(Washington Post will not allow a link anymore apparently mirroring NYT and WSJ)





We ventured up to the heather moors to watch tweedy gents shoot many grouse. That is not as easy as it sounds, not in Britain today, where the traditional blood sports pursued by the elite have become highly politicized — and shielded by a clubby, slightly paranoid veil of secrecy.

In the United Kingdom, grouse shooting is under fire from a coalition of environmentalists, birdwatchers and animal cruelty activists — or, as one of the hunters, a retired solicitor, described them, a rabble of “extremists and Jeremy Corbyn types living in the Islington echo chamber,” a reference to the vegetarian Labour Party leader and his lefty London constituency.

This fight over the future of a game-bird hunt is a surprisingly serious business, a subject to be debated in Parliament and the opinion pages, because it is as much about class and tradition, rural life and changing times as it is about the whirling red grouse itself, a bird that is bigger than a quail, smaller than a chicken, but blazingly, video-game fast on the wing.

The grouse-shooting folk — who may own heirloom shotguns, vote Tory and have a nickname like Bunny — can mock their critics, but the activists still inspire unease, even dread, because they have accomplished the once unimaginable: In the early 2000s, they got fox hunting with dogs banned in England, Scotland and Wales.

As the environmentalists like to boast, the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds has more paying members than all the U.K. political parties combined, not to mention the backing of celebrities such as the late Sir Roger Moore, a.k.a. James Bond, who once declared sport hunting “a perversion.”

Now the anti-hunting crowd is targeting the annual grouse shoots, which take place on a few hundred private, often vast estates in northern England and Scotland, beginning, per the Game Act of 1831, on the day they call “the Glorious Twelfth” in August and ending in December.

Driven grouse shoots are a pinnacle of field sports for the tallyho set. If you are into shooting birds, this is as good as it gets. Aficionados wax rhapsodic about the darting, jinxing flier capable of speeds of over 50 mph — the quarry of kings, if they have keen aim.

Shooting them can cost upward of $2,000 or $3,000 a day, per person, accommodation not included. “Yachts, castles and Bentleys — if you have enough money, all these can be yours,” the Financial Times explained. “Yet grouse moors are different.”

Exactly, said Luke Steele, a spokesman for a local group called “Ban Bloodsports on Ilkley Moor,” who adds bluntly: “It’s over.”

“The British care deeply about animal protection and the environment, and to see half a million birds shot out of the sky each year for sport?” he said. “It’s so out of tune with the way modern society is progressing.”

Steele and his allies claim that the intensive shoots create too much collateral damage: flooding; illegal culling of eagles, owls, hawks; and the release of planet-warming carbon when the peat bogs are burned.

Asked about the tradition of it all, Steele, who also works for People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, answered, “Bear baiting was tradition.”

Because of shooters’ concerns about harassment, it is not easy to watch a day of grouse hunting, because one must be invited — or be a foreign correspondent who promises to abide by strict ground rules.

For The Washington Post, those rules included not naming the Owner of the Moor, or the local Lord, or any nearby manors, pubs, sheep farms or the unique view of the sea. We also are not to name the staff — not the Game Keeper, Loaders, Beaters or Flankers.

When we asked, as a droll joke, if we could mention any of the dogs by name, it was decided that some of the hounds were quite well known locally and could help identify the grouse moor, and so the answer was, please, best not.

Amanda Anderson, director of the Moorland Association, which supports both grouse hunting and uplands preservation, drove us out to the site in North York Moors National Park, a patchwork of privately owned lands. It was a stunning autumn morning of sun and cloud.

Anderson explained that the moors are not truly wild landscapes, but have been shaped by humans since the Iron Age. Grouse moors are today intensively managed, Anderson said — for grouse. The gamekeepers eradicate invasive weeds, sometimes with aerial spraying. The heather itself is burned in patches, to provide ideal habitat — older heather for nesting and young heather for eating.

One of the day’s “Guns” surveys the hunting estate in the North York Moors National Park. It is a treeless, boggy, peaty environment that humans have shaped to their own needs since the Iron Age. (William Booth/The Washington Post)

As we bumped along the dirt track, Anderson pointed out the metal traps arranged over the soggy streams, designed to snap shut and kill weasels and stoats, who like to eat grouse. The Game Keeper also hunts the foxes, with a gun and spotting lamp, to keep their numbers low. This is all legal.

Until recently, red grouse populations would spike and plummet. Now, the Game Keepers feed the birds a medicated grit that kills the worms that once decimated the flocks.

Anderson argued that grouse shooting is saving the precious moors, providing the money the old families and new owners need to manage the habitat for generations to come. “The moors would be lifeless without shoots,” she said.

We parked and the hunters arrived, in a flurry of well-waxed mustaches and Range Rovers. There were nine paying guests this day, called the “Guns,” decked out head to toe in traditional tweed. Everyone wore a sporty tie.

“Safety first!” the Moor Owner advised as the Guns assembled. “Please, don’t shoot anyone!” The clients chuckled, but a grouse shoot is an almost martial affair, organized along strict rules — with horns, whistles, flags — to make sure no one does as Vice President Richard B. Cheney did on a quail hunt in Texas in 2006, which was shoot a 78-year-old attorney in the face.

