I see the Labour have found something else to grouse about, they want to limit or stop grouse shooting depending on which news report you look at.
Personally I cannot see how anyone can get pleasure in shooting small birds or rearing them so they can be shot.
Even worse are these game keepers who are trapping and killing birds of prey.
The usual claim that this generates work for locals and brings in money to the area hardly justifies this so called type of 'sport'
There may be more a good case to say it allows management of the area but I am not sure what that consists of other than burning small patches of heather to keep it under control.
Perhaps it would be better to let nature control the area rather than try to manage nature in this instance.
12-08-2019 8:08 PM - edited 12-08-2019 8:28 PM
Bred to kill and eat. My only objection would be I couldn't afford to go on a shoot.
I suppose I will have to stick to rare occasional fishing in the numerous lakes around the country where the fish are bred to be caught and eaten.
The grouse are much cuter and fluffier than the fish though. Gets them better press.
These things go to satisfy the hunter in us all and bring the food home to our "caves". And yes I would have to say there is a certain pleasure in doing that.
12-08-2019 8:49 PM - edited 12-08-2019 8:59 PM
This is killing for sport not for stomach as I doubt very much if any of these weaponised ******* actually eat what the take pleasure in blasting out of the sky.
The glorious twelfth eh, not for those birds it ain't
The only Grouse you'll ever see me near comes out of a bottle over a couple of ice cubes.
12-08-2019 9:21 PM - edited 12-08-2019 9:22 PM
@Minivanman They are actually killed for eating. My wifes father worked on a large estate in norfolk and in the shooting season worked as a beater and her mother then plucked and prepared them for hanging ready for eating, Ok it was pheasant that were being shot but im sure it would be the same with grouse.
The grouse are killed for eating. Those killed on the moors this morning will have been shipped to London to appear on restaurant menus this evening.
Well sure they are eaten by somebody, but what I was suggesting was that they were not being eaten by those doing the shooting and as said, for sport not stomach... and not for theirs.
Why folks want to kill an animal just for sport or entertainment is totally beyond me and the fact that it gets eaten afterwards is no excuse, neither is it any defence.
As Oscar Wilde defined Fox hunting as "the unspeakable in pursuit of the uneatable" as a mockery of aristocracy, perhaps we need to define these particular 'sportsmen' in a similar way.
Having kept chickens and rabbits, chopped their heads off, skinned them, maybe I see things a bit differently.
We kill to eat and survive, directly or indirectly, that's just how it is.
Shotgun, chopper, or a bolt to the head. The end result is the same.
Killing just for sport like foxes a big no. But to eat I still see nothing wrong in that. Would it really make a difference if the shooters were crying into their beer as they fired.
12-08-2019 11:40 PM - edited 12-08-2019 11:59 PM
I've also kept chickens and chopped their heads off, but they have found their way (with a little help from my Mrs) to the table afterwards. But to kill them just for sport even if somebody else is going to eat them? I don't think so.
Maybe we can all look forward to the day when chickens with an AK47 start mowing down humans... just for fun of course.