Viewing 40 posts - 81 through 120 (of 508 total)
  • Grouse moor licencing, Scotland.
  • Premier Icon scotroutes
    Full Member

    FWIW part of the Cairngorms Connect project includes having cattle in the forest. They are great at churning up the land while foraging, thus increasing the biodiversity.

    Rewilding isn’t about going back to some point in time it’s about using the land more sustainably. We are spending millions on Peatland Restoration, because that is essential for locking in carbon, while neighbouring estates are burning vast swathes of heather for their shooting. Much of the Scottish Highlands is one massive factory dedicated to the production of deer and of birds to shoot. It is much more visually intrusive than the occasional small, new village, or traditional manufacturing facility, it’s just we’ve grown to accept it.

    Time to move the Highlands on from the Victorian “gentleman’s” playground they have become.

    Premier Icon squirrelking
    Free Member

    No – all shooting ( apart from vermin control) You do not conserve a species by shooting it.

    Okay I’ll address the latter point first as that’s easiest. Of you course you don’t but where numbers are sustainable or need controlled I see no objectionable reason not to.

    The first point? How do you protect native species from over predation? What about shooting non native species like, oh I dunno, pheasant? You’re being completely contradictory here, on one hand you are happy to shoot pest species and on the other you are saying all shooting should be banned apart from hunting. What does that even mean?

    Premier Icon tjagain
    Full Member

    No I am not. If there is a utility argument for the shooting then that is different. I expressly mentioned vermin control. However you do not conserve a species by shooting it. Native populations may sustain a shoot but that is a different thing.

    I am not addressing the moral argument against shooting at all – that is not the point here and I do understand the nuances around this.

    Premier Icon piemonster
    Free Member

    My object to rewilding is precisely that the proponents do not include humans in that biodiversity.

    Yes they do include humans https://www.rewild.scot (this one includes Venison as a food product on the front page) Where are you getting that opinion from?

    The stuff I’ve read previously pointedly highlights the necessity to create economic opportunities not just for existing residents but opportunities that would bring people into the highlands.

    If I had any say in it, I’d have hunting as a key integral part of a rewilded economy, it’s just that the hunting would involve a bit more work.

    FWIW, I don’t think you’ll get significant numbers living off the land in the highlands. It’s too hard a life.

    Premier Icon matt_outandabout
    Full Member

    My object to rewilding is precisely that the proponents do not include humans in that biodiversity.

    I think the opposite.

    Firstly the ‘good’ rewinding proposals have community at the heart – employment, enjoyment, tourism and sustainable production of many products.
    It would be a landscape that benefits nature and humans. And more humans than many of the current uplands in Scotland currently benefit.
    It’s a landscape that needs human management too – again, not many are proposing the free introduction of apex predators such as bear and wolf, so it’s never going to be a rewind the clock. The human conflict would be too much.
    But it’s going to be a more diverse place for nature and humans – and share the wealth of the resources around more of the local communities.

    Premier Icon epicyclo
    Full Member

    whitestone
    pre-Clearances Highland life was only just above subsistence levels, there was some trade as witnessed by the old drove roads but in the main it was grow (and hunt) what you needed.

    Aye, but the people still did not want to be cleared off the land. They preferred that to having a master. Also in many cases it was subsistence only because the landlords deliberately reduced the size of the land allotted so that the tenants would have to depend on wages for part of their income (ie working for the landlord for a pittance).

    Present day crofting is a way to bring people back. In the various parts of my family everyone wanted the croft when it got passed on. There’s more to life than working for wages, even if it means harder work. Somehow venison and salmon used to appear on the menu. They taste better poached, especially with a drop of the homemade stuff… 🙂

    Premier Icon supernova
    Free Member

    Shooting animals for fun is psychopathic behaviour and I wouldn’t let anyone who did it near children or heavy machinery.

    Food or pest control though, crack on. I like a roast dinner as much as the next omnivore.

    Premier Icon epicyclo
    Full Member

    An example of the Clearances:

    1851 (August) — The clearance of Barra by Colonel Gordon of Cluny. The Colonel called all of his tenant farmers to a meeting to “discuss rents”, and threatened them with a fine if they did not attend. In the meeting hall, over 1,500 tenants were overpowered, bound, and immediately loaded onto ships for America. An eyewitness reported: “…people were seized and dragged on board. Men who resisted were felled with truncheons and handcuffed; those who escaped, including some who swam ashore from the ship, were chased by the police….”

    Even more harrowing was what happened to them when they arrived in America. There was no support, no provisions, and they were reduced to rags. Many died of exposure in the winter.

