I gave two talks in Buckinghamshire last week – one to 6th formers at Ousedale School and the other to the Bucks Bird Club – I enjoyed both.
Talking to the young people about being a biologist and conservationist is one way that I can, in a small way, put something back after a long and enjoyable career being paid for doing those things. They asked good questions too. What was my biggest regret? That’s a good question (and you’ll notice I’m not answering it here). What did I think of Donald Trump – almost unrepeatable! I left them a copy of Fighting for Birds in case any wanted to know a bit more about the conservation scene from an insider’s perspective.
And then in the evening I talked to a considerably more mature audience – the age difference must have been getting on for 50 years. But they asked good questions too about grouse shooting. There were a couple of peple who are clay pigeon enthusiasts who questioned (in a very friendly way) my use of the word ‘shooter’, as I have been here in the past, but we couldn’t come up with anything better. I pointed out that it was actually BASC, the Countryside Alliance and others who lump all shooters together and talk about the shooting industry when most people using guns in the UK do so for target shooting either indoors or outdoors and never shoot a living thing. Any suggestions on wording?
I’m happy to give talks and I am already booked for at least one engagement in 2019! I’ll be keen to take up any offers between now and 2 April that can add a few more signatures to Gavin Gamble’s e-petition.
[registration_form]
“most people using guns in the UK do so for target shooting either indoors or outdoors and never shoot a living thing.” I’d be interested to see your evidence that supports that statement please.
Alfie – fair point. Loose words. But on checking it is true for airgun owners http://www.shootingfacts.co.uk/ and it might well be true overall https://basc.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/downloads/2014/07/The-Value-of-Shooting2014.pdf
What is true, and what i should have said, is that most shooting days do not involve live quarry see page 22 https://basc.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/downloads/2014/07/The-Value-of-Shooting2014.pdf
Don’t mind clay shooting just the killing of all wild life it is dam cruel
I like the term wildlife killing enthusiasts.
So do I…but it doesnt cover the enthusiastic killing of millions of released pheasants and red-legged partridges….
Will the generic term (Courtesy of BASC, CA et. al.), help or hinder the debate about the different forms of ‘shooting’ I wonder?
One can ponder their reasoning behind the decision to use a collective noun, but as scientists we prefer to determine to species level?
Do those target or clay pigeon shooters really want to be grouped with raptor shooters/killers?
Do the shoot for the pot want to be associated with the slaughter of hundreds of grouse which required removal of any species which might predate a few grouse chicks?
I was one of those two clay shooters at Mark’s talk and no, I do NOT want to be lumped in with people who kill anything! There is an assumption even from my experience of shooting (clay) grounds or clubs that it’s simply keeping your eye in when the pesky regulations mean you can’t kill something. It only seems to be when you get to high level competition that it gets some recognition. So what to call people like me? Sport or sporting shooters is unfortunately taken by the blood sport mob. Target shooters? I don’t know – but I’m not one of those killers-for-fun!
Jan – it was a pleasure to meet you both and many thanks for your comment here.
PS in the post soon!
my good friend Bill Hesketh uses the phrase “pleasure killers” for those folk who kill large numbers of game birds and chase foxes on horses. Whether that applies to those who hunt for the pot I personally would doubt but i suspect they are in a minority.