We went out to the first of six “drives.” These events involve dozens of very happy dogs, who imagine the day was organized just for them, along with locals hired as “Beaters,” who drive the birds toward the Guns, who conceal themselves in trenches, and their “Loaders,” who replace spent shells in their shotguns to quicken the pace of fire.

Driven grouse hunting is booming. Developed by the Victorians 150 years ago, enabled then by railroads and breech-loading shotguns, the sport today positively exudes posh, with a morning break for a glass of champagne, followed by a catered lunch of game and French reds, and ending with an evening of whisky by the fire.

Depending on your view of meat and where it comes from, grouse shoots are exhilarating or disturbing — or an opportunity for debate. It was certainly thrilling for the hunters.

One of the “Guns” waits for the birds to fly his way. He is partially concealed from the grouse by his tweedy attire and his location in a trench, called a “butt.” (William Booth/The Washington Post)

On the first drive, we huddled behind a skilled Gun in his trench, alongside his Loader. About a half-mile away, we could hear whoops and see the Beaters whipping flags through the air, the dogs howling in a sea of purple heather.

As the grouse began to flush, the Gun lit a cigar. He was a retired doctor, on the quiet side. But as the first coveys were driven toward him, his gun stock leapt to his cheek and he began to fire and fire.

First one grouse, a puff of exploded feathers, and the dead bird cartwheeled to earth. Then a second, winged and wounded, a crash landing. Then his Loader pressed another fresh shotgun into his hand.

This went on all day. Hits and misses. A row of nine Guns, aided by their teams, can shoot a lot of birds. By lunch time, they had killed 144. The butcher’s bill for the day surely topped 200 grouse.

Yet many more birds survived than died. The grouse were quick. The dead and the wounded lay in the heather, until they were quickly found by the dogs and collected. The injured birds were dispatched by the picker-uppers with a smack to the skull.

Grouse can taste rich or gamy, depending. Most Guns don’t really want to eat a lot of them. It might cost $125 to shoot a grouse, which the butcher sells for $7 a dressed bird.

Mark Avery is a conservation campaigner and a former director of the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds. He said, “There are far more reasons to ban intensive grouse hunting than fox hunting.” Fox hunting became unpopular when people saw films of dogs tearing the foxes apart. It was a cruelty issue, and the British — who love their sausage — have a soft spot for animals.

According to Avery, those managing the moors for grouse hunting are killing not just foxes and weasels, but birds of prey, who also eat grouse. He points to the hen harrier, a threatened raptor known for its aerial “sky dancing.” Studies suggest there should be sufficient habitat for 2,600 hen harrier pairs in England and Scotland — but there are 575. In England, there are seven breeding pairs.

“I don’t think you can run a large, driven grouse shooting operation and follow the law,” said Avery, author of “Inglorious: Conflict in the Uplands,” who has rounded up 123,077 online signatures for a petition to get grouse hunts banned.

Edd Morrison is a shooting consultant who helped manage the day. He pointed to the young Beaters.

“They make 50 pounds a day,” almost $70, he said. In all, about 40 people would serve the nine Guns. Then add the inns, pubs, gun shops, tweed tailors and Land Rover dealerships, he said.

“The whole of North Yorkshire revolves around the grouse shoot, and we’re on the brink of getting banned?” Morrison said. “It’s warfare.”

Today's WorldView

What's most important from where the world meets Washington

Just then, one of the Guns missed a darting grouse — and his shotgun’s pellets peppered a stone wall beside us, a breach of etiquette.

“Bloody hell,” Morrison said.

He promised he’d have a word with that gent.

figures that it would take 3, and the dog would just be looking on.....they have ruined it for themselves....it is no longer just a hunt over there...if it were just a man and his dog out for a days hunt I don't think there would be a problem....but the well to do aristocrats have to push it to driven shoots and live pigeon shoots and have to make such a bloody frickin deal of it.....they just draw the ire of the public in general...and bring out every tree huggin wacko for miles.... ..sorry that's the way I see it

Where are these petitions in the Parliamentary process? And is there any factions blocking these petitions from coming up for a vote?

I guess if you can afford the Moor hunting expenses you can pretty much go anywhere and hunt outside the country.

Driven gro[_]se is as good as it gets.

It's a shame the Brit's have lost control of their co[_}ntry.

Anything coming from the Washington Post is suspect however.

Would you kindly point me in the direction of evidence of live pigeon shoots taking place in G. Britain? The Captive Bird Shooting (Prohibition) Act of 1921 forbade it. Cyril Adams, in his most recent book Live Pigeon Trap Shooting, states that when that act was enacted pigeon shooting in England came to an end.

What evidence do you have to the contrary?

SRH

Are there hunts like that in Britain where you pay a landowner for a day and go on his property and hunt birds with your dog?

Or use his dogs and maybe a guide or worker there.

Driven bird shoots have been a traditional hunting method in Britain and much of Europe for probably much longer than a guy with a dog has been the norm here. What is new is Liberal Left Animal Activists who are more concerned with the shooting of birds than they are about Planned Parenthood harvesting and selling organs and tissue from aborted human fetuses.

Strange how Liberals don't see any cruelty in that!

