Our Game Fair issue

We've taken delivery of our office copies of the CLA Game Fair issue - and it's a stunner!

I particularly like the cover photo, and the absence of the red strip at the top - I think the white 'Sporting Shooter' on top of the photo just looks altogether better and does this outstanding photo (by Don Brunt) justice. I reckon the content this month is some of our best ever too, but then I would say that wouldn't I?!

It should be in the shops by the weekend - I'd be interested to hear your comments and feedback.

Another lapse of judgement by David Taylor MP

David Taylor, MP for North West Leicestershire, had to admit that some of his expenses claims showed a "lack of judgement", and cashed in an ISA to pay back £8,003.

In another staggering lapse of judgement, he is sponsoring this Early Day Motion, spoon-fed to him by the antis, ranting about game shooting and supposed "suffering", pest control, cartridge cases and "disruption to native wildlife".

His website promises his constituents: "Whether you voted for me or not, I’m here to represent you and the best interests of our local area to the best of my ability." Has he forgotten to consult the hundreds of shooters, keepers and others working in related industries in his constituency before supporting this inane bit of anti propaganda? Has he even bothered to look into the positive benefits of shooting (check out the links in the right-hand column of this blog).

If you're a constituent of his, you may like to remind him of his responsibilities - contact details here.

If you're not a constituent of his, write to your MP pointing out how stupid they would look if they were to sign it.

Be afraid!

You'd expect alarmist, misleading nonsense from the League Against Cruel Sprouts. And their risible anti-snaring campaign doesn't disappoint.

"Norfolk pet owners warned of snare danger" screams their latest press release - which highlights a handful of cases where pets were killed or injured in illegal snares, and then calls for a ban on legal snares. Because the people who're already breaking the law will immediately stop when something else is banned, won't they?

You might hope for a more responsible approach from the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, though, what with them being a registered charity, patron The Queen, etc. Nah. They've jumped squarely on the anti-airgun bandwagon with a misleading and alarmist release: "Surge of air gun attacks feared" which makes no mention of legitimate, responsible airgun use and calls for "anyone who witnesses an air gun attack on an animal" to call the RSPCA "24-hour cruelty and advice line" - virtually guaranteeing conflict between well meaning members of the public and legitimate pest controllers. By remarkable coincidence, this is released at a time when Scottish ministers are seeking the power to ban airguns.

If I was thinking of donating money to the RSPCA, I'd want to know just how much of my donation would be spent on expensive spin-doctors and lobbyists, and how much on actually helping the unfortunate animals that are entrusted to their care.

According to their latest Trustees Report, there were 143,501 animals "collected: rescued/signed over/seized" in 2008, of which so far as I can see 60,203 were killed - including an unspecified number killed "with great reluctance when there is no reasonably possibility of rehoming" - ie they were perfectly healthy but an expensive inconvenience.

In fact, glancing through the spending breakdown on p13 of the report, it's clear that they're spending proportionately less on animal establishments, and hugely more on turning themselves into a bossy 'Animal Police'.

Hello Mum!

Well fancy that, here's me on the telly. Almost - this is a short programme produced by FieldsportsChannel.tv, which you can view online but not yet on the actual TV. It's a behind-the-scenes look at how we produce Sporting Shooter each month.

Also featured are Harriet and Rebecca hard at work in the office (while I swan about chatting to TV crews), our celebrity chef Mark Gilchrist, Chloe Finch from the Countryside Alliance, and Ian Spicer of Red Deer Outdoors.

Apparently I have "the best job in the world", or so presenter Charlie Jacoby says. Well, who am I to argue? Watch it and decide for yourself!

Scotland's deer & non-lead bullets

Shooters are still trying to work out whether they're for or against the latest document on Scotland's deer, wDNA: Scotland's Wild Deer, A National Approach [downloadable as a pdf here]. At least it appears to recognise the value of wild venison to the rural economy. On the other hand, there are some alarming comments - not least (as Andy Richardson pointed out to me) this reference on p7 to 'assessing the effectiveness of non-toxic bullets':


Do they know something they're not telling us?

The price of animal rights

Terrierman has an interesting post about some research in the US, looking into the cost to the public if hunting and trapping didn't exist.

Basically, it would mean 50,000 more injuries amd $3.8bn repair bills per year due to road traffic accidents, additional healthcare costs of $12.45bn p.a. for rabies alone, and $972m in damage to homes by pest species.

If hunters didn't control wildlife for free, it would cost the government up to $9.3bn to control whitetail deer alone!

Fascinating reading - I wonder if anyone's done the equivalent calculations for the UK.

Iranian rabbit problem?

You'd think that Iranians had plenty on their mind at the moment, with the upheaval in their country brought home by this poignant video of the last seconds of Neda, a protester shot in Tehran.

Oddly, the counter on this site shows an ever increasing number of visitors from Iran, looking at this post about Danny Sumpter's preferred method of snaring rabbits. The diagram of how to set the snare is particularly popular.

Is there a specially bad rabbit problem in Iran, or is there something else going on here? If you have any information, do let me know.

