The nutters at Animal Aid, however, are trying to claim it as a victory. 'Government welfare body attacks gamebird battery cages' shrills their press release.
Indeed it does – it attacks the cages that Britain's game farms don't use, because long ago we looked at what some continental game farmers were doing and didn't like it.
So do Animal Aid just not know how gamebirds are reared in Britain, or are they being devious and disingenuous?
I'm going for the latter – not least because their press release is littered with more lies, distortions and half-truths. Such as: "gamebirds are not produced for food" (a lie), "the majority of the birds are not even eaten" (a lie), and "nearly forty million [gamebirds] are factory-farmed each year" (a lie).
Does anyone take these histrionics seriously? I do hope not.
13 comments:
Poor James! Don't you realise that if the FAWC has condemned the cages and recommended the government ban them within 5 years that they exist? The largest game farms in Britain use them - and they can only be described as game bird factories. Bettws Hall Hatcheries, Hy-Fly Game are the two biggest and there are others like Heart of England and Pye Hill. Over 40 million game birds are produced each year in Britain and only 7.92 million are sold to game dealers. Please read your industry's own PACEC report "Shooting Facts". The birds are not produced as food, they are produced as targets for sport. Two decisions in the House of Lords, the highest court in the land, have confirmed that they are purpose-bred for sport, not food. The BASC condemned the cages when it saw Animal Aid evidence in 2004 but still advertises cage breeders in its website Trade Directory over 4 years later. Really - I expected more knowledge from an editor! Please join the same club as Will Hetherington of the Shooting Gazette who thinks that shot game birds are organic food.
At last some intelligent criticism rather than the usual anti rant! Even this is misleading though. Raymond at Hy-Fly, for instance, produces only a fraction of his eggs in the cage system, last I heard it was partridges only and those in the 'enriched' type of cage. Personally I'm not keen on those either, although the Animal Aid film made much of the birds jumping against the wire when it was their own camera operator who was scaring the birds into doing so! It would be a miracle if you released 40m gamebirds and they all ended up on the table - what would the foxes eat?! For food or for sport... does the pheasant care? Fact is they're bred for both, live most of their lives as the ultimate 'free range' bird, and bring valuable extra revenue & food from farm land without detracting from its ability to produce arable crops. Welfare? I'd rather be born a pheasant than a chicken. There really is no welfare issue here. It's all about class hatred. Misguided at that. You should meet some of the decent, ordinary, working people who go shooting.
James, did you think that the opposition to shooting was unintelligent? Is that why you described the dedicated people in Animal Aid as 'nutters'? And are you easy when accusing the antis of rant? Editors have responsibility which should be imparted with dignity.
First you say that there are no cages in Britain, now you say that the last you heard, Hy Fly has cages but enriched for partridges only. You also accept that if shooting is about the production of food, it is deliberately wasteful. You claim to be doing the foxes a favour. But Barney Stratton of the GWCT Council writing in the Shooting Times claims that it costs between £27.50 and £32 to breed,raise and present a pheasant for shooting. If it's about the production of food why sell the shot carcass for less than 50 pence to game dealers? Pheasants do not spend most of their lives as free-range birds. They are placed in release enclosures at 7 weeks, are allowed to become feral at 12 weeks and start getting shot at 16 weeks. Most die of starvation, disease, predation, wounding by bad shooting and misadventure. That is why another 35 million are released the following year with a best chance of only 40 per cent being recovered by shooting. You compare pheasants with chickens. It's all immensely cruel James. I just believe that the decent, ordinary, working people who go shooting have either not really thought enough about what they are doing - or like you, have inadequate knowledge of what really goes on. It's not about class James. I would gladly have you as a guest at my dinner party - but only if you could sensibly argue your issues.
Not surprisingly I receive a fair amount of anti-shooting comment, and most of it reads like a playground tantrum (check out the comments on my youtube channel for instance). To be fair, however, I also know a good many pleasant, intelligent people who simply don't like the idea of shooting. Fair enough, that's their opinion - I don't preach at them but if they want to discuss it I'm happy to.
The food thing is a red herring. No-one is trying to justify shooting because they're starving. We enjoy going shooting, and everything associated with it. And at the end of the day, it's right and proper that the birds are eaten, and they do taste very good.
I'm confused by your claims of 'cruelty' though. What exactly is cruel? Breeding birds? Letting them go in the countryside? In my book (and the dictionary), cruelty is deliberately inflicting pain or suffering, something that shooters simply don't do.
I suspect what bothers you is that we enjoy going shooting, otherwise you'd be having this argument with people who work in abbatoirs.
I often find that what people really object to is what they imagine goes through a shooter's mind when he shoots something. Which says more about them than it does about shooters.
James,when you ask what is cruel about shooting, I understand that you really don't get it at all. You haven't received rational opposing argument in this blog before either.
The cages are cruel. They exist. That is why the BASC has railed against them. It says that they have no future in the sport. The notion of deliberately breeding a creature to kill it for pleasure and derive the thrill that comes from the killing power of a gun is cruel. As you say the food thing is a red herring but it is your red herring. Releasing an artificially bred bird into the harsh British winter and environment with little chance of surviving and breeding is cruel. Feeding it until the end of the shooting season and then abandoning it is cruel. Blowing a whistle every day to create a routine, then next beating it over the guns is cruel. Wounding and not recovering 40 per cent of those birds seen to be hit is cruel. Using a spread shot cartridge that gives the best chance of a hit but a variable chance of a kill is cruel. Snaring, shooting, poisoning and trapping every indigenous creature that gets in the way of your sport is cruel. Attracting and creating predator colonies with unnatural prey releases is cruel. It is all cruel because it is unnecessary cruelty.