As Stan points out, live pigeon shooting is long gone. And the same folks who are attempting to ban this form of hunting will move on to your form of hunting if and when they succeed in this effort. That's the way you should see it, because the writing has been on the wall for decades. Anti-hunters don't like any form of hunting, however, they know they can't ban all of it at once. But FUDDs keep right on supporting and voting for the Liberal Left politicians who love to infringe upon gun rights and hunting.

We see it right here on this forum, and it pisses them off to have it pointed out... right CZ? You can't fix stupid.

I did find it interesting to read that game-keepers over there provide medicated feed to kill the worms that are responsible for the cyclical rise and fall of grouse populations. I've never heard about worms being the cause of that cyclical change in populations. Might help to explain the general crash in grouse numbers we've seen in multiple states here.

sorry for the error on the pigeon shoots...the article I read must of been in another EU territory....but if memory serves it was well attended and sponsored by British aristocrats...

Here is an article from the Scottish Gamekeepers Association which rebuts some of the points raised in the Washington Post article:

http://news.scottishgamekeepers.co.uk/2017/08/response-to-walk-highlands-article.html

Here is the final paragraph.

"No system is ever perfect and cannot be improved. The land is dynamic and encounters threats and challenges. However, those taking to the hills should be aware that not all campaigners are right and all land managers are wrong. Scotland’s lauded landscape is a managed landscape and has been for many centuries. It is a land for communities and life as well as leisure and tourism and ought to be respected for both, with understanding on both sides."

The most important takeaway from this article is that such inroads are being made against the most rich and powerful men in the world... people truly willing to spend a fortune on their hunting tradition.

We are much more vulnerable. Many of the things American hunters allow in an effort to make what gentlemen see as reasonable concessions, are only the first steps in a planned attack to eliminate hunting.
Non-toxic shot regulations were based on flawed science in an effort to raise the price of ammunition and restrict access to government land. The use of kill traps during hunting seasons was a ruse to pit outdoorsmen against each other.

Government agencies are not our allies because they no longer see us as their employer. There is no means to compromise with the unreasonable.

Best thing England could of done was to leave the EU but how long will they remain outside of the EU.

England can flourish without the EU but can the EU flourish without England?

Hunting in Georgia and in some other states has been made a state constitutional right. 21 states have made it a constitutional right with Mississippi and Alabama's voters voting over 80% in favor. Hunting in the US seems to cut across all economic and social strata compared with the UK which may be largely related to the millions of acres of public land access. California and Rhode Island have the constitutional right to fish, but not hunt. Arizona rejected the initiative in 2010. If public land access is indeed a factor, consider that Georgia is the 21st largest state in land area. It offers over a million acres of state land accessible. This doesn't include National Forests or military lands. Fort Stewart alone offers over a quarter of a million acres to hunt. Scotland is roughly the size of South Carolina (40th size in land area)and England is the size of Alabama (30th). England's heritage of hunting is centered on the elite which makes it unfortunately easy pickings for class warfare. Gil

I believe most of Western Europe is the same way in regards to hunting pretty much anything. Its a sport of the connected and most likely the rich. I was stationed in Germany in the late 1990's and as a DOD civilian I could purchase guns from the local Rod and Gun club, or on the German economy with almost zero problem. Finding a place to hunt was a different animal indeed. Lots of rules and even more regulations, but once again the problem was access to places to hunt. Much more trouble then it was worth in Western Europe for sure.

True, but one can become part of hunting party and have opportunity to hunt game especially large game. A group from Lowiecki.pl just went on driven wild boar hunt in Serbia. It is much less expensive for them because it does not need to include TransAtlantic trip. The only way I can take such a trip is laying down in private cubicle which is expensive. Another reason to leave USA and live in EU.

Don't let the screen door hit you in the ass on your way out.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i0BTdo6qGwo

SRH

Thank you very much. The nice thing is I can still post on here w/o any changes to my email or sign on info. I may even be able to dig up some info on double guns and combination guns made in places like Silesia,.....and places like Pozen, Breslau, Danzig,.... You will see it will be great.

I g[_}ess I'm one of those elites.
Driven shooting is an ind[_]stry. A broad employer.
Gro[_]se are a wild bird. Not pen raised. We shoot off the ann[_]al s[_]pl[_]s on the moors, that keepers manage and protect.

Going back T[_]esday.

Watch it on Yo[_]t[_]be. If it doesn't excite yo[_], yo[_] are dead.

Have a great trip, CZ.

BTW, what in the world is wrong with your "u"(s)?

SRH

It's definitely not an homage to a certain "sans dwelling" contrib[_]tor.

The dog hooked a toe [_]nder the [_] key on this laptop, and popped the [_] key off.

I'll have it fixed next week.

One thing which doesn't ring quite true is the emphasis the article places on inherited wealth as the primary means of access to game shooting.Whilst its no doubt true that titled folk may shoot regularly,and in some pretty spectacular places too,there are many of us "ordinary" chaps get out too. Paid days are available all over the country for driven pheasant together with a few for grouse. Providing you choose where, in accordance with your wallet, the shooting is there to be had. If you can shoot at short notice the invitations will come flooding in to make up the numbers .Personally I prefer pigeon shooting which is free and I think much more challenging. Flight line pigeons in a stiff breeze gives some of the finest shooting to be had in the UK and many who shoot pheasant and grouse will agree.