    The mentality of the people who did this is much the same as those who enjoy shooting tame fat birds…

    Premier Icon brads
    Free Member

    The mentality of the people who did this is much the same as those who enjoy shooting tame fat birds

    What an utter load of crap. Well done.

    Premier Icon tjagain
    Full Member

    He has a point. Its psychopathic behaviour killing for pleasure.

    Premier Icon thegeneralist
    Full Member

    Shooting animals for fun is psychopathic behaviour and I wouldn’t let anyone who did it near children or heavy machinery.

    Food or pest control though, crack on. I like a roast dinner as much as the next omnivore.

    This is just complete bollocks. You think killing something because you enjoy killing it is bad, but killing something because you enjoy eating it is ok.

    Can you not see how ridiculous that is?

    Premier Icon tjagain
    Full Member

    Nope because there is a difference. Killing for utility is one thing. Killing for pleasure another. anyone who takes pleasure from killing animals is not right in the head

    this thread was not about the moral case but the pro hunters seem to want it to be.

    Well the moral case is all hunting needs to be banned unless it has utility like deer culls.

    Its one of the earliest psychological indicators for psychopaths =- those who enjoy killing animals.

    Premier Icon big_n_daft
    Free Member

    The mentality of the people who did this

    A Scot, and one of the people of Scotland…….

    His Wikipedia page makes him sound like the worst type of Victorian gentleman

    Premier Icon Nobeerinthefridge
    Free Member

    Predictable thread goes predictably.

    Premier Icon epicyclo
    Full Member

    tjagain
    He has a point. Its psychopathic behaviour killing for pleasure.

    That’s exactly the point I was trying to make.

    We shouldn’t facilitate killing and maiming for pleasure. The participants are fundamentally very nasty people. Calling it sport is a euphemism that makes it sound acceptable.

    big_n_daft
    A Scot, and one of the people of Scotland…….

    A nasty bastard is a nasty bastard, where he was born is irrelevant. All countries have them.

    Premier Icon thegeneralist
    Full Member

    Nope because there is a difference. Killing for utility is one thing. Killing for pleasure another. anyone who takes pleasure from killing animals is not right in the head

    Explain to me why killing an animal because you get pleasure from eating it is any better than killing it because you get pleasure from killing it….
    The ” utility” bit is a red herring. You don’t need to eat animals. You do do because you enjoy it.

    I can’t stand all it when people get all uppity about shooting animals in the environment but are quite happy to eat animals bred in generally unpleasant environments and then slaughtered in extremely unpleasant environments.

    It’s such double standards.

    Premier Icon tjagain
    Full Member

    There is a basic concept here you are not grasping. Its the pleasure in the act of killing that is the psychopathic bit.

    Utility is a good argument – can you eat it? Will it damage crops? Then there is utility in the killing

    this is all very basic stuff.

    Premier Icon thegeneralist
    Full Member

    Utility is a good argument – can you eat it?

    What percentage of shot game is eaten?

    Premier Icon tjagain
    Full Member

    A % – it varies tremendously. Much is wasted. Add in the hares, raptors, corvids, mustelids that are killed…………….

    As above – this thread is not about the morals of shooting ( or wasn’t until pro shooters started conflating the two) this is about reining in the organised criminal conspiracy in the hunting and shooting world.

    Premier Icon cynic-al
    Full Member

    What the generalist said.

    Premier Icon speedsheep
    Free Member

    Explain to me why killing an animal because you get pleasure from eating it is any better than killing it because you get pleasure from killing it….
    The ” utility” bit is a red herring. You don’t need to eat animals. You do do because you enjoy it.

    I can’t stand all it when people get all uppity about shooting animals in the environment but are quite happy to eat animals bred in generally unpleasant environments and then slaughtered in extremely unpleasant environments.

    It’s such double standards.

    +1

    Premier Icon brads
    Free Member

    Its the pleasure in the act of killing that is the psychopathic bit.

    Garbage. Total and utter.

    So you’re not allowed to enjoy the act of providing your own food.?

    I spent nearly 4 yrs without buying meat, I killed all my own, and I enjoyed doing that, it brought me great pleasure, and I haven’t murdered my family yet.

    Premier Icon tjagain
    Full Member

    Still a psychopath tho to enjoy killing animals! Its very basic stuff this is. Its probably the classic early warning sign.

    Brads – its you that wanted to take this into the moral dimension. Before you intervened few of us were. NOw morally no difference between any meat eating and shooting for the pot. But that is not whats being talked about here. This is the huge grouse shoots with kills in the hundreds or thousands most of which ends up dumped in stink pits.