Nice one Jake

A while back I got the following email:

hi my name is Jake on june the 7 2009 i killed my first rabbit with my weihrauch hw95 air rifle .22 cal. when i went there were there were not that many rabbits so please can you tell me what is the best time to go rabbit hunting throw the day and also when i go rabbit hunting is it crusial to were camo

Now you could write a book (or produce a 70-min dvd!) on that lot, but I did get back to him with what I hoped were some useful pointers:

Hi Jake, 

Well done on your first rabbit! If you have a photo you could send it in to Sporting Shooter, and we may use it in the mag.  The best times to see rabbits are at first light and last thing in the evening. The weather makes a difference too - they generally don't like heavy rain, for instance. Sometimes it's best to hide up in a hedge or etc near the holes, and wait for them to come out. Make sure you wait downwind of the holes so they don't scent you, and let them get a few yards from the holes before firing, in case they kick themselves back in.  Camo isn't essential, although it helps. Muted colours are ok. The thing that really catches their eye is movement. Try not to be silhouetted against a clear background (especially the sky), and make very slow movements if you are in view. Watch the rabbits for signs of alarm, and freeze if they look up.  Hope this helps - let us know how you get on.  Best wishes,  James  

...I'd forgotten all about it - and then today I received this:

Hi its me Jake again, thanks for the tips there really good and helpful. Also here is a picture of the rabbit i shot :) i sent all the pictures just incase you like one of them. If you do happen to put one of them in a magazine please can you tell me what the magizine is called and what issue it will be.  Thanks so much for the tips.

Nice one Jake!

Don't swat flies, say antis

Fruitloop antis are criticising US president Obama for swatting a fly on TV.

“We support compassion for the even the smallest animals," says Bruce Friedrich, VP for Policy at PETA.

The organisation has sent Obama a 'humane' fly trap, and sounds slightly miffed that they haven't had a thank-you note yet!

BBC website: 10 ways to swat a fly >

Is this for real?

This newspaper clipping is doing the email rounds - but no-one seems to know where it came from. Is it for real? I can well believe it.

Only slightly less naive is this statement:

"Our vision is to work for a world in which all humans respect and live in harmony with all other members of the animal kingdom"

A Miss World contestant? No, it's the RSPCA - in a recruitment ad for a 'Major Donor and Trust Account Manager' earning £31,500 to "be involved in the full donor lifecycle, further developing cases for support for all programmes including animal centres, hospitals and education programmes; researching donors and charitable trusts; coordinating cultivation events and building relationships with existing and potential donors".

Ferret breakout!

Went to feed the ferrets this morning - and this was the scene. The rascals had been busy through the night, and burrowed under the wire.

The most likely hiding place was under the garden shed, and a bit of basic tracking confirmed that something was under there, so I set a live-catch mink trap baited with a few bits of ferret food, and went to have a cup of tea. Shortly afterwards...

Three back in their (newly secured) hutch, one to go...

UPDATE: This morning, I opened up the hutch and look who had sneaked back in (evading all my carefully laid traps along the way):

So that's it, all home safe and sound. She was tucked up in the bed, fast asleep, and looked at me a bit surprised. Now I just have to fix that hole...

UPDATE: This should fix it - I've filled in the hole with concrete!

Threat to lead shot & bullets

I'm hearing rumours of an imminent threat to the use of lead shot and bullets in Britain. My sources suggest there may be moves to set this one rolling in parliament sooner rather than later.

Perhaps it's coincidence that I've recently had a press release from CIC, the International Council for Game and Wildlife Conservation, announcing that the council has adopted a recommendation to phase out the use of lead shot. This is a strongly pro-hunting organisation, and they're waving a white flag over our use of lead for shooting.

There's no doubt that an attempt to ban lead is coming, as I've mentioned before here and here. One Deborah Pain (insert wry comment here), of the Wildfowl & Wetlands Trust at Slimbridge, presented a paper at the recent Peregrine Fund conference in the USA on the 'Ingestion of Spent Lead Ammunition: Implications for Wildlife & Humans'. This is a well-funded gravy-train for hundreds of scientists and delegates to whip up a scare about lead residues in shot game, then put themselves forward as the solution. For some of them, it will see them comfortably into retirement and beyond, all the while patting themselves on the back for being the next Erin Brockovich. Their campaigning has already led to an all-out ban on lead ammunition across the range of the Condor in California and adjacent states. Yank hunters are finding the copper-based alternatives less than satisfactory. Actual benefits to wildlife, humans and the environment are hard to spot.

It's not hard to spot where Ms Pain is coming from: "birds eat lead from ammunition or ammunition fragments, suffer sub-lethal effects and mortality from lead poisoning - in their millions," states her commentary [pdf here] from the conference proceedings. She continues: "To guarantee a significant reduction in the risk to birds a phase out of the use of lead with the goal of complete elimination is needed."

And did she come home to Slimbridge and promptly forget all about it? I somehow doubt it. Trust me, this one is coming to bite us sooner or later. Are our shooting organisations ready? I hope so.

Disgusted of Wigan writes...

I'm adding to this as the email conversation continues. It's long, but worth reading as an insight into the warped minds of the antis. Here is someone who professes to hate cruelty but wants to wipe farmers, shooters etc off the face of the earth, and feed people to lions. Her solution to wildlife management appears to involve darting and castrating all male deer, and darting and catching foxes to put collars with little bells on them, to warn fluffy prey species they're coming [correction, apparently that isn't what she meant, although she doesn't explain what her solution did involve, and now I've been horrid she isn't talking to me any more]. It really is incredible that politicians and law-makers give these people the time of day. Anyway, read on and weep...

Incidentally, a quick web search for the name "Sonja Talboys" throws up loads of online petition signatures, together with this picture, at the Mustard Casting Agency in Bristol. Maybe it's her, maybe it's someone else.