Probably not with YOUR dog if you're coming from outside the UK. There are very strict quarantine rules for bringing animals into the country. Can you do a walk-up hunt with a guide (beater) and his dog over there? Yes. You can even go on a walk-up shoot for the same red grouse discussed in the article. A "rough shooting" day over there--talking pheasants and partridge, not red grouse--is not really all that expensive. Compare it to a day at a fancy lodge in SD, where you can't kill any more than 5 pheasants. Other than the cost of getting there, the rough shooting day in the UK will almost certainly be less expensive. If you're over there already for other purposes--vacation or work--not hard to arrange something like that if it's shooting season.

It all reminds me of the movie "The Shooting Party" in which someone opposed to hunting confronts the owner of the shoot (James Mason, in his last film)--who points out that the birds likely wouldn't be there if it were not for the effort and expense to which he goes to have them there.

So basically you can go up to a farmer and ask if you can hunt his land.

Correct?

yes,,you can do that,though it may only be some rough shooting for rabbits etc. There may already be people shooting there,,a syndicate for example,, so you may just get permission for pigeons . Its all down to putting the hours in,touring the area and knocking on doors. Alternatively,if anyone is visiting the UK at the right time of year I would be more that willing to offer a few hours pigeon shooting as an introduction to what we have here.

Shouldn't let the dam dog use the computer....

I'll carry a few cases of Guinness Extra Stout around foe insurance purposes.

What you mean, his dog can type faster than he can.

To get back to original topic the situation with animal loving anti-hunting groups are on the rise in other parts of Europe. They do try to get in the way of organized hunts.

It will be really great for the guys who work at Cabela's and the other gun stores where you drool on the counter tops and display cases and put guns on Layaway that you never actually buy. But it will be a bad time for gun shops in the EU.

Well, I cleared 16ga Bismuth space again. When I leave others will be able to buy some too. It made me sad to see that video clip. I enjoyed Texans performance in movies like Toomstone, Red Dawn and Attila. He has passed not long ago. Glad Clint Eastwood is still with us.

I will miss my Colt rail gun as HD piece. It will be replaced by dusted off P-38 with Czechoslovak 9x19mm ammunition.

As for driven game shooting and its origins. It grew along with SXS design in a mutually influencing spiral. It was not always so. A look at muzzle loading period paintings shows British folk hunting, as opposed to shooting, over dogs, equipped with game bags to carry their game themselves, with no help from servants. It is hard to condemn someone who hunts alone and bags reasonable numbers of game for the pot. Also hard to depict him as a "class enemy".

I wish Americans wouldn't post slanted and embellished articles written by ignorant city dwellers, as explanation of estate life.
Re-read it, take out the inflammatory adjectives, and then decide if the story still makes sense.

It's an ignorant hatchet piece.

The birds are grown as a crop, they are sold into the food chain, and we as guns pay dearly to preserve the system. A red grouse was only about 5?lbs from the keeper.

The economic opportunities for average country folk are just as abysmal in the UK as here. The driven game system provides tremendous employment, as well as preserves a way of life, decimated, and nearly lost after the Great War.

It is pageantry when done well.
The shooting is as challenging as YOU decide to make it.
The hospitality side of the event is as fine as anywhere in the world.
Privately crafted Gins, elegant food, and gentility extending across all borders and class distinctions.

There are two types of people in the world. One sees gracious living and aspires to it. Another sees beauty and wants to tear it down.

A lot of people in the South would tell you that we lost that war a long time ago.

I shouldn't get all worked up about a news article.

I am NOT a member of the Tally-Ho set.

I work in the Automation industry, working long hours making things go round and round in modern factories.
I, like many others making the wheels of commerce turn, enjoy driven game shooting for what it is. And understand what it isn't.

CZ, The article makes the point of village employment. It states the efforts to preserve the Moors by the owners. The fact that it reports what the antis have done and are doing doesn't make it a "hatchet" piece. The way I read it, the Post is reporting a hatchet job by the antis. I would rather read about the reports of the efforts for and against than to read in a vacuum later that it's over. Stripping it of adjectives, adverbs, nouns or verbs doesn't change a thing. Would it be better to stick our heads in the sand? Forewarned is forearmed. Have a great trip Tuesday and let us know how it turned out. Gil
PS: Who says fox hunting has ended in Britain?
https://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/07/world...the-sniper.html

Gil, Read the Title, then the first paragraph, and then tell me the article doesn't carry an unfavorable bias forward from there.

If a person wants to shoot driven grouse, get out your wallet, and make the call. It's that simple. There's no secret society among the commercial shoots. They are just trying to keep the estate doors open.

If you want to do it for free, well, you better be royal, or have great friends. It's not inexpensive.


And I mean "You" in the plural way. Not anyone here particularly.