    Killing for fun with no utility is simply wrong on any level and I pity those who cannot understand the distinction and who get please from killing

    Premier Icon tjagain
    Full Member

    Right – lets split the different arguments up

    1) this is about licensing driven grouse moors. NO moral questions about whether shooting is right or wrong. Its a response to massive criminality on the driven grouse moors and the damage this causes. 1/3 of all golden eagles end their killed on a grouse moor. Many other raptors are illegally killed. this is widespread and its a criminal conspiracy and as such very hard to break because of the silence around it. There is also unethi8cal practices such as the slaughter of mountain hares and mustelids and corvids as well as muirburn

    its clear that this is a huge issue , its criminal and the estates will not stop. so the government has to step in.

    2) Moral arguements about shooting. this was not the topic of the OP and its the Pro Shooters who are trying to make it one with the crys of “class war” and so on

    If you want to debate morals its fine

    Morally there is no difference between shooting for the pot and eating meat bought in a supermarrket and indeed there is no huge moral argument against killing predators and pests so long as it is last resort and needed

    However much grouse shoot does not end up in the pot. Its dumped. thus the defense that it is about meat to eat is nonsense. If it was for the pot then small bags would do – not the hundreds of birds regularly killed and dumped

    3) rearing of birds to be used as live targets. Ecologically unsound and sick as heck. Killing animals for the pleasure of the kill is just morally wrong. see foxhunting!

    There can be no arguement about licensing of grouse moors. they have not curtailed their illegal activities indeed there is evidence it has got worse over lockdown and licensing driven grouse moors has zero effect on walk up shooting or other types of shooting including deer stalking

    Separate out the differnt issues and the emotion and it all becomes clearer

    Premier Icon highlandman
    Free Member

    As usual on Singletrackworld, we have credible elements showing up in almost every post; aspects and statements that make sense, most especially to the owner of them, who has lived their own experiences.
    Personally I don’t like the concept of killing for the pleasure of the killing itself; this means that I agree with many on here and am strongly opposed to mass killings in the form of driven bird shooting. These shoots also come with a lot of baggage, including obscene levels of money and privilege. There are many damaging environmental impacts such as muirburn, enclosures, land use restrictions, breeding tens of thousands of birds to often be wasted (more environmental impact there too, both in their production and in the disposal). Killing anything that might vaguely interfere with the sole objective of killing birds- so mustelids are trapped and shot, so are raptors, corvids and even the innocent mountain hare is condemned. Scrubland is flattened, natural woodland understory cleared to improve sightlines for the guns. Toxic fumes from travel, from cartridge emissions, plastic and pellet pollution. I could bang on for ages but shan’t..

    Meantime, I also support those who engage in what I prefer to call hunting. It’s a skilled game, walking up a well maintained piece of ground with the intention of acquiring a small amount of meat for the household pot. I was born and raised in the NW Highlands, shot like this regularly back then and along with trout fishing the hill lochs, acquired plenty of very healthy food in a healthy manner. A skilled ‘hunter’ has to combine the knowledge base of a keen naturalist with the instincts of a sniper. Sometimes they might come home empty handed but perhaps still happy and maybe a bit wiser that day too.
    Grouse moors and pheasant shoots rarely contribute to local economies. Rate relief and agricultural subsidies that treat the hill ground and pheasant woods as if they are crop land are an absurd situation in a 21st century country, effectively providing state support to the playtime of the already wealthy. Many in the industry point towards the rural employment they support but again that doesn’t really wash when you realise that estates use tied housing and a provided vehicle as almost tax free benefits that supress wages to the stage where very little PAYE or NICs are paid for the worker. Added to which, this wage restraint breeds a climate where very large cash tips avoid the tax system altogether, both for keepers and beaters alike. Estates are usually a corporate entity, which would be taxed on profits, if they ever made any. Which they tend to be structured to avoid doing. As a result of all these, you can see why I’d argue that the typical grouse moor or pheasant shoot takes much but contributes nothing significant to the local or national economy.
    I’ve come full circle. I’d simply ban all driven bird shooting outright; in a society with decent morals, there is no place for this archaic activity.

    Premier Icon thegeneralist
    Full Member

    Morally there is no difference between shooting for the pot and eating meat bought in a supermarrket

    There is. The person shooting has put themselves in the position where they face up to what they are doing and the unpleasantness of it all. The person int’ supermarket has isolated themselves from it and got someone else to do the dirty work. For good reason obviously we cant all roam round Manchester looking trying to pop a cap in the arse of the nearest rabbit, but I would still maintain the shooter is morally superior in your example. Not much but a bit.

