Last year, at about this time of year, I joined both the Hawk and Owl Trust and the League Against Cruel Sports.
Because of their eager campaigning for brood meddling for Hen Harriers I have left the H&OT (I must put that metal badge in the post to them) but I recently got a renewal notice for LACS, and I have rejoined and filled in the Direct Debit mandate.
Have a look at the LACS website – particularly if you think they are a bunch of nutters (because you won’t find much to support that view).
Now I don’t agree with all that LACS say, but then I don’t agree with all that the Labour Party says and I’m still hanging on in there as one of their members. In fact, I think I agree with a higher proportion of LACS’s views than I do the Labour Party’s.
Now there are a few of those who throw insults and abuse at me on social media who are keen to point out to me that LACS isn’t terribly keen on National Hunt horse racing, whereas I am a member of Cheltenham Racecourse and am keen on a day watching the jumps. Well thanks lads, I had noticed.
LACS gets my support despite them wanting to ban one of my pastimes because much of the rest of the work that they do is pretty good, I reckon. So I’ll forgive them, and if they don’t want my money then they can always give it back to me, I guess. But if LACS succeeded in banning both driven grouse shooting and National Hunt racing I’d regard that as a net gain.
And I probably won’t be leaving the RSPB because they have such a timid position on driven grouse shooting, and nor will I leave the Wildlife Trusts just because they seem hopelessly at sea on the subject of Hen Harriers and driven grouse shooting (and some others).
The world is a complicated place. If any of us could only talk to people who agreed with us on every issue then the world would be a silent place, I reckon.
Hi Mark
I’ve contacted LACS’ head of policy and research – who likes to use her title of Dr – personally I always find that a little big headed unless they are medical Drs – I could sign myself Ba Hons Ebor Msc but there you go! (perhaps I am just jealous)
What I questioned her about was their policy on flushed animals being shot. I was referring to herds of wild deer but obviously this is a little relevant to your campaigning on driven grouse.
Her response was I feel interesting – I blogged about it here. I hope you don’t mind me linking to it http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/giles-bradshaw/hunting-act_b_7788200.html
I’d be very curious to know if you agree with LACS on the need to shoot flushed deer. Do you feel that the Bateson report supports this?
I am unconvinced that it does – especially where the flushed deer are not chased or are chased for a very short distance.
From what I understand it is illegal to chase deer in the manner that Bateson studied. Do we really need to also shoot the deer in order to stop such chasing? Why not just keep the dogs under control so such a chase doesn’t happen?
I’d very much like your advice. I want to allow a hunt on my land on condition that they neither chase not shoot any of the wildlife they flush.
It seems to me it is inevitable that deer will be flushed by dogs whether it be dog walkers or hunts simply because deer naturally evade canines.
Is using the Bateson report in the manner LACS do an abuse of science to justify the senseless killing of our wildlife?
ps and apols for the multiple posts – I’ve had another go at persuading them. They support ‘compassionate conservation’. Why should I not adopt entirely non lethal humane activities on my own property? Not shooting herds of deer can be less cruel than shooting them.
https://twitter.com/GilesBradshaw/status/639326566678437889
Don’t mind Giles everyone, if his Twitter feed is anything to go by he is a bit obsessed with the League… and correct me if i’m wrong has at least one harassment offence to his name because of this.
They don’t like it up ’em. Go Giles …
Yes he is a bit obsessed, and yes he has overstated his case.
He is right though.
It is ludicrous that if a landowner wishes to prevent deer from eating the guts out of his ancient woodland by shooing them away with a couple of small dogs (that have zero chance of catching the deer) that the law requires them to shoot dead any deer that are flushed.
I am most definitely right. Using Professor Bateson’s report to justify flushed wild deer having to be shot is completely wrong. It is nothing but the abuse of science to justify wholesale animal slaughter.
As for harassment – how about declaring that their is a ‘war’ and then filming people’s children when all their parents are doing is dutifully following up and doing in flushed wild deer – as they have to do under the currently insane legislation?
I am sure there are good people at the League however their obsession with killing wildlife is wrong. There are clearly sometimes more humane and gentle alternatives to mercilessly gunning things down.
Giles, if you have a PhD it’s hard earned and it’s entirely legitimate to use the title “Dr”. As Mark does too for instance.
The only issue arises if you have a PhD, not a medical qualification, but you use the unqualified term “Dr” in a context where it could lead people to believe you ARE a medical doctor.