CZ, I agree that using the word "paranoid" is a bit too much as "paranoia" is an unreasonable fear. Using names and locations would send the PETA group in waves to the locations, so I understand what point you make there. It is not an unreasonable fear that disruption would ensue. (There are laws on our books here that criminalize interference with hunting.) But both sides are presented afterwards which if it were a dedicated "hatchet job", it wouldn't have been presenting both sides. I'm sure the antis would have preferred otherwise. Gil

Good conversation, a real treat. I'd broaden it by replacing Peta with the peculiar circularity of the rural-urban divide: what the majority antis are doing to us. The biggest migration in the world is from the countryside to the city, for the warmth and shelter and opportunities they couldn't find in the countryside. A nearby county here had an 11.4 per cent loss of residents over the last six years. The city separates them from Nature. They'll develop a cultural amnesia over time, as the refugees have before them.They develop a romanticized notion of Nature as they take in each other's wash in cities.The only answer is finding something along the lines of Michael Ignatieff's “code of tacit mutual acceptance” within “an intimate sociology and anthropology of ethics.”

City populations are already the majority in most developed countries and are growing. A UN study forecasts that over 90 per cent of the planet population will be city dwellers in a generation. That means they will have city values and and an urban view of things with all that this implies for country pursuits. Maybe when unmanaged wildlife starts to make its presence felt, as when wolves take a poodle from the leash in a park, then things might start to change.

Tom Kelly in his turkey hunting cult book, The Tenth Legion, observed that urban flight helped the wild turkey grow in population in rural Alabama. There weren't as many folks left to dent the population and the population rebounded. Unfortunately as goes urban flight goes positive attitudes about hunting. Gil

Sure, blame us city folk.

Merry Christmas, King! Did that Hammer and Sickle fall off your tree and hit you in the head? That last post of yours was one of your best!


_______________________
Interesting bunch of blokes we have here.

No one knows the effort I put into making sure my daughters would be tolerant of the sporting life.
I constantly work to maintain their understanding of just how much it means to me, and others like me.

On the flip side, I shot, and dined, with a lovely woman from London, a Law Professor from Cambridge, shooting an H&H 28ga Sporter, and I was absolutely fascinated by the effort she made as a Single parent, to raise her sons as gentlemen, and Sportsmen. In modern London.
Her story was a mirror image of my own experience with my daughters.

The thing to work on is tolerance and acceptance of the choice.

The hammer and sickle I was given by the party when I was born is a tiny sterling silver thing on a delicate necklace. The one that toppled from the top of the tree was really heavy and it hurt like an elbow from Gordie or maybe (I won't admit it) from Sid! Merry Christmas to you, too!

CZ,

Most of what is said on this website is totally useless. Occasionally, I learn how to fix a gun. Rarely, I find something to buy. But CZ, what I really want for Christmas... is the phone number of that damned law professor!

As a Brit I will add my pennies worth. Driven shooting is growing in popularity in the UK. It is mostly pheasant / partridge based, and plenty of estates are rearing and releasing phaesants to cater for demand. This is every thing from walked up rough shoots which release 100 odd birds and have half a dozen days with 6 or 8 guns, a few dogs and a couple of children acting as beaters. Tend to walk in a line and have a few standing guns. Most guns will have a few shot during the day and the bag will be 20 ish.

In between we have the syndicate / farmer type shoots where there is a part time gamekeeper, a few hundred birds are put down and there will be 6 to 8 shoots a years with the bag being anything from 50 to 120 odd birds. Most guns doing this type of shooting will spend a few thousand a year on their sport - most of it going on birds, feed and wages for beaters / keepers. Most syndicate members will take a couple of guns on each shoot - one for themselves and one for a guest, and shooting is very much a reciprocal thing. These shoots often require quite a but of time input from the guns - doing work on the ground, managing vermin ec.

And then we have the much more commercial shoots where a farm or estate has a shooting business, and days are sold to guns - there are many roving syndicates who take paid for days. It is all about the experience and you are generally well looked after with good food provided during and post the shoot. Cost is generally by the day and in proportion to number of birds, quality of the shoot and shoot lunch etc. £30 to £40 a bird is pretty typical.

Grouse are more a speciality as there are limited areas of heather moorland, and is ever decreasing due to pressures from forestry and Wind turbines. A driven grouse moor is a very expensive luxury. Grouse cannot be reared, so its all down to maintaining optimal habitat for grouse to get the numbers required for a driven shoot day. This requires manpower and even a small moor will cost the owner £1m a year to maintain. Some of this cost can be recovered by letting days to guests - going rate is £100 plus a bird.

There is walked up grouse shooting available for a lot less - typically £50 to £150 a gun - at the low end, its best described as an armed walk, and you might come home with a grouse or a snipe or two.

We do have a lot of pressure from the Anti's - not sure if the shooting world has helped itself. But the anti's keep making noise and irritation. Often its jealousy etc. But what does amaze me is on a shoot you get people from all walks of life.

That' s what you do in South Dakota and other places as well. Pay to hunt a farmer's land. You can hunt the dirt roads but the best shooting is in those cornfields.

Yes, and with a variation on the old joke, have her send photo of gun. Gil

An interesting trend lately--speaking of the urban/rural split--is the "locavore" movement. Basically environmentalists who believe that they should eat foods that are available locally. A fair number of them are taking up hunting, recognizing that the game they shoot is "organic". And a lot of them are involved in the reverse flight: urban to rural, because it's easier for them to raise/forage/hunt/fish in the country than it is in the city.

Those grouse shooting "British Aristocrats" MADE the London and Birmingham gun trade and that trade took the world from Flintlocks to modern, breech loading double guns.