    But coming back to the other part of your point, yes agree, the sooner this estate management, grouse shooting, rear’em n shoot’em , kill all other predators shit gets stopped the better.

    Premier Icon dickydutch
    Full Member

    highlandman
    Free Member

    Great post that – considered and evidently built on some sort of experience. I have to agree with the sentiment re the way the estates are structured too. ALL the keepers round here drive brand new Hilux trucks and roll around in brand new bits of machinery yet if you talk to the land owner, they always plead poverty. I’m also aware of the hefty cash tips the ruddy faced drink driving a55holes leave for the keepers and beaters too. It’s absolute tosh and needs to be condemned to the annals of history.
    I also reckon the police could have a field day with a breathalyser test at the bottom of the fell road on shoot day.

    Premier Icon tjagain
    Full Member

    For good reason obviously we cant all roam round Manchester looking trying to pop a cap in the arse of the nearest rabbit, but I would still maintain the shooter is morally superior in your example. Not much but a bit.

    Not sure its a moral issue as such but i take your point. all meat eaters need to turn an animal into dinner themselves to understand meat is animals. I have a number of times

    Premier Icon stevenmenmuir
    Free Member

    My dad was a gamekeeper. He’s definitely not a psychopath and I can’t say anybody else I grew up around were either. I find these flippant remarks insulting and pretty upsetting. For somebody who pretty much worked 7 days a week, 365 days a year, we usually worked Christmas morning while mum sorted out lunch, any cash tips probably still didn’t get him up to a living wage. In 20 years of beating I never got any cash tips, we got paid in cash but it’s not a lot and you have to give your name so they have a record for the tax man. Most of my dad’s beaters were local builders, joiners, farm labourers and a few kids like myself. Due to cheap pheasants from Eastern Europe game dealers didn’t want them after November usually. My dad would give them to the beaters, local retired folks, beaters got pheasant soup on the day, we always had pheasant and partidges in the freezer. Never ate roast chicken. I’ve never known grouse to get binned, we rarely had them as they were so expensive. But I don’t know about elsewhere. It’s a crying shame when people are going to food banks that large numbers of pheasants do get buried. And I agree that large shoots where hundreds of birds are getting shot several days a week is just wrong in this day and age. My dad would agree, one of the reasons he quit the life was because of people who were more obsessed about how many they’d shot rather than an enjoying a good day out with a small return where the birds had a sporting chance. He spent years working on an arable estate where hedges and small woods were pulled out by the farm manager. My dad planted new woods which provided habitat for lots of small birds species as well as the pheasants and partridges, ponds for ducks etc. He doesn’t shoot much now, deer for the larder but that’s about it and fishing with his grandson. I get both sides of the arguement and one or two people have put their points really well but the broad sweeping psychopath comments mean I won’t say anymore, some folks could do well to do the same.

    Premier Icon tjagain
    Full Member

    Steven – I get you are annoyed and you come from a different direction but again – take the emotive stuff out.

    The Psychopaths are those who like killing for the sake of killing. Not folk like your dad. I have no issue with killing for the pot

    One of the nuances that is often missed is that small scale and lowland shooting often means a nice biodiverse environment – planting woodland etc as your dad did and that I applaud whereas arable or grazing means hedgerows go etc.

    A total end to hunting is not what is being looked at here. Its reining in the huge criminal conspiracy that runs many of the driven grouse shoots 1/3 of golden eagles killed on grouse moors 1/3! No eagles at all in large parts of the eastern cairngorms. I watched a pair a few years ago. later that year they were killed on a grouse moor.

    Premier Icon stevenmenmuir
    Free Member

    Apologies if that doesn’t make as much sense as it should but I’m tired. I’d just like to point out that I’m no fan of the people that paid my dad a pittance and put us in substandard housing whilst they drove around in flash motors and divided their time between homes all around the world. I may have a bit of a class system chip on my shoulder.

    Premier Icon scotroutes
    Full Member

    The Psychopaths are those who like killing for the sake of killing

    Give it a rest. Folk who go shooting pheasants and grouse are no more psychopaths than the millions who play Call of Duty and other, similar, computer games.

    Premier Icon tjagain
    Full Member

    Sound steven I have no issue with your post. It shows one of the nuances missed.

    Scotroutes – pleasure in killing is a key sign of psychopathy. Its not a normal response in any way to get pleasure out of the act of killing. To get pleasure from eating the kill and / or the anticipation of eating it is fine – its the pleasure in the actual act of killing that is wrong

    Its very different from a computer game

    Premier Icon nstpaul
    Full Member

    Na not psychopaths in that they enjoy killing things, probably don’t give it a second thought, but maybe physcopaths in that they DON’T give it a second thought, just a bit of fun, a day out with likeminded individuals. Referring to the driven shoots of course.