From: sonjatalboys@xxxxx.co.uk
Subject:What a disgrace
Date: 4 June 2009 17:31:40 BDT
To: news@sportingshooter.co.uk

I was in a certain book store and out of curiosity picked up your magazine Sporting Shooter and I have to say I was absolutely disgusted at the contents. How can anybody in their right mind and with an ounce of decency write such horendous stuff. What you write about amounts to telling people how to murder poor defenceless animals you really are the scum of the earth and in my opinion people like you who write about this crap and people who actually do it should be wiped off the planet because you obviously have sick minds. Quite a lot of people have now complained to the store selling your magazine and hope they will consider stopping selling it. S Talboys

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

From: James Marchington
Subject: Re: What a disgrace
To: "Sonja Talboys"
Date: Thursday, 4 June, 2009, 8:44 PM

Dear Sonja,
Thanks for your email. I respect your view, although as you might expect I don't agree. If you investigate a little further, you'll find that our readers are passionate about conservation and the killing that you dislike is part of a carefully planned management and harvesting of natural resources that results in great benefits for wildlife and biodiversity. I take it you are against any type of meat-eating, since that inevitably means killing animals; but even if everyone was to turn vegan there would still be a need to manage wild animal populations to prevent environmental disaster. People who oppose shooting often imagine something sick and twisted going on in the head of those who shoot; I can only say that they are wrong, and this says more about them than it does about the shooter. If you are interested in the subject generally, I do urge you to investigate further - there is much more to it than meets the eye.
Regards,
James

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

From: sonjatalboys@xxxxx.co.uk
Subject: Re: What a disgrace
Date: 4 June 2009 22:19:59 BDT
To: james.marchington@archant.co.uk

This is a load of bullshit the wild life is quite capable of looking after itself and it has been proved with foxes the more you kill the more they breed leave the wild life to itself they do not need the human race to go and have a good day out shooting them or snaring them which is very very cruel do you approve of that?? Grouse and Pheasant are bred specifically for shooting so don't tell me that is right that certainly is not managing the wild .life that is just days out for perverts who simply like killing. Yes it is true I do not eat meat or fish or dairy products I do not wear leather or suede and there is nothing in my cottage that is tested on animals I have loads of animals all from people who have been cruel to them and they including my 6 dogs are veggie and may I add are all extremly fit and healthy and have always lived long lives as I have been taking in cruelty and unwanted cases for many many years so don't tell me shooting in necessary I know different. Also while writing this to you may I point out that the hunting bregade are always breaking the law and a lot have been prosecuted these sort of people think they are above the law and all they are are cowards with guns and dogs chasing one little animal how you can defend this I really don't know and I hope your magazine is stopped at the shops as it is very offensive.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

From: James Marchington
Subject: Re: What a disgrace
To: "Sonja Talboys"
Date: 4 June 2009 22:31:59 BDT

Good heavens, you are a very angry person, full of hatred for people you don't know and don't understand and don't want to understand. Well, I am not going to change your views, am I. Live and let live. I trust when your dogs get fleas you will not kill the poor little creatures with poison.
Sincerely,
James

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

From: sonjatalboys@xxxxx.co.uk
Subject: Re: What a disgrace
Date: 4 June 2009 23:14 BDT
To: james.marchington@archant.co.uk

Yes I do get very angry at people like you and believe me over many years I have learnt a lot about what goes on in the country side I live in it. I have looked into what you call management and so far have come up with nothing to change my mind. Also may I add my dogs have never had fleas they are regularly bathed in shampoo that is not tested on animals I would not use anything like you suggest on them do you honestly think someone like me who cares deeply for animals could do that. Well don't think there is any point carrying on with this conversation neither one of us will change our views but at least I have a clear conscience. I have had many a debate with your kind over the years and they never win they can never answer all my questions I put to them like you did not answer the question about snaring and the unlawfull hunting idiots.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

From: James Marchington
Subject: Re: What a disgrace
To: "Sonja Talboys"
Date: Friday, 5 June, 2009, 7:57 AM

Dear Sonja,

I didn't think that was a question; it seemed like straightforward abuse. In fact the Hunting Act is a bad law, and the prosecutions have been negligible - the police have now stated that they are not even going to try to enforce it, and there's every chance it will be repealed in the next parliament.

Snaring, done properly, can be an extremely targeted and humane way to catch animals such as foxes. It is the preferred method of scientists who need to catch foxes, fit them with radio tracking tags, and release them alive and unharmed. It is also possible for idiots to make a horrendous mess of setting a snare, and cause suffering - the challenge is to minimise this without throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

There are unpleasant people in all walks of life. Some of the things done in the name of animal rights/welfare have been pure evil, but I don't think that detracts from the arguments on that side. Likewise, a few keepers have been caught poisoning birds of prey, a disgusting act which I deplore; it doesn't make all shooters evil.

It's my belief that it is perfectly natural for humans to eat meat, and the inevitable killing is ok. We, like other predators, have been doing it for a very long time. My conscience is clear on that one. I acknowledge that you disagree and you've every right to do so. I don't believe it's right, however, for you to impose your moral code on everyone, and I don't like the way you revile people who choose a different way as "sick", "perverts", "cruel", etc. Do you hate people who work on farms, in slaughterhouses and butchers shops? Would you like them "wiped off the planet". Or is it that you hate what you imagine to be the motivation of people who hunt, shoot and fish?

