Hunting is in a spot of bother

[Tiddlypom]

So shooting something is worse than chasing something to the point of exhaustion and then having a pack of dogs rip it to shreds?

Bear in mind that I am absolutely against illegal hunting, which undoubtedly still goes on, and pre ban fox hunting was of its time and should never be allowed again.

Like it or not, overall the countryside was better managed when fox hunting was legal, simply to protect foxes so that they could provide sport during the hunting season. It was tough on the foxes that got killed by the hunts, for sure, but overall the fox population was healthier and better managed then. You may well despise those who hunted, and why they managed the land to encourage foxes, but overall a fair bit of good came out of it for foxes.

For shooting, pheasants (non native birds) are artificially mass produced simply to provide amusement to people who enjoy killing them, with no knock on benefit to the countryside. I find this much more abhorrent.

 

[SilverLinings]

The sheer numbers of birds shot nationally on driven shoots far outstrips the number of foxes killed by hunts pre-ban. I doubt either results in a pleasant death for many of the animals involved, but more birds are killed via shooting than foxes by hunt hounds.

Edited for clarity.

 

[Fred66]

Bear in mind that I am absolutely against illegal hunting, which undoubtedly still goes on, and pre ban fox hunting was of its time and should never be allowed again.

Like it or not, overall the countryside was better managed when fox hunting was legal, simply to protect foxes so that they could provide sport during the hunting season. It was tough on the foxes that got killed by the hunts, for sure, but overall the fox population was healthier and better managed then. You may well despise those who hunted, and why they managed the land to encourage foxes, but overall a fair bit of good came out of it for foxes.

For shooting, pheasants (non native birds) are artificially mass produced simply to provide amusement to people who enjoy killing them, with no knock on benefit to the countryside. I find this much more abhorrent.

There is quite a lot of benefit to the countryside from shoots, as was discussed earlier in this thread

 

[palo1]

Meanwhile, in reality elsewhere:Good news for Lynx thanks in part to hunting organisations. https://www.biodiversitymanifesto.c...mlpIrEXMpZpPxuBYlD8iLuwDzkrZRSfGjrz8C0OBHRhn0

If we are to manage biodiversity people really need to think clearly and in certain situations reconsider their prejudices.

 

[Millionwords]

https://www.banburyguardian.co.uk/n...ing-a-fox-in-banburyshire-countryside-3926444

 

[Burnttoast]

Meanwhile, in reality elsewhere:Good news for Lynx thanks in part to hunting organisations. https://www.biodiversitymanifesto.c...mlpIrEXMpZpPxuBYlD8iLuwDzkrZRSfGjrz8C0OBHRhn0

If we are to manage biodiversity people really need to think clearly and in certain situations reconsider their prejudices.

There are people other than hunters who wish to improve biodiversity for its own sake and are not concerned primarily with quarry species numbers. That is certainly a glossy website, though.

 

[Burnttoast]

There is quite a lot of benefit to the countryside from shoots, as was discussed earlier in this thread

I don't see any near me. Hedges and woodland are managed less well on farms that shoot than on ones that are interested in conservation for its own sake.

 

[palo1]

I don't see any near me. Hedges and woodland are managed less well on farms that shoot than on ones that are interested in conservation for its own sake.

Are you a farmer or landowner @Burnttoast ? Do you know how conservation is paid for? For the vast majority of landowners, there are significant costs to that ownership and whilst every landowner I know would like to engage more in conservation activities, many simply cannot afford to do that for it's own sake. Land is, as well as a common good and vital for biodiversity, a business; one that is, even at hill farming level, globally competitive. Our organic, grass fed lamb is sold in a local market for buyers from as far away as the middle east and trade is influenced by global factors such as religion, climate and the economics of distant places. Shooting enables farmers to carry out conservation and biodiversity activities and still remain economically viable. That means that those things are sustainable and do not cost the tax payer. Just think about it!!

 

[Burnttoast]

Are you a farmer or landowner @Burnttoast ? Do you know how conservation is paid for? For the vast majority of landowners, there are significant costs to that ownership and whilst every landowner I know would like to engage more in conservation activities, many simply cannot afford to do that for it's own sake. Land is, as well as a common good and vital for biodiversity, a business; one that is, even at hill farming level, globally competitive. Our organic, grass fed lamb is sold in a local market for buyers from as far away as the middle east and trade is influenced by global factors such as religion, climate and the economics of distant places. Shooting enables farmers to carry out conservation and biodiversity activities and still remain economically viable. That means that those things are sustainable and do not cost the tax payer. Just think about it!!