    Premier Icon cynic-al
    Full Member

    Did Jeffry Dahmer start out on grouse shoots?

    Premier Icon brads
    Free Member

    Brads – its you that wanted to take this into the moral dimension. Before you intervened few of us were.

    Not true. Try reading the thread before commenting.

    2) Moral arguements about shooting. this was not the topic of the OP and its the Pro Shooters who are trying to make it one with the crys of “class war” and so on

    Again, wrong, please have a re-read of the first post by the OP and comment again would you.
    It is the topic of the OP

    Premier Icon tjagain
    Full Member

    I suggest you read the first post again – it includes this

    I’ve no problem at all with wild game hunting, but the mass murder of farmed and supported animals bred for that purpose really annoys me.

    Your first post

    Regardless of any view on this, the burden of proof has been put onto the estates.
    So guilty until proven innocent.
    Queue hundreds of class driven complaints designed to end shooting.

    Utter bollox BTW and its cue not queue 😉

    Premier Icon tjagain
    Full Member

    Those of you that support shooting should be getting right behind this. Those that behave ethically and obey the law have nothing to fear. If this does not stop the excesses then a ban will not be long in coming so support licensing – its your only chance to avoid a ban

    Premier Icon core
    Full Member

    My last post on this, there’s little point trying to engage with people so stubborn and steadfast in their opinions, accusations and ridiculous claims.

    “No – all shooting ( apart from vermin control) You do not conserve a species by shooting it.” Not on the face of it, but species without predators can benefit from population control, perhaps by shooting. If left to their own devices they may eventually destroy the environment on which they rely to survive or fall victim to disease. There’s an argument for letting them get on with it and awaiting the consequences, but I’m not sure that’s much more socially acceptable than legal, ethical, controlled shooting, such as in the case of deer stalking. The sight of starving and disease ridden animals falling dead by the road side is pretty unpalatable. The original point I made was not that you benefit the species released or indeed shot by shooting it, but other species as a byproduct of rearing and husbandry. Shoots don’t just release birds and go at them, they feed them, they plant cover crops, they create ponds, wetlands, manage woodland, create habitat, it’s not all grouse moors and desertified monoculture, and it’s not in their interest to release birds and lose them into the wider landscape. I’d wager that most land used for pheasant, partridge and duck shooting is vastly more environmentally diverse and species rich than most general agricultural land. You want to see bugger all, you go stand in a wheat, barley, rape, maize or potato field.

    I’m fully behind legislating to increase standards of driven shoots, and a transition to end large scale commercial driven shoots. But there must be a transition, you can’t eradicate an industry overnight, when many players operate fully within the law.

    I shoot, ‘wild’ game for the pot, and vermin, for crop and livestock protection, for the pot where viable, within the law. I enjoy both, mostly, for the reasons detailed in my multiple posts, but it never has been and never will be because I enjoy ending lives. When you hunt animals you spend far more time observing them, missing opportunities and admiring their cunning than you do shooting them, you develop an admiration and respect through that process. It’s hard to convey, and I’m sure understand how you can both respect and shoot something, but you can. I’m not sure you’ll ever get that, perhaps unless you accompany someone shooting and/or open your mind. I’ll quite happily host anyone who’d like to observe and try to better understand how it works.

    Yours, the forum psychopath. The psychopath who spends his days doing a job with the primary aim of protecting human life.

    If nothing else I hope I’ve convinced some of you that not all who shoot are drunken, arrogant, wealthy, range rover driving toffs who turn up of a Saturday to blast hundreds of birds out of the sky. There are plenty of those but they do not represent us all, not by far. And that there is far more to shooting than industrial scale commercial, driven shooting – which I’d eventually like to see stopped.

    Edit: p.s. Those of us who do shoot ethically and legally do have something to fear – that we are characterised as psycopaths and lumped in with rogue elements of the shooting community. We’re under represented, something I’d like to try and address.

    Premier Icon brads
    Free Member

    and its cue not queue

    Awesome cheers.

    I’m still trying to see your point. The first post mention being against the mass release of birds for shooting, is that not a moral judgement to you ? Or are you still insisting I brought it up first by saying the new laws would be abused by anti hunters ????

    Maybe you read different to other folk, but you’ve basically backed up exactly what I said.

Viewing 40 posts - 81 through 120 (of 508 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.