to try and have it banned. This is because shooting driven grouse is largely the preserve of the wealthy.

The anti fieldsports movement is based on hatred of "the rich" and a desire to stop people doing something they don't want to do themselves. This is why arguments about stocking density, bag sizes etc are totally irrelevant: antis don't care they just want to stop people shooting. The general non shooting public don't care: to them these sort of arguments are irrelevant technical nonsense. It's really only shooters who love to navel gaze about these things.

I'd be very surprised if grouse shooting legislation will change in England, unless we have a change of government as it would be based on bigotry not science.
 

Horsbrugh

Well-known member
Messages
596
Reaction score
542
Location
Peebles
The driven grouse situation sums up the motivation of the antis perfectly. The is not a single valid or sustainable argument for any restrictions, licensing etc to driven grouse shooting. It is easily one of the most sustainable and beneficial land management practices and yet the antis are determined to contually spread lies to try and have it banned. This is because shooting driven grouse is largely the preserve of the wealthy.

The anti fieldsports movement is based on hatred of "the rich" and a desire to stop people doing something they don't want to do themselves. This is why arguments about stocking density, bag sizes etc are totally irrelevant: antis don't care they just want to stop people shooting. The general non shooting public don't care: to them these sort of arguments are irrelevant technical nonsense. It's really only shooters who love to navel gaze about these things.

I'd be very surprised if grouse shooting legislation will change in England, unless we have a change of government as it would be based on bigotry not science.

Absolutely spot on. That is why I am so completely against compulsory catch and release. The majority of the general public have no problem with anglers catching fish and killing them to eat. It is not killing them that they don’t get. CCR is just playing right into the anti’s hands. Once they have finished with the grouse, then the pheasants, it will be “rich toff’s tormenting salmon for fun, it’s a disgrace, should be banned!”
 

johnwest

Active member
Messages
163
Reaction score
42
Location
Central Scotland. Next 2 the river
The driven grouse situation sums up the motivation of the antis perfectly. The is not a single valid or sustainable argument for any restrictions, licensing etc to driven grouse shooting. It is easily one of the most sustainable and beneficial land management practices and yet the antis are determined to contually spread lies to try and have it banned. This is because shooting driven grouse is largely the preserve of the wealthy.

The anti fieldsports movement is based on hatred of "the rich" and a desire to stop people doing something they don't want to do themselves. This is why arguments about stocking density, bag sizes etc are totally irrelevant: antis don't care they just want to stop people shooting. The general non shooting public don't care: to them these sort of arguments are irrelevant technical nonsense. It's really only shooters who love to navel gaze about these things.

I'd be very surprised if grouse shooting legislation will change in England, unless we have a change of government as it would be based on bigotry not science.
Spot on its all perceived as for the wealthy yet all the beaters , pickers up small syndicates etc are all ordinary people either enjoying their sport or making a living. The only problem I have is when anything shot goes to waste. Yes media pics don't help but in the bigger picture all the snowflakes , tree huggers etc don't protest outside slaughter houses do they at least the birds are free range and have a chance to get away. The antis don't really care about wildlife and the countryside it is a class thing. The shooting organisations submitted their evidence it was only a judicial review in or near designated sites Wild Justice won't stop at shooting ,fishing is next.
 

mows

Well-known member
Messages
3,696
Reaction score
1,788
Location
edzell
The driven grouse situation sums up the motivation of the antis perfectly. The is not a single valid or sustainable argument for any restrictions, licensing etc to driven grouse shooting. It is easily one of the most sustainable and beneficial land management practices and yet the antis are determined to contually spread lies to try and have it banned. This is because shooting driven grouse is largely the preserve of the wealthy.

The anti fieldsports movement is based on hatred of "the rich" and a desire to stop people doing something they don't want to do themselves. This is why arguments about stocking density, bag sizes etc are totally irrelevant: antis don't care they just want to stop people shooting. The general non shooting public don't care: to them these sort of arguments are irrelevant technical nonsense. It's really only shooters who love to navel gaze about these things.

I'd be very surprised if grouse shooting legislation will change in England, unless we have a change of government as it would be based on bigotry not science.
Commiting wildlife crime is a valid reason for me.
I find it strange that these estates are happy to commit crimes, but get very upset with poachers!
There's at least 3 estates round me that have reigned in their wild life crimes and have become a bit more subtle by accidental burning beside known nest sites etc and night scopes.
But they seem happy enough to keep raptor numbers down, especially harriers.
I can only assume their ultimate goal is to end grouse shooting, because no body can be stupid enough to do it just for a short term increase in grouse numbers while handing cwiss an open goal.
And before all the shooters say not true.
It is!
Accept it and work out how you stop it.
Turning a blind eye almost makes you complicit in ending grouse shooting.
To be clear, there's probably 12 clean estates round me, but it's irrelevant while the bad ones continue.
 