Here, some landowners are partnering with wildlife and conservation groups and it's costing them very little to improve their landscapes. On my own very small patch (4 acres) I pay for my own conservation efforts, but no, I don't have to make a living from it. In arable East Anglia it is certainly not the case that every landowner has any interest in conservation (the large farm adjacent to my land was until very recently owned by a trust based in Panama and contracted out; now it's owned by a local pig baron who is thrashing the land even harder and behaving pretty antisocially to the locals too so my experience of landowners in general as generally benevolent does not match yours)

 

[ycbm]

.

Are you a farmer or landowner @Burnttoast ? Do you know how conservation is paid for?

I was. I created a wildlife haven of my ten acres, with a huge variety of plants, breeding or helping curlew, lapwing, hare, badger, stoat, kestrel, red deer, swallow, lark and three types of owl, that I know of.

Friends around me have in the last 30 years created acres more woodland and restored miles of drystone wall. Another new piece of woodland is being put in right now.

Not a cent provided from any hunting activities.
.

 

[Millionwords]

.



I was. I created a wildlife haven of my ten acres, with a huge variety of plants, breeding or helping curlew, lapwing, hare, badger, stoat, kestrel, red deer, swallow, lark and three types of owl, that I know of.

Friends around me have in the last 30 years created acres more woodland and restored miles of drystone wall. Another new piece of woodland is being put in right now.

Not a cent provided from any hunting activities.
.

ycThat sounds wonderful @ycbm and a real ecological asset to the surrounding land too!

 

[palo1]

.



I was. I created a wildlife haven of my ten acres, with a huge variety of plants, breeding or helping curlew, lapwing, hare, badger, stoat, kestrel, red deer, swallow, lark and three types of owl, that I know of.

Friends around me have in the last 30 years created acres more woodland and restored miles of drystone wall. Another new piece of woodland is being put in right now.

Not a cent provided from any hunting activities.
.

That is fantastic @ycbm but you did not need to earn your keep and that of your family from the land. I know that partnerships are available and they are good things but the vast majority of conservation work comes at a cost (usually at the very least 50%) to the landowner. Privilege in owning land that you don't have to make a living from is a different scenario altogether. As for the huge, contracted arable farms, yes they are definitely not conservation oriented, even with support. But that isn't the standard shoot either. Here, at least 10% of our land is given over to nature; no interference with scrub, trees, water, bog etc. We COULD do differently and we certainly receive no support at all for those bits of the farm that are not 'farmed'. But we do need to at least make sure the farm pays for itself otherwise it is not at all sustainable. We are not suitable for shooting (other than literally rough shooting for the pot) so cannot make land pay in that way but if we had suitable ground that we could plant with trees and more diverse species to make money from shooting (probably not pheasant) that would mean even more of our marginal ground would be given to nature.

 

[palo1]

.



I was. I created a wildlife haven of my ten acres, with a huge variety of plants, breeding or helping curlew, lapwing, hare, badger, stoat, kestrel, red deer, swallow, lark and three types of owl, that I know of.

Friends around me have in the last 30 years created acres more woodland and restored miles of drystone wall. Another new piece of woodland is being put in right now.

Not a cent provided from any hunting activities.
.

I think in other posts you have described how you simply let the land be/adopted a policy of benign neglect. That isn't quite the same as actively and knowledgeably promoting diversity and understanding and protecting that. But hey, what you did was a good thing genuinely.

 

[ycbm]

That is fantastic @ycbm but you did not need to earn your keep and that of your family from the land. I know that partnerships are available and they are good things but the vast majority of conservation work comes at a cost (usually at the very least 50%) to the landowner. Privilege in owning land that you don't have to make a living from is a different scenario altogether. As for the huge, contracted arable farms, yes they are definitely not conservation oriented, even with support. But that isn't the standard shoot either. Here, at least 10% of our land is given over to nature; no interference with scrub, trees, water, bog etc. We COULD do differently and we certainly receive no support at all for those bits of the farm that are not 'farmed'. But we do need to at least make sure the farm pays for itself otherwise it is not at all sustainable. We are not suitable for shooting (other than literally rough shooting for the pot) so cannot make land pay in that way but if we had suitable ground that we could plant with trees and more diverse species to make money from shooting (probably not pheasant) that would mean even more of our marginal ground would be given to nature.

I spoke also for friends who did need to make their farming pay and I did not say they did it without grants, but not a penny was from country sports.
.