But I see your angry and abusive language against opponents is softening. Are you now ready to agree that the cages are not a lie; that it is not a lie to say that the majority of the birds are not eaten; that the birds for your sport are produced in factory conditions both in the UK and in France where the majority of shot British birds originate as chicks, poults and eggs?
Yes, I thought you were confused about cruelty. A "notion" cannot be cruel. Even "deriving the thrill that comes from the killing power of a gun" would not be cruel (if it were true). Blowing a whistle, etc, etc, is not cruelty. It's just something that you don't like the idea of. There's a difference.
Where do you get your facts from? 40% wounded and not recovered? Shooting, snaring, poisoning and trapping every indigenous creature? Have you ever been on a shoot? Try it, you might enjoy the experience. It would certainly correct some of your misconceptions.
I can accept that you don't like the idea of people shooting, but to attack it in the way you do is pure bigotry.
In May 2007, a former BASC Training Officer was appealing against his enforced redundancy at a Shrewsbury tribunal. He gave this evidence under oath: The BASC was irritated that the League Against Cruel Sports had published a claim that up to 30 per cent of game birds at shoots were only wounded and not recovered. The BASC held its own trial. A number of shoots were attended and the former training officer was one of those issued with an event recorder to obtain results. The BASC was disappointed to confirm that up to 40 per cent of those birds seen to be hit were not recovered. The implication was clear, these birds went off to die a predator-prone death elsewhere. According to the witness, the BASC supressed the results. The BASC was in attendance and represented at the tribunal. It did not challenge the witness' evidence.
But even more seriously James,are you still in denial? Do you not accept that gamekeepers and shoot operators snare, shoot and trap what they consider vermin - that is every creature considered injurious to game? Do you not read the reports of successful prosecutions of gamekeepers involved in the poisoning of raptors and the clubbing of badgers? Are you not aware that a SCottish landlord recently lost £107,000 of agricultural subsidy because the Scottish Assembly decided to get tough with shoot environmental malpractice? There are no lies, distortions or half-truths in my narrative as you have alleged for other shooting opponents. I just want you to accept what you refuse to believe.
I don't think anyone is denying vermin control. Why would they? Does anyone other than animal rights extremists suggest that we should let rats and cockroaches infest our houses? Would you refuse antibiotics if you had an infection? Bacteria have rights too, you know.
And you don't want to believe all the propaganda you hear about gamekeepers poisoning this that and the other. I've no doubt there's the odd bad apple, as in any group of people. But that's no reason to condemn the lot, any more than you'd condemn the entire police force over one bent copper. That would amount to distortions and half-truths, and we wouldn't want that, would we?
Incidentally, for anyone following this discussion (and do feel free to chip in, for or against), Holly at Norcal Cazadora has an interesting post about the common ground between hunters and conservationists here »
James, Like John Sergeant I am going to step out of this as the silliness begins. Frankly, I have better things to do and bigger fish to fry. We will agree to differ. You will not accept reason as you will not accept that the cages and factory farming exist in largesse within the shooting industry. The government did and instructed the FAWC to investigate. The BASC did and still condemns the method.
At least you are now using moderated language, and with me at least, your intolerance and abuse has not re-surfaced.
This is not a last goodbye - you and your blog clearly require supervision.
I am sorry James. Its me again. And so soon after I said goodbye.
Do you remember saying this only a few posts ago? "Raymond at Hy-Fly, for instance, produces only a fraction of his eggs in the cage system, last I heard it was partridges only and those in the 'enriched' type of cage".
The following extracts are from the latest BBC Countryfile Magazine:
"In a windswept field on the coast of Lancashire lies a scene straight out of a science-fiction movie. Row upon row of steel cages form parallel lines as far as the eye can see. Raised up high on metal legs, the wire surfaces offer little protection against the elements.....And that's where game farmers like Ray Holden come in. "Its battery egg farming, but there's nothing wrong with battery farming; battery eggs are more sterile says Ray defiantly. I am perfectly happy with the way my birds are kept."..... He's an advocate of raised laying cages, and thousands of them dominate the land around his home. One field alone houses 24,000 birds.....many cages are barren despite the GFA recommendations to enrich them.... Ray cites infection as the reason he doesn't enrich his cages. "For me, un-enriched cages have been proven as the disease-free system," he says.....People want cheap eggs, and if they don't get birds from us, they'll get them from France. Shooters just want a commodity for as cheap as they can get it. And that's what we want to provide.
But you won't eat humble pie will you James? You are not even on top of your job. When Prince Philip advanced towards you at the BASC Centenary dinner with his hand outstretched, I am not surprised you could think of nothing to say except "Good Evening!"
Countryfile magazine is available here: http://www.bbccountryfile.com/CurrentIssue.asp
Gosh, I'd better watch my step then. Next time perhaps he'll have the guts to step out from behind his alias.
Hmm, comments got out of sync there.
Yes, I have a copy of Countryfile, and I've read the article. Pretty much what you'd expect from them - feelgood waffle for the urban bunny-huggers.
I'm bored with you. I thought you wanted a discussion, but you don't. You just want to keep flinging mud in the hope that some sticks. You are willfully blind to any good in any shooter anywhere.
When you're prepared to put forward your suggestions for how people feed themselves, control pests and diseases, and handle all the other innumerable interactions between man and nature, then feel free to come back, under your real name.
Until then, go and troll someone else's blog.
Post a Comment