The grouse are a money crop - guns pay big money to shoot and the game is sold in shops all over the UK and Europe.

Without this rather intensive use, the moors would be neglected, the employment of the shoot helpers would be gone, along with numerous economic benefits.

There are not many places in the UK where single man and his dog can wander out in the moors and walk up a few grouse. And to tell the truth, the Brits have very few worthy bird dogs.

I’m sure many in England would agree but they would be as misinformed as you seem to be. It was the U.K. that voted to leave and even then there was a majority in Scotland and N.Ireland that voted to remain. And of course nobody has left anything yet. If or when it does actually happen there’s a fair chance it will lead to the break up of the U.K.
Lest you think that that I hope Britain stays in the EU nothing could be further from my mind. On the contrary, I think the U.K. leaving will be the best thing that could happen to the EU. Ever since they joined the Brits have been obstructionest on nearly every effort towards closer unity. They absolutely hate the idea of an EU defense force. They did everything they could to undermine the Euro and complained constantly about every EU law and the ECJ.
What’s funny is there are people in Britain who think that the EU may not survive their departure. Frankfurt, Paris and Dublin are already vieing for the Banks and financial service companies that will have to leave London to stay in business. The cruel truth is the people who voted to leave were sold a a bunch of bullshit. They want to “take back control”. When did working class or poor people ever have control? Britain doesn’t even have a written constitution. They aren’t even citizens, they are subjects of Her Majesty. At least as members of the EU their rights were protected by the ECJ. I hope there will come a time when a majority of Britons will understand that they were conned by clique of old Tory land owing snobs who can’t wait to dismantle worker’s rights and minimum wages.
There, end of rant.

Old Tory land owning snobs or a bunch of wankers in Brussels. They’re fooked either way. Pick your poison.


________________________
Living on a thin line.
https://youtu.be/nse0Ch5_cKs

We need a few of our English brothers to comment since they are right in the thick of it.

I tnink the posts by HeymSR20 and Thruxton are correct and state the facts. The original article was about selling newspapers, not reporting about shooting.

"Those grouse shooting "British Aristocrats" MADE the London and Birmingham gun trade and that trade took the world from Flintlocks to modern, breech loading double guns. "

Hmmm not quite so. French maker Pauly devised the first breech loader in the 1810s, Lefaucheux the break open action in the 1840s. The British made the SXS into a specialised tool for driven game. Others refined versions better suited to the lone walking hunter and his dog, people like Darne, Manufrance with the Ideal, Germans with their drillings, and when the OU came along thankfully Browning and Beretta provided affordable OUs for us all. If it wre left to the British we would have to mortgage our homes to hunt or shoot some Skeet with their OUs.

About Brexit not the article.

About Brexit not the article. [/quote]

I don't believe Brexit will make any significant change to "Bird Shoots in Britain" which is the thread subject.

I don't have much to add about Brexit because a vote was held which went the 'leave' way. Leaving is now being arranged - and under what terms it will happen - no one knows, which is why it is hard to add much.

I see. I thought you guys already left, lock, stock and barrel.

No; we started a 2 year leaving period in March 2017 and are scheduled to leave on 29th March 2019.

After that date there will be a transition period of just under 2 years - and no one knows as yet exactly what the 'transition period' arrangements will be - or what the final arrangements for trade and certain other aspects will be post transition period.

Had our membership remained that of a 'common market' or 'Economic Community' - which is how it was sold to the UK populace when we originally joined (1973) when there were 9 members with (very broadly) similar economies, we would probably have ended up with a remain outcome. It was a sensible trading group.

However, it has now grown to 27 - with very different economies - and is aiming for 'ever closer union' with common laws, taxation, economic controls like interest rates, armed forces, foreign policy etc. all being aspired to by some parties.

Currently 11 countries are net contributors (with the UK second largest after Germany) and 16 are net beneficiaries, with Greece and Poland receiving the largest net benefits.

Trying to run 27 countries with economies, climates and cultures as different as Germany and Greece will not happen without a lot of pain. Having 27 different governments with powers of veto on legislation is not a viable way of running anything. The UK under David Cameron shortly before the referendum did try and keep a more 'open relationship' (and indeed the UK never joined the Euro currency) but the EU are determined to enforce 'ever closer union' by increased centralisation.
The majority (albeit a small majority) in the UK believed that the time had come to leave - and have control of our own future.

Whether that will prove to have been the right decision will very much depend on what the trade deal for the future turns out to be. It is not in the EU's interest for the UK to 'prosper' outside the EU, because the populations of others who make large contributions (Germany, Netherlands, France, Italy, Sweden) are watching with interest. It is not in the UK's interest to pay heavy trade tariffs - and the UK imports more from the EU than it exports to the EU - so there is a lot to sort out!

C’mon, Treb. You need to keep up with this stuff. A good bit of the easy things have been hashed out, but a big sticking point is how many billions of Pounds Brussels is going to extort , I mean get in the divorce. Those EU defense forces aren’t going to be cheap!

Now what to do with the pesky Basques and Poles? Bloody ‘ell.


______________________
Be careful what you wish for. You just might get it.

Europe must not become a federation, while the USA must never lose its federal structure. Logical.