Watching Springwatch on the TV recently, I am reminded that it is nonsense to talk of animals as "innocent", "defenceless", "cruel" etc. They are all engaged in a daily battle to eat or be eaten, they hold no grudges and make no judgements, they do not worry about future events like we do, and they do not dwell on the past. In the natural world, our abstract notions of right and wrong mean nothing. When we try to impose our way of thinking on animals, we tie ourselves in metaphysical knots.

Well, as you say, I won't change your view. But I would like you to acknowledge that it is possible to be a perfectly decent, thoughtful human being and still take part in activities that result in wild animals being killed and eaten.

Regards,

James

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

From: sonjatalboys@xxxxx.co.uk
Subject: Re: What a disgrace
Date: 5 June 2009 12:30:20 BDT
To: james.marchington@archant.co.uk

As far as the hunting law goes it should have been an outright ban and as far as the police are concerned they have to uphold the law I shall be speaking to someone in a minute. These people who hunt are evil people when we were doing some monitoring we were attacked with crops charged at with horses if you could have seen the pure evil on the hunt peoples faces it was quite scary but would not put me off. You also brought up Spring Watch that I do not have a problem with the wild life take their chances with each other thats the way they live it is not necessary for the human race to get involved leave the wild life alone they would survive long aftere the human race has gone. As far as people working in slaughterhouses well I just can't imagine what sort of people they are well yes I can again evil people who like killing and some of these people are very abusive to the animals who are very frightened they have no respect for the animal at all I would like to see them put in a lions den and see the fear on their faces. Butchers I have no time for either. I do not dictate to people who want to eat meat it is up to them but most of my friends don't eat meat. I am dealing with cruelty cases on an almost daily basis and it does make you very angry as the law is an ass in this country regarding animals and WILL be changed. If you new the half of what does on you would understand why I am so passionate at stopping any kind of cruelty. S Talboys

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

From: James Marchington
Subject: Re: What a disgrace
To: "Sonja Talboys"
Date: Friday, 5 June, 2009, 21:41 PM

I can see that you feel passionately about wildlife, and abhor cruelty. No doubt you will find it hard to believe that I feel the same way. The crucial difference, I believe, is that my view is more pragmatic. I accept, for instance, that the British countryside and wildlife that we love has come about through man's actions. If we stop acting to protect it, many valuable habitats and species will be lost. This is not opinion, it is fact, otherwise why would the RSPB mow heather and kill predators on their reserves?

I too have experienced conflict between hunts and "monitors" (and we all know what that means); it is an ugly confrontation that brings out the worst in both sides. The air is full of hate, and the fox and its welfare have little to do with it.

It is this hate that worries me. If I stalk a deer and shoot it, that deer has lived the best possible life, does not suffer or even hear the bullet that kills it instantly and painlessly; it becomes meat which is used and appreciated. I take pride and satisfaction in doing the job well, and causing no suffering. I could not abide to see someone mistreat a dog, and will stop to put an end to the suffering of an animal hit by a car on the road. And yet you hate me and wish bad things to happen to me. You say you don't like cruelty, yet your language is full of the cruelty you would like to do to human beings?!

You "can't imagine what sort of people these are", then you go right ahead and imagine, and hate what you cook up in your head. It's all too simplistic. I'm right with you on preventing genuine cruelty, but you lose me as soon as you start hating (and wishing harm to) entire groups of people for what you imagine them to be.

James

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

From: sonjatalboys@xxxxx.co.uk
Subject: Re: What a disgrace
Date: 7 June 2009 18:25:25 BDT
To: james.marchington@archant.co.uk

Yes it'sme again. What is it you surposedly do to help the countryside and wild life? The wild life kill each other so surely they do not need intervention of the human race. The foxes keep the rabbit population down yet people still go out shooting rabbits and people hunt foxes why???Because they are blood thirtsy people and enjoy it I heard this direct from someone once. The wild life are not stupid and over breed unlike the human race they certainly do. You also say that my language is full of cruelty yes that is so but only towards PEOPLE who HURT any animal or bird etc in any way. I yearn to live a peacefull life and not have on a daily basis be dealing with cruelty cases it is very upsetting. Now this is important on Saturday yesterday a jack russell dog was found caught in a snare near where I live the police rspca and a vet were called out the dog was ok but had to have it's leg amputated it did not have a collar or chip so when recovered from opp it will be coming to me while we try and find the irresponsible owner and pity help them also who ever laid the snare. Yet you say snares are OK you should have seen the state of this dog and the pain it must have suffered so any wild animal would suffer the same I hope snares will be made illegal one day (not that the law matters to some). Also I do know what people who want to kill and do are like I have met plenty in my time and especially the pompous hunting brigade they just love chasing and killing they are obsessed. Also people who test on animals in my opinion are pure evil what they do is horendous and totally unnecessary if you can do a job like that you must have a sadistic nature. All I can say is anyone who has made an animal suffer I hope sometime in their life they suffer really badly then they will understand what the animals have gone through it is wrong to take the life of an animal unless sick and in pain certainly not a healthy one.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

From: James Marchington
Subject: Re: What a disgrace
To: "Sonja Talboys"
Date: 8 June 2009 23:04:58 BDT

Dear Sonja,

I can understand how upsetting it is to be confronted with cruelty cases on a daily basis, and the sort of case you describe does shooting no favours at all. Every shooter I know would be equally appalled at the dog's suffering. It's important to realise that 'shooters', 'hunters', etc are broad definitions like 'dog owners' or 'car drivers'. If one dog owner is cruel, it doesn't follow that all dog owners are evil. I've no doubt that there are some people out there who shoot, and who fall well short of the standards expected.

