Muntjac from a high seat

In this episode of The Shooting Show, I'm out with Gary Green who is up a high seat after a fox, but ends up shooting a nice brace of muntjac bucks.

Share|

Video: culling sika in Ireland

Here's the follow-up to my earlier video on stalking sika in Ireland with Jason Doyle. In this episode, Jason is out on a lowland estate where the deer are wreaking havoc in the pheasant coverts. The keeper wants them culled - but conditions are far from ideal. Will Jason get his deer? The sika item begins at 13:27.

Share|

Sika stalking in Ireland on The Shooting Show

I had a fabulous time filming the sika stalking with Pete and Jason for this week's episode of The Shooting Show. What a treat to be out on the hills as the sun rose, listening to the deer making that strange whistle-roar. Filming something like this is a real challenge, not least crawling in with the stalker and rifle, filming it, and keeping the camera out of the bog all at the same time! Still, it'd be no fun if it was easy, would it?

Share|

Stalking roebucks in the rut with Paul Childerley

This week's Shooting Show features an item I filmed and edited just a few days earlier. I went out with ace stalker Paul Childerley and novice Natalie Parker, to film her attempt to shoot her first roebuck. Things didn't go to plan - perhaps it was the change in the weather but the roe just weren't that keen on the call. Drawing a blank on the first day, we returned for a second attempt, with time running out to film the vital sequence and edit it all together for the show - but in the end it all came together and we ended up with this item for the show:

Share|

Blooded - the movie

If you hunt, shoot or fish, you must watch Blooded, a new movie out on DVD, on Filmflex, or online via iTunes or LoveFilm.

Not only that, get all your non-hunting/shooting/fishing friends to watch it too.

Blooded is not a soppy propaganda film about countrysports. It's a gritty, powerful drama about a group of deer stalkers on the Isle of Mull who are targeted by the nastiest type of animal rights extremists. The film is presented as a 'documentary' about a (fictional) event in 2005. The producers have gone to a lot of trouble to create an alternative reality, so you begin to wonder if the film might actually be based on real events. The main character is clearly based on pro-hunting figurehead Otis Ferry, and the film-makers set up a fake animal rights website for the Real Animal League, which appears to have duped a good few real antis.

Is it pro or anti fieldsports? The producers say neither. It's a film about extremism, they say - the things people do when people feel so strongly about an issue that they stop debating and start fighting.

But there's no doubt who is portrayed more sympathetically in this film. The stalkers are real, three-dimensional people who have thought deeply about their relationship with the deer they kill and eat. The antis, by contrast, are anonymous, impersonal figures hidden behind balaclavas, who will stop at nothing to achieve their aims.

Shooters will enjoy looking for the rare technical errors - a rifle missing its bolt in one shot, a supposedly experienced shot resting the rifle barrel directly on a rock. But these don't detract from the experience.

Even if you didn't care about the subject, it's a gripping story well told. Blooded deserves a place alongside cult classics such as The Wicker Man.

Share|

Milking it: the Emperor lives on

The tale of the Exmoor Emperor rolls on - but now the newspapers are beginning to smell a rat.

For the Daily Mail at least, that rat is Johnny Kingdom, former poacher and gravedigger who has reinvented himself as the avuncular nature-loving wildlife cameraman with a penchant for Realtree and wide-brimmed hats.

According to the Mail, he's now milking the Emperor story for all it's worth, which by now must be considerably more than any trophy fee that he might have fetched, if he was even shot, which is beginning to look less and less likely.

Even Richard Austin, purveyor of mawkish animal images to the media, who has done more than his fair share in stirring up this non-story, is now wondering about the coincidences - apparently the same 'nature lover' called him 12 years ago, to the day, about the supposed death of another 'much loved' stag.

All this hasn't stopped MP David Crausby tabling an Early Day Motion (and 9 other bandwagon-jumpers, so far, from signing it): "That this House condemns the shooting of the stag known as the Exmoor Emperor; believes that this beautiful animal, standing nearly nine feet tall should have been spared to live out his life as a magnificent example of the Giant Red Stag, the biggest wild land animal in the UK; and calls on the Government to protect special individual animals from this kind of senseless destruction."

Don't we Brits just love a good animal story? The Exmoor Emperor will take its place alongside the Tamworth Two, the Beast of Exmoor and other popular legends. I just hope that in the process, it doesn't undermine the serious business of managing our deer populations responsibly.

