Hunters in their own words

That woodcock debate sparked off some discussion of hunting ethics on the Sporting Shooter forums. And I was pleased to see some readers explaining their own ethical code in their own words. These are down-to-earth country people, rather than professional word-manglers like myself, and their comments are all the stronger for it.

Here's 'Ian':

To me ethical shooting means eating what i shoot, or shooting other species that are harmful to the local biodiversity of the area , i eat all that i shoot and never shoot more than i need with one exception wood pigeons i eat and freeze what i can the rest goes into the food chain via the game dealer as to waste them to me would be unethical. shoot fox at times when theres too many and rabbits all year round to keep the numdber managable, i shoot alone and just being in the countryside in places others never see is a big plus i don't brag about bag sizes i never think of big bags even pigeons when i have have good days it's about crop protection and my ability too help the local farmers keep them under control. you can check all my posts on this forum and you will see i never once tell of big bags. i like to think myself a bit of a conservationist only shooting when the need arrises either for food or for the good of the other species of wildlife.others might have a differenet way of seeing the ethics of shooting for me this is what it means.

...and 'Verminater':

I'm not sure what you mean but as Ian states i too shoot pigeons rabbits crows fox as pest control and crop protection and if shooting game that's because it will be in season and it is good too eat and if i have shot it i then now were this has come from but like Ian don't ever brag about large bag's i will only shoot a large bag of pigeons if they are doing that much damage and will go shooting as much as i can but will only shoot what i need or want like shooting or ferreting rabbits i will do a hole warren if the farmer wants them thinned right out and i eat them i have two large freezers that are used so is nothing waisted game shooting is different most of the game we shoot is reared to be shot and 90% goes into the food chain and the rest eating by those who take part in the shooting as for the woodcock this is different in different parts of the country most of us only see them inn the winter as most of only come here too over winter here and you have too give them respect for that. The little bird has flown thousands of miles and should not be massacred when we have hard frost's or when you first start too see them especially near the east coast they are a mythical bird that will carry it's young between it legs too get away from danger so i think that deserves a lot of respect.

Respect to those guys, too.
James.

Book review: Hunting in Britain, Barry Lewis

I ordered a copy of this book from Amazon some time back, but it seems publication was delayed and it only arrived today.

Hunting in Britain, From the Ice Age to the Present, by Barry Lewis, is a refreshingly objective, historical look at the nature and role of hunting (in its broadest sense, ie all types of catching animals and birds for food) throughout the past 700,000 years and more - an unbroken tradition that we continue today.

Lewis, a professional archaeologist at the University of Nottingham, takes a dispassionate, scholarly view of the subject, gently chiding the academic establishment for overlooking this vital and central theme in human development: "There are whole areas, even in prehistoric archaeology, which have been affected by a reluctance to research the topic of hunting, possibly because there is simply a general distaste by researchers, and more significantly within academia generally, for the topic of hunting, its attendant symbolism and the socio-political issues it gives rise to," he writes.

The book examines topics such as the relationships between humans and horses and dogs, the evolution of hunting weapons and techniques, and goes on to look at the Hunting Act 2004 and ask "Where to Now?"

So far I have only skimmed the book, but already I have marked many sections that I want to go back and read in detail.

I was particularly inspired by Lewis's closing remarks: "...hunting has been a crucial and inescapable thread running throughout the full length of human occupation of the British Isles, it is our longest continuous tradition, it has shaped land tenure as we understand it today and it has been hugely influential in shaping the British countryside and its landscapes. It has shaped rural traditions, and links us insescapably to the very food we eat in ways that we are scarcely aware of."

In my view, understanding that background is vital to understanding our place as hunters in modern Britain, and taking that tradition forward into the future.

Respect for the quarry

In my view, respect for the quarry doesn't end when it dies. This sort of photograph, or events like the New Zealand bunny throwing contest

are just plain wrong. Clearly organisations like the League Against Cruel Sports believe that pictures of people messing with dead animals helps their cause, too.