Well I live in North Yorkshire, I'm a country person, so feel Im in a position to comment.

On Brexit - I am 22 and voted leave, which puts me in a tiny minority of people. Most people in my peer group would have voted stay. I voted leave because i remember Greece being completely up the creek without a paddle in summer 2015 and they were bailed out, anyone who wants to join is allowed into the EU and the bureaucracy grows bigger and more unmanageable every day. I voted out because i genuinely believe the EU will collapse in time and i think its better to be out and have our house in order before it does and everyone else is in panic mode too. That being said the actual brexit being delivered by our government is being poorly managed and weakly lead which is not what i voted for. I wanted to pull the rug out from the EU's feet and show them that people wont stand for bull doo doo. Its not so much of an exit but a slow withdrawal nodding and smiling to the EU as we do so. The reasoning is that in many cases Brexit crossed party lines, and nobody wants to risk losing their vote share by carrying out what the public voted for. Not all labour voters wanted to stay and not all conservatives wanted to leave. So what we have is a poorly lead, weak willed brexit. If you vote the majority wins, the problem is the vote was close, the leave's never thought they would win, and the government doesnt want to risk alienating and disenfranchising the 48% who wanted to stay. Its a screw up from start to finish.


On Hunting - There is oppersition to shooting sports here but they tend not to be as active as the anti foxhunting brigade. Most people i know who actively shoot on smaller shoots which probably make up the majority of shooting that goes on are working class or professionals who work in the countryside, plumbers, electricians, joiners, milkmen, farmers, farm managers, contractors, workers, engineers, vets, and everything in between. A lot of this comes from a "them and us" is people see you dressed in tweed driving a land rover and going shooting they assume your a toff, there is a big hangover amongst some ( the left generally ) that "they" shouldn't get away with it and that the countryside is some natural landscape that's for everyone. I don't own any land and i disagree its them what bought and earned it weather its because someone way back when was given it by the king or that some farming family paid it off over hundreds of years, i couldn't give a flying one, if you own a bit of land its yours and you should be-able to do what you want with it and the game on it as long as that's within the law and isn't harming anyone else. A lot of opposition to hunting of foxes is just people getting in a tiz because they don't think people should ride round like they own the place and enjoy it, and it irks them particularly when they do own the place.

I didn't know that either, that the UK imports more from the EU and Germany's economy was bigger than the UK.

Interesting. I was concerned that the EU would place more restrictions on English firearms and hunting, which ties back into the article and Argo's post.

I know, but I'm more interested in Lord Nelson's tactics at Trafalgar or Wellington's at Waterloo.

Interestingly - I am at the other end; I'm 60 and voted Remain.

I'm not upset that 'leave' won. I thought long and hard which way to vote and remain won for my personal vote by a small margin. The reason I didn't vote leave was that I didn't understand under what terms we would be leaving; I still don't. Had we been voting for World Trade Rules and NO divorce payment, I would probably have voted 'leave'.

I would like to be in a 'common market' which is what I voted to join in 1973, but it has all got too big, too bureaucratic and too expensive. I would like to have had the EU reformed from 'inside' to be a lighter, faster and vastly more efficient trading group, NOT a federal 'state'. There is considerable unrest in Germany, France and Holland about the EU's costs and future plans, but all (like the UK) are very divided internally.

Blame the Russians. (to our Russian members, I’m kidding. I’m facinated by your country). I just wonder how long it will be before the “dossier “ comes out that it was May peeing on Trump in Moscow.

Interesting side note I read the other day about the upcoming nuptials of that royal fellow, the ginger, I can’t think of his name at the moment. That Obummer won’t get an invite because they don’t want Trump there. The first black president won’t be at the wedding of the first black British royal (correct me if I’m wrong). Obummer, the same guy who threw you under the buss after the Brexit vote. Back of the line England!


_____________________
Wish you all the best. I mean it.

I saw in the news today that Prince Harry did not participate in the traditional Boxing Day Shoot because his semi-vegan American bride-to-be is anti-hunter. He’s in for a long bumpy ride with that chick. Is it too late for him to reconsider?

That girl is going to whip his sissy ass. Of course he will most likely love it.

They’re perfect for each other. On the plus side a peg opened up. Think positive, mate!


________________________
And we’re back on topic.

No doubt she has honey in her hips, but he can get that anytime. At my age I’d rather shoot birds.

If you want to know, the real question Americans have about Britain is why do you put up with and support royalty at all?? Of course we have our NFL, NBA, and all the movie stars, so we certainly have no room to throw stones. But, the question still stands; WHY?...Geo

Actually the Russians did finance the leave campaign. Nothing would please Putin more than to see the EU fall apart. Trump wouldn’t care much either. In fact what will happen is there will be an EU integrated defense. Russian moves in Crimia, Ukraine and the Baltic’s will insure that. Trump backing away from NATO will help it along. NATO was conceived to keep the Americans in, the Germans down and the Russians out. Well a new European Union army will only need to keep the Russians out. Something new is emerging in Europe. It will happen faster with the Brits not fucking things up.

