Forum menu
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?
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.
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
Predictable thread goes predictably.
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.
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.
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.
Utility is a good argument – can you eat it?
What percentage of shot game is eaten?
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.
What the generalist said.
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
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.
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
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
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
Did Jeffry Dahmer start out on grouse shoots?
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
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 😉
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
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.
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.
Very predictable that this thread has grown into this. It is worth remembering though that the question was about licencing.
Scottish Government wants to licence an industry to help enforce compliance with existing laws. That is all. The industry does not want to be licensed as it does not want to be sanctioned for breaking the law. There is no other reason to object to licensing.
I think that resistance to licensing speaks volumes about the industry and reinforces why it is necessary.
I think that resistance to licensing speaks volumes about the industry and reinforces why it is necessary.
I remember when GDPR was brought in people working in IT generally had mixed opinions.
Most of us were pretty happy (despite its imperfections) since previously making the case for good safeguards could hit cost/inconvience pushback but the rather big potential fines in GDPR worked wonders as a business case.
Those who didnt have quite the same respect for peoples data though were somewhat less happy.
Will need to see how the licencing develops and I know some who are cynical it might be used as a white wash option but the instant throwing the toys out of the pram does, as you say, speak volumes.
Scottish Government wants to licence an industry to help enforce compliance with existing laws. That is all. The industry does not want to be licensed as it does not want to be sanctioned for breaking the law. There is no other reason to object to licensing.
Apart from the cost of the scheme and whether or not it's going to be as effective as the existing laws. Why make a new law that doesn't do anything the old law didn't?
There is a difference between arguing against the spirit of the law (which I don't think anyone has) and the actual implementation of said law. If the existing laws were unable to be enforced I'm not sure exactly how anyone thinks things will be any different under a licensing regime. I hope I'm wrong but it's hard not to be cynical.
I'd hope the burden of proof needed to remove a licence would be lower than for a criminal prosecution. Once removed if shooting carried on there's a simple "operating without a license" case for criminal proceedings.
Why make a new law that doesn’t do anything the old law didn’t?
But it does do something different. It allows for the removal of license to operate where there ie evidence of crimes being committed on the estate. This was discussed earlier, how do you bring criminal charges against an individual when he has 30,000 acres of land to hide the evidence? Estates will now need to self police (something they have absolutely failed to do in the past) as the actions of their staff will risk, or protect, the operating license.
This is so common in other licensed or registered industries that any argument against it is weak.
Apart from the cost of the scheme and whether or not it’s going to be as effective as the existing laws. Why make a new law that doesn’t do anything the old law didn’t?
Because it gives you more options.
vicarious responsibility was introduced and whilst it has some use it has been limited. However if used alongside licencing it becomes a lot more effective. Since can go with if found guilty under that then no licence.
Similar to what was done with the general licences.
Or another area which has proved problematic is covert surveillance especially with cameras. In Scotland cases have been thrown out since until you hit a certain seriousness level then you cant place cameras without the landowners buy in. Which has a few flaws in this case. So a condition for licencing could be that you have to permit the placing of covert surveillance without any further notification.
Really? Where are you getting your info from because the statement on gov.scot says that no details of the scheme or any proposals will be made public until consultation begins.
https://www.gov.scot/news/werritty-report-response/
https://www.gov.scot/publications/werritty/
You're pretty much just making all that up, you have no idea in reality what licensing will bring to the table. As I said before, I'd like to hope it's effective but from past performance (those who comply would comply anyway) I have my doubts.
Also, in what world do you think it would be remotely legal to force consent to install covert surveillance equipment? Read that back to yourself.
You’re pretty much just making all that up, you have no idea in reality what licensing will bring to the table
Ermmm correct! If only there had been a clue in what I wrote eh?
I was simply mentioning some things it could do which the current laws dont.
The only person who seems to be making stuff up is you with your absolute certainty it will only do what the existing laws do.
You do realise the existing laws have been used but are limited in their usefulness see the suspension of general licences for example?
Read that back to yourself.
I have done and since I have experience in a regulated industry I know that rules can be applied which wouldnt be permitted for the general public.
It would be an interesting one to put in for the simple reason it would be fun to watch someone try and argue why it shouldnt be allowed. Bearing in mind nests and roosting sites tend to be in the middle of nowhere so not exactly infringing on peoples privacy so why would anyone want to object?
Squirrels
Two major differences. It would only need civil standard of proof not criminal and you do not need an individual to be prosecuted as the estate is liable
I'd be inclined to say it sets a precedent that could have unintended consequences down the line. The usual 'if you're doing nothing wrong you have nothing to fear' argument as well.
If you don't want to be accused of making stuff up then stop presenting opinion as fact, as far as I'm aware I've been quite clear that my views are based on opinion only so I don't know where you got that from.
Squirrels
Two major differences. It would only need civil standard of proof not criminal and you do not need an individual to be prosecuted as the estate is liable
Yup, that's true however what is a civil penalty going to achieve that a criminal one wouldn't?
That's the questions that have to be asked and addressed sufficiently.
Close the criminals enterprise down
You’re pretty much just making all that up, you have no idea in reality what licensing will bring to the table.
In the spirit of just making things up, I suspect licensing may include an option to revoke a license when multiple tracked golden eagles disappear over the same estate and trackers are found wrapped in lead and buried under a rock in a river. Just a thought, although I am just making that up.
Much easier than a criminal conviction where you need an individual and it's a lower standard of proof
Yup, that’s true however what is a civil penalty going to achieve that a criminal one wouldn’t?
Is that not bloody obvious? Suspension or removal of operating license.
Squirrel, please don't mix up the burden of proof in a case, with the penalty that will be handed down if the prosecuting body accepts that evidence. I have acted to request that a licensing authority withdraws a licence from a party on a number of occasions and as TJ points out, the standard of proof required there (civil= balance of probabilities) is less than would be needed to prove to a criminal court that an offence has taken place. So, it will become more straightforward to argue that a 'Driven Game' licence be revoked for bad behaviour. If the estate stays clean, it keeps its licence long term. Get caught out, the licence goes and conducting a formal shoot without a licence will be a firearms criminal offence that plod will enjoy acting upon.