It's apparent in other walks of life that laws tend to affect the already law-abiding majority, and are ignored by the lawless. Bans are rarely a real solution. To take my dog-owner analogy a step further, one might suggest banning dog ownership as a solution to cruelty - result: millions of responsible dog-owners would suffer, and the irresponsible would carry on as before. We need to look beyond the knee-jerk reaction for real practical ways to make a difference.

People involved in shooting, fishing, hunting, etc have tended to be at the forefront of conservation work in the past (it was shooters who first highlighted the alarming decline of farmland birds, for example) and continue to shape and care for the countryside we know and love today. For examples, you could look at the BASC Green Shoots programme, and the work of the GWCT. I know this is often derided as 'greenwash' but facts are facts: shooters really do spend £250million a year on conservation, and help to manage 2/3 of Britain's rural land area (more at www.shootingfacts.co.uk). The vast majority of shooters are not rural hooligans wandering round blasting off at anything they see. They are deeply interested in the countryside and the environment, and take seriously their responsibility to manage it for future generations - at least that is my experience; undoubtedly there are bad examples as well as good.

I have very limited knowledge of animal testing, although I was involved with some animal experiments when I was studying at university (nothing that could be considered cruel - eg one involved measuring the testicles of rams and looking for a correlation with fecundity; the rams didn't seem to mind!). From my limited experience, however, I certainly wouldn't describe the people involved as 'sadists', quite the reverse.

It's important not to confuse killing with cruelty. If a vet puts down a sick animal that is not cruelty. I would argue that killing an animal for meat is not inherently cruel, so long as it is done painlessly and with respect for the animal. I understand that you don't agree with humans killing for food, but that is miles apart from deliberately inflicting pain and suffering.

I'm afraid that your 'anti' stance will pretty much guarantee you a frosty reception among any group of country sports people, just as I would not be well received by a group of hunt monitors etc. However, I would urge you to persevere and try to find out more about what makes shooters tick - I honestly believe you would be pleasantly surprised.

James

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

From: sonjatalboys@xxxxx.co.uk
Subject: Re: What a disgrace
Date: 10 June 2009 17:45:12 BDT
To: james.marchington@archant.co.uk

I am sure some people who shoot are not all evil you do sound quite nice but I still disagree with you on killing unless of course the animal is suffering and nothing can be done for it I also believe this should be allowed with the human race as well. But people who hunt with horses and dogs are pure evil very pompous arrogant and down right nasty people and I will never feel any differently about them. You say when you shoot its a clean shot and the animal does not suffer but that does not always happen I have taken in loads of animals and birds with gunshot wounds. But hunting foxes and deers with dogs is disgusting chasing them till they are exhausted and frightened and then torn appart these are the sort of people I would like to put in a lions den with the lions of course. You talk about dog ownership that is nothing to do with blood sports. Anyone who is cruel to a dog or any animal should be banned from ever from having an animal also prosecuted and a long jail sentence the law is an ass in this country it should be same for cruelty to animals as it is for children. Don't tell me you don't know what goes on in labs with animal testing there has been enough in the media with Animal Rights (Iam a member) an example "Proctor and Gamble" test for Herbal Essences shampoo they place the animal which is pregnant in a wire cage which gives them foot ulcers and other injuries every 2 weeks a chemical that goes in the shampoo is poured through a tube forced down the throat and just before they give birth the animal suffers a painfull and terrifying death in a carbon dioxide gas chamber and hundreds of babies were dismembered this is totally unnecessary as you can buy many shampoos that are not tested on animals and these are fine. Animals in slaughterhouses get treated dreadfully no respect for how frightened the animal is I have seen videos of men kicking hitting and throwing animals about alive also many animals are shipped abroad alive for the meat market hours and hours of misery shocking. Oh yes I would get a very frosty welcome from the hunt people I have already been in that position but they do not scare or bother me they think they are so brave killing little animals but really they are just simply the biggest cowards on this planet. I live right out in the countryside (no hunts here) but they do shoot in the woods nearby Grouce and Pheasant which as you know are bred simply to shoot absolute disgrace those people really do like killing otherwide why would they do it. But hopefully the credit crunch will put all these shoots out of business I know a lot that have stopped and the game keepers have lost their homes. I notice you did not comment on the snare that the little dog got caught in snares are very very cruel and should be banned and we are working to try and get this to happen how you can defend the use of them I really cannot understand as you say you abhore cruelty but animals caught in these do suffer as was apparent with the dog however carefully you lay them they do the same damage. Charles Windsor now wants all grey squirrels culled what next killing is inbred in that family not a good example to the decent people. S Talboys

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

From: James Marchington
Subject: Re: What a disgrace
To: "Sonja Talboys"
Date: 10 June 2009 18:31:33 BDT

OK, well I've said my piece, and you clearly believe only what you want to hear. You are basically a thoughtful, compassionate person who is being manipulated by those with an extreme political agenda - what experts in terrorism rather unkindly classify as a "useful idiot". I commend your practical work in helping animals that have suffered, and urge you to question what you are told by all sides on this debate. Things are rarely as black and white as they seem.