I believe that one of the main reasons for supporting Royalty is that it gives us a tangible chronology of our history,,a living proof of the age of our country in a time of increasingly temporary states of affairs. It gives us a fixed point of traditional reference when the world is often in a state of some turmoil. There is little sense of deference,,merely respect for a difficult job well done.

As the US knows only too well, maintaining defence forces is very expensive.
The EU has little money because when the UK leaves, apart from Germany, the Netherlands, Sweden and France who will be the major financial contributors, most of the others are all drawing out funds. France isn't even a full member of NATO. Most speak different languages and have incompatible equipment.
It is more likely not to not happen at all - other than a sort of UN peacekeeping force clone.

That's the theory anyways.


_________________________
Wonder what my chances are of getting that open peg?

Good an answer as any I guess. That and they certainly do a difficult job quite well...Geo

Ahem! No NHL? WTF?


___________________
Five for Fighting.

___________________
Igor Larionov. one of my all time favorites. i'll curry some favor with the Russians.

JohnfromUK, you are obviously an educated man and while I agree there are many things wrong with the European project the rumors of it’s demise are premature. People have been saying the same stuff since the start but it just keeps getting bigger. There’s good reasons why the richer countries are ready, grudgingly, to bail out the goofs. They remember what went before. Britain hasn’t had foreign troops invade since the Norman conquest. I’ve lived in England and traveled there a good bit. I know exactly why the leavers voted as they did. Just a short walk around Londonistan or any of the other Stans in the Midlands will show why. I think the Brits were happier with the Normans.

If jeremy corbyn gets into power in the uk, then game shooting will be the least of the worries. He is a full on marxist who has never had a job outside parliament, consorts with very dubious people like the ira and hezbollah (they are not terrorists, but freedom fighters), and class warfare, banning "bloodsports", including game shooting.

I am right in thinking he had a strict vegan as his shadow minister of agriculture, and he himself was a member of lacs (league against cruel sports).

I'm no monarchist, Geo, not by a long shot, but I admire the royal family for always putting its members in the front lines when the shooting starts. I also admire the way Elizabeth does her job with quiet assurance.

Oy, careful, King

You’re skating on thin ice. The Party is liable to snatch your necklace back.

I kinda like the Queen too. I bet you get a couple Jezy shots in ‘er she’s a pretty fun gal.


_________________
It came to a heavy blow, but we got the matter sorted out. Roger Waters

That may be the reason for some people - however for many it is being subject to a multiplicity of petty rules (we can no longer buy filament incandescent light bulbs, vacuum cleaners over a certain Wattage etc.) and the 'European human rights court' which prevented us jailing/expelling certain terrorist organisers. overall, it is the loss of control (of many aspects of our lives including immigration) to an overseas unelected body (the European Commission) that tipped the balance (my opinion).

This is certainly true

This has been one rare posting. I think one of you guys with enough money should pay to have this published in the London Times. It covered a lot of ground, some of which actually made sense.
From the viewpoint of a Yank, I'm only sure of two things. Everyone in Europe wants to be in charge of making money. As soon as there's a war everyone in Europe wants America and Great Britain to fight it.

If we want to eliminate or control ISIS backing Hezbollah may not actually be as bad an idea as one may believe.

Been drinking the Obama koolaid much? New sheriff in town.

Why isn't there a like button!!

Want to control ISIS, bomb them, and every other radical Islam group out of existence.

TM

Been off air for a few days. Read the first page about grouse shooting but not all the following comments. Each and every paragraph in that article is, I can assure you, complete and utter rubbish. Lagopus.....

Consider the source Lagopus. The WAPO is good for fish wrap or a trip to the woods, not much more.

Its good for the dogs also.

The problem with that, TM, is this: the smart ones (unlike ISIS, forced to hold ground once they declared themselves the new caliphate) don't tend to make very good bombing targets. Hard enough to take them out in small numbers with very precise guided weapons, like missiles fired from drones. They don't often gather in bunches where we can find and hit them. Bin Laden was not surrounded by other AQ types when we hit him. He was hiding, somewhat in plain sight, but not with a bunch of his gunmen.

Having ISIS around is kind of useful to our government. I mean they can tells us there is terrorist infiltration in certain country they can send troops in there to prop up the government there and at the same time keep Chinese interests out of that country and region. Next stop the African continent.
Going back to the original point I do not think fields sports are going anywhere in the United Kingdom. The anti-hunting groups are present in just about any country in EU. Flipping thorough pages of the Field, Sporting Gun, and Shooting Gazette seems to indicate there is plenty of shoots going around including exciting sport of wood pigeon shooting.

I’ll bite my tongue to stay on topic regarding the illusion of ISIS....I would offer up what happened to fox hunting in the U.K. Who would have believed that would have been taken from country people who participated in it for generations. It could easily happen to hunting. Do not think otherwise. Numerous states in the US have made hunting a right in their respective constitutions. Common folk need to be vigilant because some lib somewhere will look down their Ivy League nose and tut tut about the clingers hanging on to their old ways. Radicals care nothing for tradition, or the common law, if it does not serve their purposes. But I guess you knew that already.

That's mostly true, but bombing their factors in the middle of the night when no one is there certainly doesn't help either.

I have always found the word ‘Europe’ on the lips of those who wanted something from others which they dare not demand in their own names. Otto von Bismarck


___________________
The more things change, eh?