Who shot the Exmoor Emperor?

Every now and then, a shooting-related story hits all the right buttons and explodes across the media - the shooting of Emperor, the huge red stag on Exmoor, is such a tale. The papers are full of the story, told in breathless, horrified tones. The Daily Mirror tops the lot, with the headline "Britain's biggest wild animal, the legendary 9ft red deer known as Emperor, is shot dead by vile trophy hunters" - illustrated with a photo of a man with an over-and-under shotgun!

So what really happened? And is it cause for alarm? The facts are sketchy, to say the least. It seems likely (but not certain) that this particular stag, familiar to local residents and wildlife enthusiasts, has been shot. Reading between the lines, it would appear the stag was shot legally, perhaps by a paying guest stalker, perhaps a visiting 'trophy hunter'. The decision to shoot that animal at that time may or may not have been a good one in terms of herd management; I don't suppose we'll ever know, and in any case deer 'experts' could debate that one for weeks.

The story seems to have reached the papers via Richard Austin, a wildlife photographer who photographed the stag earlier this month [following the TV news later, I learnt he is a staffer on the Western Morning News, and enjoys wildlife photography in his spare time]. He was contacted by a 'local naturalist' who had come across a 'a group of stalkers' standing over the carcass (who nevertheless weren't the ones that shot it). They watched as the carcass was removed. [Actually that doesn't quite ring true does it? I suspect the 'naturalist' heard shots, went to see what it was all about, and came across the stalkers in the process of gralloching and recovering the carcass].

Richard Austin then provided the story and his photos to a local paper [or as seems more likely, rushed back to the office with his scoop], which contacted Peter Donnelly, "a Dulverton based deer management expert with a lifetime’s experience" [we now know that Austin and Donnelly knew each other from previous stories on this particular stag]. Donnelly clearly has a bee in his bonnet about the deer seasons, because he took the opportunity to have a proper rant: "It’s a disgrace that this magnificent animal has been shot at this time because it could be that he didn’t get a chance to rut properly this year - therefore his genes have not been passed on this time round. The poor things should be left alone during the rut - not harried from pillar to post."

This story then got picked up by the national press, radio and TV, as these things do. Most of the journalists have taken the whole thing at face value, and rehashed the story with their own paper's spin on it. A few have bothered to look for further quotes and information to pad out their story, mostly completely failing to understand what they're told and writing utter rot as a result.

The whole thing has dragged out the usual hysterical comments such as: "Don't you just love the way these sad pathetic creatures who call themselves hunters, take guns, because it makes them feel like big men, they then hide in the bushes until defenceless creatures wander along so they can blast away at them."

Before long antis like the League Against Cruel Sports will jump on the bandwagon and demand an end to this 'sick sport' which 'has no place in the 21st century' and should 'be consigned to the dustbin of history along with cockfighting, bullfighting and badger-baiting' and the cycle will be complete. Then the papers will find something else to be outraged about - the antics of a footballer perhaps - and we can all get back to business as usual, except that Richard Austin's wildlife photography business will have received a welcome boost. [I think I was being unkind to him; watching him interviewed on TV, I don't think he did it for the money or the notoriety - he genuinely seems to care about the deer, perhaps in a slightly romanticised way, and it's the other players in the story who have hammed it up for the cameras].

So it goes.

UPDATE: I hear Mike Yardley did a good job of explaining the need for deer management on the Jeremy Vine radio show. It should be available to listen to on the BBC iPlayer shortly here. Mike's bit comes just past the halfway mark.

UPDATE: Excellent piece published on the Guardian website of all places, by BASC's Glynn Evans, here.

UPDATE: I've added some notes in square brackets as more information comes to light. Now, 24 hours later, the news is full of airport security, the Indonesian tsunami, an air-sea rescue off the Scillies, etc, etc. The Emperor is forgotten, save for a few follow-up pieces that will appear over the next few days. As a passing comment, once again I was impressed with the speed and professionalism of BASC's response - they're getting good at responding to media stories like this. Jamie Stewart, in partcular, strikes just the right note - knowledgeable, caring, and most importantly not an 'arrogant posh bloke' of the type that was a gift to the antis at the time of the Hunting Bill.

I hope, in time, BASC and perhaps others will become more proactive - one thing this incident showed is that the media loves a good animal story, regardless of the facts. It shouldn't be impossible to start creating the odd 'Hunters save Bambi', 'Pigeon shooters foil bank robbers', etc.