Whatever other gripes you have with LACS Head of Policy and Research complaining that she’s using a legitimate title that comes with a relevant and important qualification that she spent several years earning sounds a bit petty, and so it undermines the credibility of the rest of your case.
Thanks for your comment Jbc you are quite correct that people with a Phd are entitled to call themselves Dr. Just as I am entitled to use letters after my name. I am merely pointi8ng out that to do so can sometimes come across as a little elitist. I guess it can be all about context. I know several PHd holders including two head of departments. They will generally use their title in an academic context but not in more informal ones. But each to their own really – it’s a side issue tbh.
best wishes
Giles Bradshaw Ba Hons Ebor Msc (with distinction)
Relevant? A qualification gained in animal behaviour possibly discovering that magpies are not that keen on shiny things after all is a bit tenuous given that LAC campaigns against particular aspects of human behaviour.
“… and so undermines …” – straw man.
It is best not to list yourself as “Dr” in the telephone directory as I learned having once spent five minutes trying to convince a foreign chap that I was not allowed to do anything for his wife, no matter how desperate she was.
Use of the title outside one’s own field of expertise is a form of appeal from authority that could be described as a form of intimidation. I hold my hands up to this – I do use the title when it is necessary to intimidate council tax officials, policemen, bank staff, Birtish Telecom, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Courtesy Callers – anyone whose sole purpose is to spoil my day. I nearly described them as “pond life” but that would be unfair to pond life.
Sometimes it doesn’t work, even for doctors. At the dental surgery:
Impatient patient: How much longer do I have to wait? My appointment was five minutes ago. I’m a doctor! I’m a doctor!
Irina: I am receptionist! I am receptionist! Take seat please!
My mum used to sit on a committe with someone that insisted on calling herself “Lady” so and so – she consoled herself with the fact she was Labour and therefore not a ‘real’ one 🙂
Some years ago I used to have dealings with a rather irascible landowner who insisted on being addressed as Captain _ _ _ _ _ _, something I’ve always considered to be a bit low rent. On one occasion I was accompanied by a colleague who had served in the army.
Said landowner took umbrage when my colleague addressed him as Mr _ _ _ _ _ _ and barked: “Captain _ _ _ _ _ _ if you please”, to which my colleague replied: “in that case you can address me as Lieutenant Colonel _ _ _ _”
That put the old bugger back in his box, it was the first and only time I’ve witnessed military top trumps!
Not to labour the point, but as Head of Research a PhD in any topic, certainly any science topic, would seem highly relevant to me. Anyway, if you disagree, direct your criticisms at Dr Mark Avery! I’m merely MSc BA(hons).
tsk not even an Ebor -pleb!
I’ve just checked out their website and joined. They have a film on the reality of game shooting, called “Gunsmoke and mirrors”, which people should watch.
Now that is an odd one – LACS are meant to be anti shooting!!!!
I don’t get your point, Giles – the video is a critique of game bird shooting.
Are they anti or pro that? It’s hard to tell with LACS. They support fox shooting although they claim it is not necessary, they support hunting deer with dogs as a humane alternative to hunting deer with dogs.
Is there anyone reading this blog who is adept at editing Wikipedia entries (I am not)? There is a page on Shooting and Hunting in the UK (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hunting_and_shooting_in_the_United_Kingdom) that includes a section on Field Sports and Conservation in the UK. As it is currently written, this focuses almost entirely on the beneficial impacts of cover management albeit with a sentence acknowledging that high game bird densities *may* have negative impacts on floral diversity and arthropod abundance. There is no reference to predator control, either illegal or legal, nor to adverse impacts of heather burning or impacts of lead shot accumulating in the environment. Given that Wikipedia is the first stop (and, in truth, often the last) for many people such as journalists, MPs, etc when researching a topic it seems important that this article’s imbalance should be addressed and I believe it can be done in a way that is entirely consistent with the principles and rules of Wikipedia – i.e objective, factual and referenced.
Any takers?
As a horse-racing follower I too have joined LACS but I think their position is not an outright ban but just certain races (eg the grand National) where the horses are asked to go above and beyond.They also campaign on welfare issues for horses and greyhounds.Anyway,I am with them and they have not kicked me out yet!
Would you support letting the horses run races like the Grand National but then shooting them to rectify any metabolic harm done by the running?