There is no logic in this; the animal is long past caring what's done with its redundant body. And natural decomposition is equally repulsive to view. But as hunters we feel a natural revulsion at people toying with dead animals. Hard to put into words, we just know what's right and what's wrong.

Creswell Crags - 'home of the ice age hunter'

Creswell Crags in Nottinghamshire is 'a limestone gorge honeycombed with caves and smaller fissures. Stone tools and remains of animals found in the caves by archaeologists provide evidence for a fascinating story of life during the last Ice Age between 50,000 and 10,000 years ago'. The Creswell Crags museum and visitor centre looks well worth a visit. More info here.

Ethnobiology

I was surprised to discover that there's a whole branch of science that deals with the way humans interact with their environment, including the plants and animals that they eat. It's called ethnobiology - see the Wikipedia page here. And there's a sub-branch of ethnobiology called ethnozoology - more info here.

On woodcock and ethics

If you want to get into a heated debate about the ethics of shooting, just mention the woodcock.

In the Dec 09 issue of Sporting Shooter, we published an article by Mark Gilchrist entitled 'Woodcock myths busted'. In essence, it suggests flighting the birds as they leave the woods at dusk, on their way to feed in the fields. Mark mentions his preference for a 3-shot semi-auto shotgun, and is pictured posing with a bag of what might be 15 woodcock (although clearly not after an evening flight, as the sun is shining brightly).

No surprise then, when the usual suspects (who shall be nameless) write in to berate me. One declares himself 'angry', and calls the piece 'crass, loutish and ignorant'. Another says the article causes him 'great concern' and is 'exactly the sort of thing to get woodcock taken off the quarry list'. He continues: 'the article says nothing about restraint or a measured approach because of this. The whole tenor of the piece seems to be about how to shoot as many woodcock as possible and get yourself tatooed to record the 'achievement' [a reference to a comment by Mark that if he ever manages to shoot 3 woodcock in a row, he will get a tattoo showing same].

If we'd published an article on how to shoot more woodpigeons, even ducks, no-one would have turned a hair. So what is it about the woodcock that causes the self-appointed moral guardians of shooting to start beating their breasts? Well, it's a wild, migratory bird, and our understanding of it is incomplete. But it's generally agreed that around 750,000 arrive in the UK each year, topping up our resident breeding population, and that the species is not threatened in any way, certainly not by shooting.

No, it's more esoteric than that. The woodcock is somehow symbolic of a type of wild sport that is special precisely because the quarry is mysterious and elusive; become too good at it, and it is no longer 'fair' or 'sporting'.

Here are some thoughts from my reply to one of the readers who wrote in:

Shooting is full of contradictions, and it's the woodcock, more than any other quarry, that seems to highlight our illogical approach, with 'success' being seen as the antithesis of 'sportsmanship'. Additionally, here in the UK, the use of a semi-auto seems to be synonymous with 'loutish' - but I have shot with Italians whose respect for the woodcock was an inspiration, and they used semi-autos as a matter of course.

Personally, I like to 'earn' my grouse by walking them up, with a full day's walking well rewarded if I finish with a brace tied to my belt. By contrast, a driven grouse day looks like senseless slaughter, and something that really does have those who oppose us rubbing their hands in glee. But I don't feel entitled to sit on the moral high ground casting aspersions on driven grouse shooting - and if I did, it would be that division that really gave the antis something to work with.

One of the great strengths of country sports generally is the broad range of people who partake in them, from foxhunting to ferreting to pigeon shooting to driven game. But this is also one of its greatest weaknesses - we are far too inclined to split into sub-groups that criticise one another as being somehow less sportsmanlike, less worthy, or more liable to attract criticism from the wider public (it never ceases to amaze me how shooters fail to grasp what it really is about shooting that the non-shooting public find offensive).

Your thoughts? I'd be interested to hear them - email or in the comments, as usual.

James

Hunters are 'greener than you think'

An interesting article in the Calgary Herald here.

It's a matter of perspective: in Argentina & Uruguay, hunters slaughtering thousands of doves are considered ecotourists. "If we don't shoot them, they are poisoned," explains a shooter.