Oh, and if you don't mind a bit of swearing, you may like this robust take on the story by Bill O'Rites...

UPDATE: Locals "smell a rat" - according to this story in the Guardian, the stag may still be alive and kicking. Either way, it was/is a long way from living up to the claim of "biggest land mammal in the UK". Meanwhile, North Devon's hotels and B&Bs are enjoying a welcome boost from journalists and tv crews sent to find "Who shot Emperor". I took a call from a Guardian journalist this morning, asking me to explain "what people get from deer stalking". I dread to think what he'll write!

Talking of the Guardian, for a worryingly strange view of hunters and hunting, Ruaridh Nicoll takes some beating. " I am not against shooting, even if I have lost my hunger for it," he says, then goes on to explain it's the motivation of hunters that worries him: "The instinct that makes a man kill a creature like the Emperor, I have always believed, rises from inadequacy." He goes on to retell the apocryphal tale of the American hunter in Africa who would shoot an animal, have his wife lie on it and have sex with her - a story that sounds less likely every time I hear it. I have no time for people who have no idea why people shoot, and fill that vacuum with twisted ideas dreamed up inside their own heads.

UPDATE: Bloody hell - Chris Packham defending shooting on Autumnwatch - whatever next?! Audio here:

Moral dilemma

Chad Love, over at the strangely titled Mallard of Discontent blog, tells the story of a badly injured doe, with two fawns, that visited his feeder. Should he put the doe out of her misery, condemning the fawns to certain death? Or should he prolong her agony, in the hope the fawns might survive to adulthood?

Should we, as shooters, ever intervene in such things just because we can, because we think we know best - or should we 'leave nature alone' to conclude matters in her own, cruel, way? Since it's often man that created the problem in some way (traffic accidents and the like are an obvious example), is it our duty to try to set things right? Can we ever know what 'right' really is? Wildlife filmmakers and war reporters sometimes face similar impossible decisions.

Difficult choices, but choices that stalkers, keepers and shooters face all the time. And sometimes the outcome is very different to what we might have predicted - read Chad's story and you'll see what I mean.

Science, truth, and lead shot

The RSPB's Mark Avery, who sits on the Defra Lead Ammunition Group, makes some interesting comments in response to my blogging on lead shot.

The RSPB has been trialling non-lead (actually copper) bullets for deer control on its reserves for a couple of years, with promising results. There's a scientific paper on the subject here (pdf).

In fact, the results aren't quite as rosy as Mark suggests. Copper bullets in .270 calibre seem to do a good job on roe and red deer. But in southern England, shooting sika with a .243 (the most common deer rifle calibre - and I've just gone and bought one!) the figures show a significantly increased risk of wounding, even with a perfectly placed chest shot. The paper goes on to imply we should all switch to head shots, as if that was the simplest thing in the world. Hmm.

As you can tell, I'm still not 100% convinced - but at least we have some real UK-based scientific evidence, presented (relatively) impartially, and out in the open for all to discuss.

By contrast, I was surprised to see BASC's Dr John Harradine fulminating in Shooting Times this week at last week's article by Tim Woodhouse on the efficacy of steel shot.

I'm sure Tim, like me, would cheerfully admit that he's fallible. But I know he holds the truth in high regard, and in proper scientific fashion he welcomes any challenge to his ideas. For Harradine to launch an ad-hominem attack in a public journal does him and his organisation a disservice.

Harradine seems to feel he has evidence that steel shot is really rather good, although I've heard doubts expressed about the validity of his tests. Woodhouse believes that steel has severe practical limitations, making it a less than adequate substitute for lead in many types of shooting as we know them today.

What we're sadly lacking here is proper, independent scientific research carried out under UK conditions and properly peer reviewed. Without it we're guessing.

At the risk of being slated for 'misinforming' and 'prejudicing' the shooting public, to my simple mind it seems likely that Harradine's view of steel's efficacy will be the 'official' BASC view presented to the Lead Ammunition Group. If it turns out that view is over-optimistic, it won't do shooting any favours.

We need to make sure the group's decision is based on solid science, and I'm far from convinced that science exists at present, at least in the area of the efficacy of 'non-toxic' alternatives to lead-based shotgun loads.

Perhaps it's time to commission some science we can all trust and believe in.

