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