 

[Burnttoast]

.



I was. I created a wildlife haven of my ten acres, with a huge variety of plants, breeding or helping curlew, lapwing, hare, badger, stoat, kestrel, red deer, swallow, lark and three types of owl, that I know of.

Friends around me have in the last 30 years created acres more woodland and restored miles of drystone wall. Another new piece of woodland is being put in right now.

Not a cent provided from any hunting activities.
.

I miss lapwings. They used to be so common in EA. Your place sounds lovely - I hope the new owners keep it up. The irony is that benign neglect can be very effective too, and doesn't cost a penny. I've planted 400m of new hedges and about 60 new trees (inc fruit and nut trees), and put tree guards around jay-planted oaks, but it's the fact that I haven't touched our roadside hedge in 5 years (it's mostly brambles) that has tempted whitethroats and linnets, who have practically nowhere round here suitable to nest. Certainly our field is the only place I've seen those species in the walking I used to do in the surrounding countryside.

 

[ycbm]

I think in other posts you have described how you simply let the land be/adopted a policy of benign neglect. That isn't quite the same as actively and knowledgeably promoting diversity and understanding and protecting that. But hey, what you did was a good thing genuinely.

I could have let it for grazing and got money or valuable services in return. I could have made a forage crop instead of paying over a thousand pounds a year to buy it in. I could have not paid wallers thousands of pounds to rebuild walls ....

It does not require blood sports to do conservation.
.

 

[Burnttoast]

I think in other posts you have described how you simply let the land be/adopted a policy of benign neglect. That isn't quite the same as actively and knowledgeably promoting diversity and understanding and protecting that. But hey, what you did was a good thing genuinely.

That's not protected knowledge. There are plenty of resources, local and more general, that people can access if they want to be more targeted with their efforts. But in many areas just letting go a bit is hugely helpful. And the basic principle that edge habitats are most biodiverse is not hard to grasp or to put into action.

 

[palo1]

I miss lapwings. They used to be so common in EA. Your place sounds lovely - I hope the new owners keep it up. The irony is that benign neglect can be very effective too, and doesn't cost a penny. I've planted 400m of new hedges and about 60 new trees (inc fruit and nut trees), and put tree guards around jay-seeded oaks, but it's the fact that I haven't touched our roadside hedge in 5 years (it's mostly brambles) that has tempted whitethroats and linnets, who have practically nowhere round here suitable to nest. Certainly our field is the only place I've seen those species in the walking I used to do in the surrounding countryside.

We have many of the same species here and our grazed hill is a valuable conservation area. Benign neglect is hugely valuable and possibly why some areas in Wales have retained species and habitat. However where land is financially marginal, people are forced to to make active choices and providing habitat that works for shooting is one of those. I know anti hunters on this forum are absolutely focussed on their sense of the moral high ground but climate crisis needs us all to be open minded and to leave some of our prejudices behind in order to be pragmatic about what actually works in a variety of situations. No amount of humble bragging or smugness about one's own privilege is going to help create nationally and internationally significant change; everyone, from many different viewpoints and philosophical ideals have to work together. Just try to recognise a variety of perspectives as potentially valuable. The discussion around trophy hunting amongst the scientific community is not ideal but does show how facts can be discussed and used helpfully in shaping policy ideas.

 

[Burnttoast]

We have many of the same species here and our grazed hill is a valuable conservation area. Benign neglect is hugely valuable and possibly why some areas in Wales have retained species and habitat. However where land is financially marginal, people are forced to to make active choices and providing habitat that works for shooting is one of those. I know anti hunters on this forum are absolutely focussed on their sense of the moral high ground but climate crisis needs us all to be open minded and to leave some of our prejudices behind in order to be pragmatic about what actually works in a variety of situations. No amount of humble bragging or smugness about one's own privilege is going to help create nationally and internationally significant change; everyone, from many different viewpoints and philosophical ideals have to work together. Just try to recognise a variety of perspectives as potentially valuable. The discussion around trophy hunting amongst the scientific community is not ideal but does show how facts can be discussed and used helpfully in shaping policy ideas.

I have nothing against rough shooting (as I've said above) in the UK but that isn't the kind of shooting that brings in money in anything like useful quantities. In EA, driven shooting does not appear to have any benefits for conservation. Wherever the money goes, it's not into the local ecology. And the shooting and trapping of millions of songbirds over southern Europe every year is not, for example, the kind of activity that might engender trust when it comes to the motivation of some people with guns in Europe at least. In contrast, the most wildlife-focused farm close to me is funded in part by local people who would be horrified at the idea of shooting taking place, as they have the same values as the current tenants - they get places to walk and engagement via social and local media for their money, and the farm looks after the wildlife in return.