Mark Avery and the dead parrot

I do enjoy following the blog of RSPB conservation director Mark Avery. It's a real insight into the RSPB mind-set - and I'm constantly bemused by the knots these guys tie themselves in with their this-bird-is-better-than-that-bird approach to the environment.

The latest muddle is over "the lovely ring-necked parakeet" being added to the list of birds that can be killed under General Licence. Birding types don't know which way to jump. It's non-native, and a threat to our native wildlife, so perhaps it should be wiped out like the mink (they seem to have no problem with the idea of exterminating mink with extreme prejudice: two legs good, four legs bad). But parakeets are birds, so perhaps they should be protected at all costs? Erk! It's a conundrum worthy of a Monty Python sketch.

When it comes to birds of prey, all logic flies out of the window, along with any chance of the birders comprehending the concept of wildlife management. Shooters get sterotyped as bloodthirsty killers, and the clamour for 'tighter regulation' drowns out all sensible discussion.

Just look at the RSPB's latest Birdcrime report, and see the huge fuss about "raptor persecution" (for which the numbers are actually down). There's hardly a whisper about the 746 incidents (62% of the total) which relate to non birds of prey. Are some birds more equal than others? It would appear so. Simon Hart of the Countryside Alliance has some good points to make on the subject - read them here.

As an aside, I'm amazed at how little we hear of the illegal trade in songbirds like goldfinches and linnets. Huge numbers of these lovely little birds are trapped and sold on the black market, and yet how often do we hear the RSPB campaigning about it? It doesn't appear on any of the lists of 'wildlife crime priorities'. I'm keen to follow this up in the magazine - any info on the trade, and the methods used by the illegal trappers, would be gratefully received, anonymity respected if you request it.

Anyway, back to the point: The General Licence system is a nonsense, made necessary by the nonsense that is the EU-driven bird protection legislation.

On the one hand we have the humble rabbit, which has been chased, shot, caught and eaten by man for thousands of years. Until recently the law placed an obligation on landowners to control rabbits, to reduce the damage to agriculture. Are rabbits remotely threatened? Of course not. And do we need some twisted law that says 'all rabbits are protected, except when we say they're not'? Of course we don't

And on the other hand we have the humble woodpigeon, which has been chased, shot, caught, etc etc just the same. Is it remotely threatened? Of course not. And yet each year we sit and chew our fingernails, wondering what ridiculous nonsense the government will have dreamt up. Will we even be allowed to shoot pigeons any more? Will we have to fill out a form in triplicate, proving that we tried offering the pigeons counselling, serving them with ASBOs, and still they won't stop eating the crops, so reluctantly we'll just have to shoot them?

It's a complete nonsense, a product of the confused protectionism that says four legs are bad, two legs are good, and two legs with talons are right up there with God.

Stalking high up on a Perthshire hillside last week, I was privileged to see a sea eagle (swooping after a pair of grouse we'd disturbed from the heather). We stood and watched through the binoculars, in awe of the magnificent bird.

Funny, I remarked to the stalker, that 'they' are busy introducing one deadly killer into the Highlands, while doing their utmost to exterminate another, the mink. 'Aye' he said, and shook his head. He's used to being dictated to by do-gooders who think they know his hill better than him - folk who won't let him burn a small patch of heather to stop the heather beetle because of rules to protect the very environment that the heather beetle is going to devastate.

In days gone by we managed the countryside like an allotment, encouraging nature to produce a surplus which we then harvested. Nowadays we treat it like a municipal garden, selecting our 'favoured' species for the flower beds according to their popular appeal. Everyone loves a raptor. Keep off the grass, don't pick the raptors. What's that non-native weed species doing there, get rid of it, it doesn't fit the plan.

Local people whose fathers and grandfathers created the countryside are no longer trusted to look after it; they're tied up with red tape, rules, regulations and certificates to ensure they've been brainwashed into accepting the 'approved' way of thinking. Independent spirits, eccentrics and characters are not tolerated.

Maybe that's why I find myself increasingly drawn to the wild places (and the wild people) where the dead hand of modern countryside management hasn't yet reached. Hopefully the tide will turn before it does, because we're in danger of losing something we don't even know we've got.

Stalking near Pitlochry

I've spent two days stalking with Jim Tod at Tarvie, near Pitlochry. Hard work, but we got a stag each day and, as always, it was a privilege to spend some time in this magical place.