ashley

Active member
Messages
230
Reaction score
83
Commiting wildlife crime is a valid reason for me.
I find it strange that these estates are happy to commit crimes, but get very upset with poachers!
There's at least 3 estates round me that have reigned in their wild life crimes and have become a bit more subtle by accidental burning beside known nest sites etc and night scopes.
But they seem happy enough to keep raptor numbers down, especially harriers.
I can only assume their ultimate goal is to end grouse shooting, because no body can be stupid enough to do it just for a short term increase in grouse numbers while handing cwiss an open goal.
And before all the shooters say not true.
It is!
Accept it and work out how you stop it.
Turning a blind eye almost makes you complicit in ending grouse shooting.
To be clear, there's probably 12 clean estates round me, but it's irrelevant while the bad ones continue.
Well written. Don't give Packham a stick to beat you with, then moan when he beats you with it!!
 

Loxie

Well-known member
Messages
10,624
Reaction score
962
Commiting wildlife crime is a valid reason for me.
I find it strange that these estates are happy to commit crimes, but get very upset with poachers!
There's at least 3 estates round me that have reigned in their wild life crimes and have become a bit more subtle by accidental burning beside known nest sites etc and night scopes.
But they seem happy enough to keep raptor numbers down, especially harriers.
I can only assume their ultimate goal is to end grouse shooting, because no body can be stupid enough to do it just for a short term increase in grouse numbers while handing cwiss an open goal.
And before all the shooters say not true.
It is!
Accept it and work out how you stop it.
Turning a blind eye almost makes you complicit in ending grouse shooting.
To be clear, there's probably 12 clean estates round me, but it's irrelevant while the bad ones continue.
Take your evidence to the police and every shooter will support you.
 

mows

Well-known member
Messages
3,696
Reaction score
1,788
Location
edzell
There's not enough to prosecute Loxie.
You need to prove who the individual is, not that a crime has been commited.
But that doesn't mean it's not true.

Classic shooters defence though.

Let's see how that works out!
 

Loxie

Well-known member
Messages
10,624
Reaction score
962
There's not enough to prosecute Loxie.
You need to prove who the individual is, not that a crime has been commited.
But that doesn't mean it's not true.

Classic shooters defence though.

Let's see how that works out!

You cannot just accuse people of committing serious crimes with absolutely no evidence to support it and then cry foul when you are called out. This year has seen a really good increase in harrier numbers and range and the idea that grouse managers are routinely persecuting them is a straightforward lie. There will be bad actors, but they are a tiny exception and vilified by all genuine shooters. Would you change driving rules because some people speed? Perhaps ban salmon fishing because some people cheat?
 

mows

Well-known member
Messages
3,696
Reaction score
1,788
Location
edzell
"You cannot just accuse people of committing serious crimes with absolutely no evidence to support it and then cry foul when you are called out"
Exactly how Jimmy Saville got away with it for years.

Yeah we had one harrier nest in the entire Angus glens.
First in 5 years.
I was nearly deafened by the fan fare.
I can't accuse any individual, just an estate or 3.

To be fair nearly all estates realise times have changed. BUT

In the last 10 years, some quite recent.
Poisoned golden eagles.
One found.
One burried.
At least one poisoned sheep dog!
Shot hen harrier, then dumped on track on neighbouring estate.
Sea eagle nest tree cut down.
I know who did it but you couldn't prossecute.
Pole traps set. I know I know, it was these nasty antis did it to cause trouble.
Turns out the keepers weren't paying attention that day.
2 peregrine nest sites burned out during heather burning time, this year.
That's just some of the indisputable ones.
One of these estates has a new owner, but same staff. Seems crime free.

There isn't a shooter or keeper round here doesn't know the estates, but they are all happy to turn a blind eye and wait for their licencing to come!
 
Last edited:

johnwest

Active member
Messages
163
Reaction score
42
Location
Central Scotland. Next 2 the river
just a few questions not doubting you but a buried eagle just happens to be found somewhere in the wilderness, a shot hen harrier not disposed off but left on a track for anyone to find, two peregrine nests burnt while moor burning (I thought they nested on high cliff sites) and plenty of rat poison etc about farms for sheepdogs to sample, just asking
 

mows

Well-known member
Messages
3,696
Reaction score
1,788
Location
edzell
Buried eagle found by local.
Not reported to police.
Nests themselves not burned, but Heather burned on days when wind blowing into the cliff faces and fire travelling well up.
Previously peregrine nests anually.
No more.
Make your own mind up.
Shepherd compensated for poisoned dog, I assume with NDA.
No report to police.
Not sure what the game was with the harrier.
Local opinion is that it was left on purpose and not by antis.
 
Top