Regards,

James

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

From: sonjatalboys@xxxxx.co.uk
Subject: Re: What a disgrace
Date: 10 Jun 2009, at 20:11
To: james.marchington@archant.co.uk

Last time, I can assure you I am not being manipulated by anybody I have a mind of my own and use it, in fact people listen to me so don't say I am being manipulated when you know nothing about me at all. I have been involved with this sort of work for also 50 years so I think I know what I am talking about you just simply do not like anyone who is strong minded like me upsetting your little set up. You still, just like a politician have not answered the question in your case about snares instead you bombard me with other things hoping I will forget but not me I NEVER forget anything. You may get some more emails as I have passed all this on to various people they may though decide you are not worth the effort. I shall not be sending anymore emails but we are all going to complain to the book store selling your magazine even if we don't get anywhere at ;least we have done our best and can sleep at night. Good Buy

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

From: James Marchington
Subject: Re: What a disgrace
To: "Sonja Talboys"
Date: 10 June 2009 22:53:34 BDT

I think I answered your question about snares when I wrote:

Snaring, done properly, can be an extremely targeted and humane way to catch animals such as foxes. It is the preferred method of scientists who need to catch foxes, fit them with radio tracking tags, and release them alive and unharmed. It is also possible for idiots to make a horrendous mess of setting a snare, and cause suffering - the challenge is to minimise this without throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

It's shocking to hear about the jack russell, and it saddens me that anyone is using snares in such an irresponsible way. I would not dream of speaking up for such behaviour and would support any sensible move that would stop it happening. I honestly don't believe that a 'ban' would make the slightest difference to this sort of thing, though. Do you? Or do you have any other suggestions?

Does this answer the question? If not, explain - I'm not afraid to tackle it.

It's a shame if some people take everything you say as gospel, as you are quite plainly wrong on certain matters of fact; much of what you preach is opinion, and rather extreme opinion at that. Your Procter & Gamble fairytale is clearly copied from some animal rights extremist pamphlet - you are certainly not the primary source of that 'information', nor have you made the slightest effort to verify it for yourself. You have never been in a slaughterhouse, yet you watch a propaganda video and believe they're all like that all the time. And you believe that people shoot grouse in the woods. And people hang on your every word. Oh dear.

Actually I enjoy conversations with 'strong minded' people like yourself. Someone once told me "I never learnt anything from anyone I agreed with" - an overstatement, but an interesting thought. Nothing you have said so far has changed my views substantially though - you have simply trotted out the same old distortions and hyperbole that I've encountered a hundred times before (sounds like I'll be hearing them again from your friends now too). I could explain about the need to control grey squirrels etc etc but you just don't listen. You're too busy hating the human race for the actions of a few idiots. Sadly, your attitude stands in the way of real progress on animal welfare.

Ah well, I'll stand back and await the tide of venom that will no doubt flood in from your mates after they've been chucked out of the newsagents.

Cheerio,

James

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

From: sonjatalboys@xxxxx.co.uk
Subject: Re: What a disgrace
Date: 11 June 2009 15:40:26 BDT
To: james.marchington@archant.co.uk

I don't just hate the idiots you talk about that kill I hate everyone who abuses an animal in any form full stop. Everyone has a right to an opinion and my friends will not get thrown out of Smiths they are going in to complain about such an awfull magazine being on sale some have already done this and one reply was from the assistant" we don't like it anymore than you but what can you do". As far as animal testing goes I have done undercover work and know first hand what goes on and I have a lot to do with the leaflets that go out and believe me every word I said is the truth. I have never been in a slaughterhouse but have friends (Not animal rights) who have done documentaries and news programmes for TV and the animals are treated disgracefully. I never talk about anything that I don't havet first class knowledge on. I have always had a passion for animals from a very early age. When I was three the bin men were emptying the bins they had a horse and cart in those days and "Dolly" the horse would not move and Jimmy the man hit the horse I was watching through the window and promptly went out and told him if he hit the horse again I would hit him. I also hit someone abusing a donkey on the sands when I was small I ran up and took the crop off him and then hit the man with it my Mother didn't know what to do. So as you can see this has been in me for a long time and I will never change. I also like discussions with people but you and I would get nowhere as we both think differently and strongly. The grouse shooting starts near me in August and Pheasants later on that is fact nobody in the cottages up and down my lane like it but as it is not against the law (YET) there is very little we can do. I feed all the birds including pheasants grouse and quaile also wild rabbits and ducks come in my garden and I try to keep them coming on my property by feeding them and hope they will keep away from the murderers. Well I think we have now come to the end of this very lengthy discussion so you do what you want and I shall carry on with what I do.But before I go you say to me I should look into what you do, well I suggest you look into animal testing and see the tremendous cruelty there and also these foreign countries like China that skin animals ALIVE for their fur so if you say what you do is good for animals and you abhore cruelty why not look into some of the cruelty I have mentioned.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

From: James Marchington
Subject: Re: What a disgrace
To: "Sonja Talboys"
Date: Thursday, 11 June, 2009, 5:16 PM

Well I hope your friends kick up a fuss about the cookery, farming, motoring, etc magazines too, as they are responsible for far more animal death than shooting. Have you looked into Halal slaughter? Why is it that animal rights groups never campaign against that? Afraid of being branded racist? I note too that domestic cats are responsible for untold cruelty to Britain's wildlife. Presumably you would like to feed them to the lions, or just ban them? By the way, you're evading my questions on snaring now.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

On 11 Jun 2009, at 19:11, Sonja Talboys wrote:

We have done a lot of demonstrating against slaughter of animals for food and live exports. T Shirt I have say's "Meat is Murder" call me a racist, activist, what ever you like I don't care I am what I am and no animal rights person would care what you thought we only care about the animals. You can live without an animal being hurt I am living proof of that I have been vegan for 46 years and still dig holes and concrete posts in etc. We have been very successfull over the years changing peoples minds about meat and fish there are now thousands upon thousands of veggies including Paul McCartney a friend. His land and The League Against Cruel Sports have loads of deer that were chased and fortunately got to safety (on their land).