A good one to cull

Talking of Mark Gilchrist (as I was in the previous post), I visited him today to get some new photos for his cookery series. We larked about doing some fashion-style shots (check them out on flickr), then got down to business and went off to look for a fallow buck.

Just as it was getting dark, Mark spotted this one - a candidate for culling if ever I saw one. It had a single, dagger-like antler which would have been deadly in the rut. Plus one ankle had been broken at some time. It was badly swollen, and that leg was considerably shorter than the other. All in all, a beast that was better off hanging in the larder.

Is the BBC institutionally anti-shooting?

BASC's Phil Pugh did an excellent job of explaining the benefits of shooting to a rather hostile sounding Anna Hill on BBC Radio 4's Farming Today programme yesterday. In today's programme (12 Aug), Anna went deerstalking in Suffolk. She appears to be getting it, slowly, although she still asked a few rather odd-sounding questions: "Can it become addictive to some people," she asks, as if she finds it hard to believe that deerstalkers aren't all blood-crazed psychopaths.

When it comes to shooting, the programme always gives the impression it's terrified of guns and finds shooting rather unsavoury. An odd perspective for a programme aimed at the farming community. Last week's report about stolen shotguns being used in crime was a case in point where Anna Hill was practically standing on her chair going "Eek! A gun!" She's come a long way in a few days - I suspect BASC's press office may have been hard at work behind the scenes.

This perfectly illustrates the problem shooting has with the media generally, and the BBC in particular. Robin Page made some very anti-BBC comments at the CLA Game Fair debate 'The BBC and the countryside: friend or foe?' He sees anti-fieldsports and anti-farmer conspiracies behind every pot-plant. He was very amusing, but I think he's wrong.

Many journalists come from an urban middle-class background. These people rarely encounter shooting, except the sort that goes on between rival drug gangs. They can't imagine why anyone would want to 'kill things for fun'. And that attitude comes through when they report shooting.

There's another problem fieldsports have with the BBC in particular, and that's the word 'controversial'.

BBC culture says that if something is controversial, they must report it impartially. In other words, let both sides of the argument have their say. This is set out in the organisation's charter.

Watching the BBC Countryfile programme on the CLA Game Fair, it was clear that the programme makers considered that shooting and fishing were not controversial. They could cover both with no need to find an anti for 'balance'. But hunting was 'controversial', so to cover their backsides against complaints, they went the 'impartiality' route and dragged in the awful Louise Robertson from LACS to bleat about 'cruelty', thereby 'balancing' the fact they had shown a few hounds in the main arena.

Who decides if something is 'controversial'? So far as I can tell, the programme's producers decide for themselves. And in that sense, the BBC is simply holding up a mirror to public opinion, rather than pursuing any agenda of its own.

Unfortunately, by giving a handful of vociferous antis a platform, this policy ensures that some subjects continue to be 'controversial', even though 99.9% of the general public never give them a moment's thought. And it ensures that those same people never become sufficiently well informed to form a valid opinion.

Unicorn roebuck

A reader, who wants to remain anonymous, sent in this amazing photo of a single-antlered roebuck he shot at the end of July in Norfolk. He comments that there was not even a rudimentary right pedicle, and only the slightest of bumps could be felt under the skin. The head is now with a taxidermist to be mounted.

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?

Great gift idea

According to the Daily Star - so it must be true - Prince William has given Kate Middleton a £500 Swarovski rangefinder for her 27th birthday. Story here... Good choice.

Sadly, the paper has completely failed to grasp what a rangefinder is. They seem to think it's a telescopic sight. In tabloid-speak: "the sights are fitted on high-powered rifles used for deer hunting on the royals’ Highland hideaway Balmoral". Yeah, right.

And of course there's the obligatory hate comment from LACS about this "barbaric, unacceptable pastime." Er, that'll be the barbaric and unacceptable practice of culling deer, as required by the government, with a single shot placed to give an instant humane kill. Honestly, where do they find these morons? And why do journalists trot out their misinformed rubbish?

Scottish venison on youtube

A great job by Playfair Walker, on behalf of the Scottish Venison Working Group, which includes the Association of Deer Management Groups, the British Deer Farmers Association, Cairngorms National Park Authority, the Deer Commission for Scotland, Forestry Commission Scotland, the Scottish Gamekeepers Association and Scottish Quality Wild Venison.

