This made me smile:
Dear Dr Avery,
I have just finished reading your book, Inglorious, having picked it up just 24 hours ago. A fascinating and spirited read.
Actually it’s two books; one rather silly one about toffs, acres of tweed, wealth, land, haves & have-nots, aristocracy, Conservative Party bashing, and, one about upland management and it’s impact. I’ll forgive you the first book because the second was so good!
There is nothing I can add other than to say I agree. I’m particularly taken on your own conundrum and how you ended up seeking an outright ban on grouse shooting. There’s a great deal of wishy-washy liberal in us all, yes all, but your reasoning and passion led your cause. A cause I agree with wholeheartedly despite…
I have fished and shot my whole life; I’m a BASC member and have supported the GWCT’s work for many years as well as being a member. I’m an avid reader of old sporting books, the old ways of the country and the contemporary. I’ve even shot driven grouse.
But I’ve had huge reservation about ‘my’ shotgun sport for many years and your book has crystallised my thinking. I agree with your driven grouse shooting ban and all it stands for. What I am equally concerned about is driven pheasant & partridge shooting and how the commercial/large bag aspect of the sport is ruining the rest of our sport.
I shoot throughout the season on farms, in Forestry Commission woods and scrubby bits of the [part of England] and a decent day for us and our dogs might be a bag of 15-20. That is 15-20 various which will for the most part be eaten.
The enjoyment is the sport but crucially the enjoyment is being in the environment of the quarry: the wildlife… I’m a keen birder, the plants, the insects, the trees, the mud… simply the attachment. Managed driven shooting is totally detached and the shooter is usually also detached from their quarry and its environment. Let’s face it, if the driven shooter understood the environment he’d not partake in a past time (deliberately not sport!) that does very little to enhance it.
Anyway, I digress and am moving from the reason I felt moved to write. An excellent book and excellent cause. Why anybody bothers to stand in a butt waiting for a bird when the enjoyment, challenge and surroundings are so much better when walking up is beyond me. Ban driven grouse shooting now!!
And if you feel similarly then please sign this e-petition and the issues can be discussed in parliament.
[registration_form]
Brilliant.
A rare breed indeed, a sensible person with a shotgun that’s prepared to speak out.
I wish more like them would do so, I’m sure there are many out there.
Well done him/her
This made me smile too (twice – one for each book). It reminds me of taking a gang of friends who’d never been birdwatching before out with me because they ‘wanted to see what I was into’. I found that rather uneasy in prospect but it turned out just great (with lots of wigeon and moorhen love going on). At the end someone said ‘ I get this now, it’s just another excuse to spend time in nature’. After a beat, I agreed. She was a fell-runner and cyclist and I saw the connection. I also see that connection with the boating fraternity, the fishing fraternity, dog-walkers, sailors, with the Scandinavian hunter you quoted yesterday, and with this person. I think I would like to go out into the country with them.
Is this common ground I spy opening up before us?
I think I agree about 80% – but what I don’t quite get is why so many people can only get ‘into nature’ by killing and injuring some of it. Surely you can enjoy the plants and the insects, trees and the mud just as much while leaving the gun at home? Indeed, if you carried binoculars, a hand lens and a camera instead, you might get even more from it without hurting anything.
I can’t help thinking that the killing must actually be an important element for many shooters, and so, however much they try to play the innocent, they’re actually just a little bit sick.
Indeed, I have no problem with the type of small scale rough shooting advocated by your reader. My problem is with the way shooting has been allowed to industrialise without any assessment of the potential to deliver negative impacts, never mind attempt to regulate it.
As he says, a rough shoot approach leads to an understanding and appreciation of the natural world. Paying vast sums to be plonked at a series of pegs whilst hundreds of semi-tame birds are driven in your direction gives none of that.
Well done to this chap for saying this.
Sounds like he’d be prepared to use something other than lead shot too. Has he seen Rob Sheldon’s petition?
Yes this person has pointed to the type of shooter out of sync with the natural world; those that do it because- their boss/cronies do, it’s the ‘done thing’, latent aggression. Psyhchiatry would help.
The other week, Tim Bonner tweeted about an article in the Guardian by Caspar Walsh entitled The Healing Power of Hunting (November 15th 2015). The article had the subtitle, ‘If you have violent tendencies, catching your own dinner can have a remarkable effect’. I assume that Tim saw this article as merely pro-shooting, but for me the most thoughtful observation by Caspar Walsh was this. ‘ We have a choice. We can hunt with mindless violence and no regard for the sanctity of life or we can hunt with respect and dignity, taking only what we need.’
The writer above echoes this unethical vs ethical approach to hunting when he talks about driven shooting and how it’s all about the number of birds killed and not about patience, stealth and skill in the countryside with the added reward of a good dinner at the end of the day.
Ethical hunting I believe, has no detrimental effect on the environment and is a positive human experience for those who choose to participate. Unethical hunting on the other hand is destructive both for the environment and for the shooter.
I find this very encouraging. During my time as a professional bird conservationist I used to reassure myself and those around me, by saying “there’s plenty of shooters out there who dont agree with the raptor killers and other types of rabid “vermin” controllers”..I even met a few, some of who worked for Agriculture Departments, the Police or other responsible areas of public life..but I was never sure how much truth there was in saying it. It justified me agreeing with the RSPB stance [and its Royal Charter “rules”] on not getting involved with the welfare arguments. The issue is..are there many people like this letter writer?.if so, why dont more speak out? Are the “good guys” bullied into silence by their more vocal and violently certain, fellow shooters?..This is too important for both wildlife and the future of “sport” shooting to remain silent..isnt it?