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

From: James Marchington
Date: 11 June 2009 23:10:07 BDT
To: Sonja Talboys
Subject: Re: What a disgrace

Have you seen the state of the deer at the League's 'sanctuary'? It's a disgrace. Living proof that 'leave them alone' is just another form of cruelty. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vbgDclFnxdI

It's actually not possible for any human to live without having an impact on the environment and wildlife. Of course it's possible to survive on a diet of vegetable matter, and you've proved that (although it's not a practical way for most of the world's population to live). But we humans must have shelter, warmth, food and water or die, and in providing those things, even at the most basic level, we affect the environment; some animals and plants gain, others suffer. Our bodies are fighting a constant battle with micro-organisms that would kill us - your immune system kills countless bacteria and viruses every day. We have to protect our crops and food stores from being eaten and from contamination by eg rats with leptospirosis in their urine. The clothing you wear may not be made out of animal material, but the plants had to be protected from pests (or if synthetic produced harmful pollution). At the very least this involved depriving animals and insects of food; more likely they were killed so that the cotton farmer or etc could eke a living.

It is a dangerous lie to suggest that humans can live without impacting animals and the environment. Sadly there are, as you say, a good many muppets who simply don't get this. They go through life oblivious of the impact of their existence, thinking they leave no environmental trace. Modern 21st century civilization impacts the environment more than ever. The challenge is a) to understand the complex interactions and b) to manage our way of life to minimise harm to the environment and biodiversity. Animal rights extremism stands in the way of sensible debate and real practical progress. Which explains why my stance is pro-welfare but anti-rights - a crucial distinction. McCartney and his ilk have not only blocked progress but have helped create a mood that has fostered some of the most unpleasant terrorism of their generation; they have a lot to answer for.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

On 11 Jun 2009, at 19:02, Sonja Talboys wrote:

I have had many a set too with farmers believe me and as far as not answering your question on snares I think I have already done that by saying ban them and just don't have anything and leave the wild life alone as far as I am concerned the wild life will sort itself out no need from human intervention. Do you mean cats are cruel because they catch birds and mice I don't like that but its their nature to do it like lions chase zebra etc for food. That is how the wild life live and should be left alone to do it the deer in this country don't have a natural predator only man so why not dart them catch the male's and castrate them and then let live and let live you could also dart foxes if needed to put collars on them.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

From: James Marchington
Date: 11 June 2009 23:14:37 BDT
To: Sonja Talboys
Subject: Re: What a disgrace

You are joking - have you ever tried to dart a wild deer? I have. Perhaps the LACS would like to open up their so-called sanctuary to expert scrutiny so we can see how they think it should be done! Collars on foxes - I love it. With little cat bells to warn the prey they're coming?

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

From: Sonja Talboys
Date: 12 June 2009 14:24:30 BDT
To: James Marchington
Subject: Re: What a disgrace

You are getting a bit nasty now with your comments on your blog I never said catch foxes and put bells on them you silly man. What you said about the deer on The Leagues Property is a terrible thing to say I have phoned them and read them the email. Anyway I am not bothering with you anymore and I take back saying I though you sounded nice you don't. You are now making up stories so be very carefull. I Hope the League can get you for what you said.

'I just want to clear my name'

This is Kevin Hunter from Nuneaton in Warwickshire - I mentioned him before in a previous post (A miscarriage of justice?). My photo shows him pointing to the gap on the wall where his gun cabinet used to be. That was before he was arrested, held for 11 hours in a police cell, questioned, his house searched and his guns and ammo taken away, and his certificates revoked. That was in April 2008. For 4 months he thought he would be prosecuted for firearms offences, then the CPS dropped the case. He challenged the revocation of his certificates in court, but lost. 

Before all this, Kevin's life was good. He worked hard, spent time with his family and enjoyed pottering around the local farm where he had permission to shoot. Now his world has been turned upside-down. For months he was unable to work (as a truck driver), which has caused all sorts of financial hardship - he's had to remortgage his house to make ends meet. The stress has made his wife ill. He has lost his beloved sport, which gave him the chance to unwind in the countryside after a hard week on the road. 

Perhaps most of all, he feels he has lost his reputation. He's a man of principle: "I don't lie and I don't steal" he told me, before breaking down in tears. "I just want to clear my name, put all this behind me, and move on with my life."

Kevin's lab, Scooby, doesn't get to go shooting any more

The story behind Kevin's misfortune is long and complicated - but it has important lessons for all of us who shoot, and perhaps some equally important lessons for those who enforce the law.

I spent 2 1/2 hours yesterday listening to Kevin, and considerably longer trawling through various witness statements, interview transcripts, memos and correspondence that Kevin has on disc. It's clear to me Kevin believes passionately that he has been wronged. He has worried over the details of the case for months, made copious notes, written letters of complaint. He now talks of taking legal action against the individual police officers who dealt with the case.

So, was he wronged? Was he victimised by individual officers who had some grudge against him, as he seems to suspect? 

