North West Hunt Saboteurs

Still hunting the hunters

Monthly Archives: July 2008

There’s Nothing Glorious About the Twelfth

By Kit Davidson, Shooting Consultant to Animal Aid

Glori’ous a. possessing glory, illustrious, conferring glory, honourable, splendid, magnificent, intensely delightful, ecstatically happy with drink.

There is nothing glorious about the Twelfth of August. The only similarity grouse shooting shares with the dictionary definition of this abused adjective is the connection with drink. The hip flasks and shooting sticks will be full and the shoot lunch noisy when another season’s hapless birds meet their premature ends over the grouse butts. This extravagant cruel hedonism is shameful enough to call itself glorious.

What’s it all for? The apologists will shout that is about conservation. They will crow about songbirds and waders, but only because these birds do not prejudice shooting. The defensive will claim it is the harvesting of food. But nobody will admit that it is really about the pleasure of shooting a warm-blooded feathered target.

Grouse shooting is cruel. It is cruel because the bird makes good ‘sport’. Grouse fly low and fast and are difficult to kill cleanly. However, no skill or training is necessary to go grouse shooting. The only qualification is a fat wallet. In the UK, anyone who is lacking a criminal record, which resulted in a custodial sentence of more than three years, can obtain a shotgun licence. Grouse guns do not even need licensing, when shooting with the moor owner’s permission.

Grouse shooting is cruel because the management of the moor subjects the bird to a cycle of over-breeding and disease. All grouse moors enter the cycle by which the grouse populations collapse when they overburden the moor and increase their propensity to fatal gut infection.

It is also the moor management that ‘removes’ natural predators or fauna that might compete with grouse for moorland food. Moor management is cruel and destructive because it indiscriminately persecutes and destroys any creatures who jeopardize the maxima of the shooting. Even the humble heather beetle is vilified because it jointly depends upon the heather with the grouse.

Moor management is not only cruel, it is often criminal. Protected birds of prey are shot, poisoned and trapped. Their nests and eggs are destroyed, and gamekeepers who are successfully prosecuted do not lose their jobs protecting the moor owners’ grouse. The problem is widespread. The crimes are inflicted in the name of a selfish sport. Last month, Scottish Natural Heritage reported the disgraceful connection between grouse shooting, the decline of the Golden Eagle and illegal poisons.1 In 2007, there were at least 11 deliberate cases of poisoning of Red Kites in Scotland alone. 2 The rump of the shooting industry and others who laud the local economic benefits of shooting ignore the obvious: that Golden Eagles and Red Kites are a more inclusive and likely more profitable public attraction than is grouse shooting for selected tweedies with too much disposable income.

Grouse moor management is selfish and unconcerned about the long-term implications of moors burning and draining. The draining of upland moors for grouse shooting is contributing to the flooding of lowland settlements and the discolouration of drinking water in the northern reservoirs.

More significantly, about 13 million tonnes of carbon are released annually by bad practice on the upland moors of the UK. This is equal to a tenth of the nation’s emissions from industry.3 The upland moors can be considered as equivalent to the South American Rain Forests in their capacity for storing and absorbing carbon. Properly managed – not by gamekeepers and land owners who have the single purpose of managing a sport – the upland moors could reduce greenhouse pollution by up to 400,000 tonnes per year. This is the equivalent of removing 2% of England’s cars from the road.4 The poor management of the moors at present releases to a vast amount of carbon stored up since the last ice age.

We want the countryside conserved for its own sake and for everyone’s enjoyment, not as a by-product of conserving a cruel sport: a sport which excludes the public – to whom our heritage really belongs.

Grouse shooting is not glorious.

EIGHT REASONS TO OPPOSE GROUSE SHOOTING

1. Killing birds for sport is cruel and uncivilised.
2. A large number of native birds and mammals who interfere with grouse shooting are trapped, poisoned or snared. Victims include stoats, weasels, and even iconic raptors such as hen harriers, red kites and golden eagles.
3. An unnatural, heather-rich environment is created because the grouse thrive on young heather shoots. To create fresh young shoots, the heather is burned, harming wildlife and damaging the environment.
4. The burning of heather, reports an expert, ‘threatens to release millions of tonnes of carbon locked into the peat bogs underpinning the moors. Where burning occurs, the hydrology changes and the peat is open to decomposition and erosion. This strips the moor of carbon as surely as setting fire to the Amazon Forest.’ (Adrian Yallop, New Scientist magazine, 12 August 2006)
5. A technique used to encourage new heather growth is to dig drainage ditches. This is another source of damage to the peat bogs. It dries them out and, like burning, causes carbon to be released. Draining can also cause flooding of low-lying areas and discolouration of reservoir drinking water.
6. The harsh ‘management’ of moorlands causes grouse numbers to boom. But as they overburden the landscape, they become weakened and fall prey to a lethal parasite – Strongylosis. This attacks the gut and leads to a collapse in the population. A cycle of population boom and bust is the norm on Britain’s grouse moors.
7. Large quantities of lead shot are discharged, which is toxic to wildlife.
8. Grouse shooting estates use the Countryside and Rights of Way Act to restrict public access to mountain and moorland.