 

[moosea]

Thank you Moosea for your considered responses. Few points from me:

I fully appreciate your passion. I don’t however agree with sabs confusing hounds. However that is my opinion and you are fully entitled to yours. Police are constantly called where there is no endanger to human life. That to my mind is minor. I don’t ever wear a mask. Hunt supporters do not put on public open groups vial personal comments.

I still appreciate what you have written and hope no one thinks I am being agnostic to the point we can’t have an open discussion with neither side willing to listen to the other. Can I add the incident with the cat greatly saddens me as a (very spoilt and much loved) pet owner

Would you stand by and watch someone be mugged? or would you shout and make a lot of noise to distract the mugger?
Would you call the police to attend that scene of crime? even though there is no longer any danger?
It's the same to me - I could no more watch someone mugged than I could watch animal cruelty. Both are crimes. It is not for me to decide which crime is more or less important, they are both illegal and both deserve the weight of law, in my opinion.

 

[Fred66]

Would you stand by and watch someone be mugged? or would you shout and make a lot of noise to distract the mugger?
Would you call the police to attend that scene of crime? even though there is no longer any danger?
It's the same to me - I could no more watch someone mugged than I could watch animal cruelty. Both are crimes. It is not for me to decide which crime is more or less important, they are both illegal and both deserve the weight of law, in my opinion.

But this isn’t what is happening. If the sabs monitored and only intervened if hunts were illegally hunting foxes then yes your analogy would be apt, but they don’t. They deliberately spray scent across prelaid trails, they call hounds to distract them, they verbally and physically harass people, they post abusive messages on social media, all of this is done even when there is absolutely nothing to indicate that the hunts are breaking the law. They make no distinction between those hunts that are legally trail hunting and the few that appear to be flouting the law. They actively and deliberately set out to break the law. I assume that your statement regarding illegal acts deserving the weight of the law applies to these people as well?

 

[Millionwords]

But this isn’t what is happening. If the sabs monitored and only intervened if hunts were illegally hunting foxes then yes your analogy would be apt, but they don’t. They deliberately spray scent across prelaid trails, they call hounds to distract them, they verbally and physically harass people, they post abusive messages on social media, all of this is done even when there is absolutely nothing to indicate that the hunts are breaking the law. They make no distinction between those hunts that are legally trail hunting and the few that appear to be flouting the law. They actively and deliberately set out to break the law. I assume that your statement regarding illegal acts deserving the weight of the law applies to these people as well?

How do they know where "pre-laid" trails are to spray them?


They often spray on the line a fox has taken to mask the trail of that

 

[ycbm]

They make no distinction between those hunts that are legally trail hunting and the few that appear to be flouting the law.

I'm sure TP has reported in the past that she has seen a huge difference in sabbing behaviour since the hunt local to her gave up hunting illegally due to landowner pressure to end the disruption.

And it's not a few flouting the law, it's it? We have people on the forum all over the country telling us that they know their local hunt is hunting fox, and sabs providing footage from more than a few.

Lastly, while hunts continue to take advantage of the weakness of the law to break it in spirit if not sufficient to convince a court beyond reasonable doubt, then sabbing of those hunts will continue.

Are you STILL laying thin trails of fox scent?
.

 

[Nasicus]

Are you STILL laying thin trails of fox scent?

Of course they are, how else could they excuse their little accidents?
It's not like hounds can be trained to follow any other scent, and it's not like there are plenty of other potent scents available besides fox! ?

 

[Fransurrey]

in 20 years in a and e seen many many riding accidents and horse on the ground accidents and only one shotgun shot — definitely not an accident - a self inflicted on purpose who tried to shoot himself in the head and missed (ie shot came out thru his face and he survived) incredibly sad but nothing to do with feckwittery… everyone I know who owns a gun is not going to shoot anyone by accident.., people in charge of horses cause much more damage to bystanders with out of control beasties.. and it is far less monitored.

Bizarre as this may sound (and sorry to go off topic), I might know that person. Would have been 15-20 years ago and exactly this happened, in your region. I made a right idiot of myself asking what accident he'd had when I first met him!! Happily married, now, thank goodness, but his face will always look a mess unfortunately.