Moron shoots Glencoe stag with air rifle

I'm disgusted by this story - sometime around Hogmanay, an idiot with an air rifle shot a semi-tame red stag several times in the head, leaving it for dead. The stag used to hang around the car park at Black Mount, scrounging food, and had become one of the most photographed deer in the country.

A passer-by found the stag lying by the roadside and told local stalker Alastair MacDonald, who is quoted as saying: "I put it down immediately and when we opened the head up we found five or six air rifle pellets. Obviously somebody had been taking pot shots at it."

I just hope someone catches the person responsible for this despicable act of wanton cruelty. Please pass any info to Strathclyde Police.

Kill it cook it eat it

Tonight sees the first in a new BBC series of Kill It Cook It Eat It – this series features wild game, starting tonight with deerstalking at Balavil.

Will it be any good, and will it show shooting in a positive light? I watched a previous series, and found the presenter's breathless style rather irritating - milking the situation for every last drop of sensationalism as farm animals were slaughtered and butchered in front of a studio audience, who were then invited to eat the results.

Still, there's a lot to be said for getting the public to face the facts about where their food comes from. Shooting has nothing to hide, and stands to benefit when people compare the life and death of a deer, pheasant, etc, with that of a farm reared animal.

We'll just have to wait and see... tonight, 10.30, BBC3.

UPDATE: And the verdict... Brilliant! If you missed it, you can catch it on BBC iPlayer here.

NOTE: If you're only reading this post on the front page, you're missing out on the lively comment thread here.

Do we really want more rules?

Deer stalking must be one of the most regulated activities in Britain (and the way things are going here, that's saying something). By the time you actually get to pull the trigger on a live deer, your pockets are stuffed with Firearms Certificate, DSC this and DSC that, probably a Trained Hunter Certificate or two, written authority from the landowner, blah, blah, blah.

You'd think stalkers would kick against all this. Most folks I know are heartily sick of all the nannying rules and regulations that are heaped on us by Brussels, with the encouragement and connivance of our own government who jump on any chance to keep us under tighter surveillance and control. (Even the sheep are going to get ID tags).

But stalkers aren't like that, at least as a body (what is the proper term for a group of stalkers - a mist perhaps?). They seem to lap up all the regulations – and now the British Deer Society is demanding more!

The BDS has issued a press release demanding that killing deer with shotguns must be outlawed. Their argument seems to focus on "suspicions of the re-emergence of the practice of driving deer, particularly Muntjac, to a line of waiting guns." And yet they go on to state that this practice is already illegal.

I spoke to the BDS's David Kenyon, who put out the press release, to clarify their argument. He will shortly be publishing new research which, he says, shows that even using legal (AAA in England) shot, you can't be sure of a clean kill on deer at any range with a shotgun. (I remain to be convinced on that one – there has to be a range at which the deer is guaranteed to be 100% dead, it's just a question of how far that is).

And he believes that the way farming has changed in recent years, farmers don't drive round with shotguns any more so there's no need for the 'farmers exemption' which allows them to kill deer with a shotgun to prevent crop damage.

All worthy-sounding stuff, but I'm not convinced that the answer is a knee-jerk demand for "more regulation." Look where that's got us in the past.

If some people are organising illegal muntjac drives, the existing law is adequate to stop them. To me, this smacks of a solution looking for a problem. I guess it would be too cynical to suggest that it's a case of the stalking establishment looking to tighten its stranglehold on deer management in the UK.

In Britain generally and the countryside in particular, we are gradually being strangled with red tape. We need more rules like a hole in the head. It's time for zero tolerance on new legislation.

How about this for an idea: before any new law is passed, two old ones have to be repealed!

One of the images from the BDS report - this one shows AAA, 1/4 choke at 20m

UPDATE 27/10: The BDS "report" is now available on the organisation's website in pdf form here ». At first glance it appears thorough - but it isn't. The shortest range tested is 20m (in my view the maximum range at which anyone should set out to shoot a deer with buckshot). And they haven't even considered solid slugs (the only sensible load for deer at the ranges they're testing). This is the sort of report that might result from a brief that specified: "write me a report that discredits shotguns for shooting deer." It tells us what we already knew - don't shoot deer with shotguns at longer ranges, or you won't kill them cleanly. (Oh, and don't use shot that's too small, which would be illegal anyway).