References

1. http://www.snh.org.uk/press/detail.asp?id=1909
2. http://www.rspb.org.uk/news/details.asp?id=tcm:9-178957
3. http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/britains-heaths-and-moors-hold-the-key-to-reducing-carbon-emissions-440267.html
4. http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/britains-heaths-and-moors-hold-the-key-to-reducing-carbon-emissions-440267.html

http://www.animalaid.org.uk/h/n/CAMPAIGNS/pheasant/ALL/1846//

Man faces prison for hare coursing

by Graham Fraser, Hamilton Advertiser

TWO Lanarkshire men found guilty of hare coursing have been warned they could face jail.

Robert Clements (44), of Moray Avenue, Blantyre, and co-accused David Scott (40), of Carluke, used three lurchers to hunt a juvenile hare on farmland near Stirling.

Sentence on the men, who both denied the charge, has been deferred until next month at Stirling Sheriff Court.

The court was told that police officers turned up at a Stirlingshire field on November 2 last year after a phone call from a local farmer.

When they approached the Lanarkshire men, the officers saw Clements try to dispose of a dead hare by throwing it down an embankment.

Clements and Scott claimed they were actually hunting rabbits and they said they drove to Stirling because there were no rabbits closer to home.

But Sheriff Andrew Cubie found both guilty of hunting the hare at Sink Farm, Cowie.

During the trial, police wildlife and environmental officer Malcolm O’May said he witnessed the two men with three dogs.

He said: “I got out of the car and saw one of the men toss what I suspected to be a hare down the railway embankment.

“I approached the men, explained why I was there and asked what they had thrown down the embankment.

“I went down to have a search and retrieved it.

“It was dead. My guess was it was just killed because it was still warm and the body was soft.”

In court, veterinary surgeon Dr Morag Kerr, who examined the dead hare, described the fatal injuries caused to it by the dog.

They included crushed bones, torn muscles and round puncture holes in its body.

Giving evidence, Clements, a warehouse worker for Sainsbury’s, denied he and Scott were looking for hares.

He said: “I have hunted rabbits all my life.

“I know that hare coursing is banned and that’s why I hunt rabbits.

“Under no circumstances was I intending to hunt hares. I know the laws.

“The dogs went a bit in front of us and we didn’t even see a hare until the dog retrieved it.

“I knew the implications and tried to dispose of it.”

Under cross-examination from fiscal Jim Graham, Clements added: “There are no rabbits in Blantyre.

“Anyone will tell you all the rabbits are towards Stirling and Perthshire.

“I’ve been on that land numerous times and have never seen a hare.”

Scott, who said he owned 14 sporting dogs, added: “I’m not in to hare coursing. I go for rabbits.

“But there are very few rabbits in Lanarkshire.”

Finding both guilty of hare coursing and deferring sentence until next month for reports, Sheriff Cubie said: “I’m not prepared to declare that Lanarkshire is devoid of rabbits.

“There was an unequivocal report of how the hare was taken down.

“There was acceptance from both accused that the dog retrieved the carcass and that the hare was thrown away when police arrived. I am satisfied that what was going on was hare coursing.”

In 2002, the Scottish Parliament banned fox hunting and hare coursing after months of national debate.

Saboteurs call for boycott of pro-hunt pubs

by David Holmes, Chester Chronicle

PUBLICANS in rural Cheshire are on the frontline in the battle between pro and anti-hunt supporters.

The North West Hunt Saboteurs Association has posted a blacklist of country watering holes on its website to put pressure on licensees to break all links with hunt members.

Drinkers are being urged by the anti-hunting lobby to boycott pubs which allow hunts to meet on their premises.

The website blurb reads: “Dying for a pint? – hunt pubs perpetuate the myth of hunting as a harmless rural tradition.

“By providing a venue for hunts to hold social or fundraising events or by hosting a meet prior to a day’s killing, these public houses are at the very heart of this callous, cruel and bloody ‘sport’.”

Saboteur spokesman Paul Timpson claimed some people continued to hunt illegally despite the Hunting Act 2004.

Carolyn Ross-Lowe, landlady of The Cholmondeley Arms, whose pub is blacklisted, says the Cheshire Hunt is welcome.

She said: “They only have one meet a year and when they do it is perfectly legal. I don’t have anything to do with it apart from holding the meet once a year. From our point of view, it brings in a lot of business.”

Tracey Williams, of The Bickerton Poacher, said the hunt hadn’t met there in the three years she’d been in charge, and added: “I would not encourage it.”

Chris Gleave, of The Tiger’s Head at Norley, said: “I would prefer that they didn’t meet here, but it would put me in an awkward position if asked because people say ‘you’re in the country’, but I don’t particularly approve.”


http://www.chesterchronicle.co.uk/chester-news/local-chester-news/2008/07/11/saboteurs-call-for-boycott-of-pro-hunt-pubs-59067-21322407/

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 58 other followers