 

[paddy555]

Are you a farmer or landowner @Burnttoast ? Do you know how conservation is paid for? For the vast majority of landowners, there are significant costs to that ownership and whilst every landowner I know would like to engage more in conservation activities, many simply cannot afford to do that for it's own sake. Land is, as well as a common good and vital for biodiversity, a business; one that is, even at hill farming level, globally competitive. Our organic, grass fed lamb is sold in a local market for buyers from as far away as the middle east and trade is influenced by global factors such as religion, climate and the economics of distant places. Shooting enables farmers to carry out conservation and biodiversity activities and still remain economically viable. That means that those things are sustainable and do not cost the tax payer. Just think about it!!

here the farmers with the shoot do the least which is just about nothing, for conservation. Conservation which here is rebuilding miles of drystone walls is paid for by grants. If the taxpayer didn't pay then the wall's wouldn't get rebuilt. Interestingly the farms who do the most to help conservation are not the shooting ones.

I think you have a somewhat fairy tale view of shooting and it's participants.

We have many of the same species here and our grazed hill is a valuable conservation area. Benign neglect is hugely valuable and possibly why some areas in Wales have retained species and habitat. However where land is financially marginal, people are forced to to make active choices and providing habitat that works for shooting is one of those. I know anti hunters on this forum are absolutely focussed on their sense of the moral high ground but climate crisis needs us all to be open minded and to leave some of our prejudices behind in order to be pragmatic about what actually works in a variety of situations. No amount of humble bragging or smugness about one's own privilege is going to help create nationally and internationally significant change; everyone, from many different viewpoints and philosophical ideals have to work together. Just try to recognise a variety of perspectives as potentially valuable. The discussion around trophy hunting amongst the scientific community is not ideal but does show how facts can be discussed and used helpfully in shaping policy ideas.

I think you have a somewhat fairy tale view of shooting and it's participants. I don't think that objecting to birds being bred for the sake of it to force them into the sky to then shoot them down is in anyway bragging or smugness about anyone's own privilege. To me it is simply a vile activity for the pleasure of people. I would have a lot more respect for people if they would just see that. OK we like to kill, (sorry shoot accurately,) so we shoot for this reason and as a social activity. That is how they get their kicks. If someone says that then whilst I totally disagree with them at least they have had the balls to say it as it is rather than trying to hide behind endless excuses of conservation, the skill of shooting accurately etc.

 

[Clodagh]

I don’t actually shoot but we used to have our own small shoot and I work on other peoples now. I would say though I really don’t think the guns would say they like killing. It is about skill. Im not explaining it very well.
On the true big shoots I often wonder why they do t just shoot clays.

 

[paddy555]

here the farmers with the shoot do the least which is just about nothing, for conservation. Conservation which here is rebuilding miles of drystone walls is paid for by grants. If the taxpayer didn't pay then the wall's wouldn't get rebuilt. Interestingly the farms who do the most to help conservation are not the shooting ones.

.

(nothing to do with shooting or hunting).

About 40/50 years ago grants were given to farmers to remove stone field walls to create larger fields. Now endless amounts are being paid to rebuild them. They are not necessary. I have watched several long field division walls being built and then pig wire fenced on both sides to keep the sheep off it. They take weeks to build, stone wallers and their diggers so not cheap. Plus the cost of tons and tons of stone. I cannot remember how many 15 ton lorry loads of soil one double sided wall swallowed. There were 3 lorries a day we counted and that continued for a fortnight. Cost of the soil and then the cost to the environment of so many lorries each day travelling for miles.
It doesn't achieve anything and the farmers will do nothing to maintain it. I suppose it looks nice but that is about it.
Total waste of money. The taxpayer paid to get rid of them and then paid again to rebuild them. Shame that money couldn't have been put into somewhere that needed it, housing comes to mind, rather than wasting it on pointless walls to look pretty.
Perhaps it's time for a lot of money to be removed from the conservation budget and re allocated to somewhere more useful.

 

[Clodagh]

It was the same with hedges, Paddy555. Except thankfully they don’t cost so much to reinstate. Do walls not have environmental benefits like hedges? They must have some?

 

[paddy555]

I don’t actually shoot but we used to have our own small shoot and I work on other peoples now. I would say though I really don’t think the guns would say they like killing. It is about skill. Im not explaining it very well.
On the true big shoots I often wonder why they do t just shoot clays.

that's the bit I don't get. If they want to shoot use clays. I can see the pleasure of honing your shooting skills, I used to enjoy rifle shooting at one time. Just no need to bring the ducks and pheasants into the equation