It's not easy to get to the bottom of what happened. Part of the problem is that Kevin doesn't express himself effectively. That's not to put him down - I couldn't drive a big truck; words are my thing. But, in trying to argue his case, he jumps from one point to the next and back, appearing to contradict himself. He focuses on minute details of who said what and when, and glosses over the broader issues. And the long months of fighting the system have taken their toll. He sees conspiracies where, in my view, none exist, which can make him appear slightly paranoid. It's a trait that could all too easily become self-fulfilling.

So what happened to cause all this? Here's my take on the story, and what went wrong.

• Back at the beginning of 2008 Kevin was shooing regularly on W Farm, a short drive from his house; he had become friends with the farmer. 
  
• The farm adjoins a country park. A number of local dog owners had got into the habit of walking up the farm track and sometimes even across the fields. They'd been doing this for years, and considered it their right. 
  
• Kevin wanted to discourage them, and the farmer had backed him up on this. If he was out on the farm and saw someone trespassing, he would ask them to get back on the footpath. Some of the dog walkers would get a bit bolshie about it. Kevin put up some 'Private Property' notices on the track; they were torn down.
  
• At some point, after being confronted by Kevin, a couple of dog walkers talked to the country park's ranger, probably along the lines of 'that stroppy git with a gun keeps telling us to get off the track, surely it's a public footpath. And is it safe for him to be shooting there anyway?'
  
• At the mention of a gun, the ranger will have suggested they go and talk to the police.
  
• So our dog walkers go into the local police station and say they want to complain about being harassed by a man with a gun. 
  
• PC Plod pricks up his ears at the mention of a gun, writes a statement with something of an angle to it, and gets our dog walkers to sign it. The statement mentions their 'alarm' at a gun being fired, and the 'aggressive' way they were told to get off private land.
  
• Anyone reading the statement could easily get the (false) impression that Kevin roared up to the walkers and fired his gun to scare them off.
  
• Faced with a statement like that, the police couldn't do nothing. They arrest Kevin.
  
• When he is questioned, the policeman is looking for an admission that Kevin fired his gun to scare the walkers. And here's the crucial point: Kevin fails to understand what the policeman is getting at. The idea of using a gun like that is so foreign to him that it never crosses his mind the policeman would think it of him. His solicitor also seems to miss the point. They talk for some time at cross purposes (I have re-read the interview transcript several times and this is quite clear).
  
• By the end of the interview, the policeman feels that Kevin has admitted that he fired the gun when he confronted the walkers. Kevin still fails to see that's what the policeman thinks.
  
• Over the coming months the wheels of justice roll on. Kevin focuses on the dates when he was alleged to have confronted the walkers - he can prove he was working on the dates they mention.
  
• Because the statements are shaky, the CPS decide not to prosecute. By now one of the walkers has retracted part of their statement and said that Kevin should simply get "a telling off".
  
• The Firearms Dept, however, don't have to put together a case that will stand up in court. But they do have a duty to keep firearms out of the hands of anyone who might be a danger to the public. And on the evidence before them, Kevin is just such a person. So they refuse to reinstate his certificate.
  
• Kevin, meanwhile, still doesn't see what's happened. He feels he's been unfairly treated. He was just doing his duty to the farmer, looking after his land. He never threatened anyone. Why is he being treated like this?
  
• He continues to fight his case, becoming increasingly disillusioned and depressed. His appeal (against the revocation of his certificate) is not well handled, partly due to his ineloquence, and partly due to the inexperience of everyone involved in a complex area of law.
  
• Which brings us to where we are now - a very sorry state of affairs, all arising from one fundamental misunderstanding. I don't believe the walkers ever thought Kevin fired his gun deliberately to scare them. Their comment was a general (and genuine) concern about whether it was safe for someone to be shooting on those fields. It's an understandable concern from people who don't know anything about guns, how far pellets can travel, etc.
  

So where does Kevin go next? He needs to do something. The current situation is slowly destroying him. Of course he'd like his guns back, and to go shooting again. Shooting is deep in his soul. It's not just a hobby to him, it's part of what he is. But more than that, he needs to clear his name. His reputation is desperately important to him, and he feels his good name has been unfairly taken away.

Sadly, he is now focusing on taking action against individual police officers. He honestly believes they have picked on him, twisting the evidence deliberately to cause him trouble.

This course of action will not get him a satisfactory result. I have examined pages of evidence, and there is nothing to suggest lying or deceit on behalf of the police. They could perhaps have been more thorough, paid more attention to detail, or quizzed the walkers more closely about what really happened. But they are humans trying to do the right thing within an imperfect system.

Most likely Kevin won't find a solicitor willing to take up his case. If he does, I believe it will fail. That can only drag things on further, make him more bitter, and further reduce his chances of ever getting his certificate back.

What's his best course of action? It won't be easy for him, but I believe he needs to come to terms with the idea that this all arose from a combination of conflict and misunderstanding; it's not about him. And then he needs to have a long chat with the firearms dept about re-applying for his certificate. It will take time. He will need to bite his lip. A lot. But in my view it's the only way he will regain his self-respect and begin to rebuild his life.

There are lessons in this for all of us who shoot, particularly on land where there is a degree of public access (legal or not). Perhaps the most important is to remember that there are some bolshie, militant trespassers around who think that God gave them the birds and the sky and the trees, and private land is theft. The law is not on their side - but it will come down on you like a ton of bricks if there is ever the slightest suggestion that you used a gun to threaten them to "gerrof my land".

The police, for their part, need to remember that there are many possible meanings of the phrase "I was threatened by a man with a gun". One of which is "I don't much like shooting anyway, and I don't see why I shouldn't walk my dog where I bloody well like".