Page 5 - Phonebox Magazine February 2010

HAVE YOUR SAY
Letters
Dear Editor
I read A. Gunn's response to my letter in the December 2009 issue about the shooting of wild birds near Emberton Park with interest, and disappointment.
Disappointment because he seems to have missed, or deliberately ignored, the main point of my letter, as well as the underlying point. As each of those points may have been obscured in the main body of my letter I will be more explicit.
The main point of my letter was not the shooting of wild birds in general. Had that been the case then I would have raised the matter many months ago.
My main point was the targeting of the birds whilst they were still within the confines of Emberton Park, where one hopes they would be guaranteed a degree of protection. More importantly, not only were the birds being targeted whilst still within the confines of the park but, on one particular morning in November, one hunter was targeting the birds in such a way that his actions may well have been illegal. That is, he was discharging a firearm within thirty feet of, and in the direction of, a public place. I would have thought that would have been illegal whether or not there were any members of the public in the vicinity. For the avoidance of doubt, from the position he was in it was very unlikely that the hunter was doing
anything other than firing towards the Park, otherwise he would have been shooting into the treetops. The matter was reported to the police who have indicated that should there be a similar incident then they may take action, if they have not already done so.
Now that A. Gunn has defended the shooting of wild birds perhaps we should examine what he says.
His first line of defence is that farmers and landowners do much to benefit and conserve the wildlife. That I do not doubt, and those that do so have to be commended. But he seems to be saying that those who conserve also have the right to destroy. That is, for example, a bit like saying that those who fight to save the Brazilian rain forest also have the right to chop down the trees.
Then he uses the green argument. I do not doubt that the shooting of the occasional bird for his own use is more beneficial to the environment, and to that I would not seriously object. But with the frequency of shots one hears in the mornings – including during the current spell of extreme cold weather, which I suspect would be frowned on by the relevant associations as it would be difficult for the birds to seek a safer environment, such as in the Park, all the geese having vacated the iced-over lakes in the Park for the river – then I would think that many birds may well be being shot for other than personal use.
Finally, he says that “the quarry is respected and treated with the utmost care to ensure
there is no suffering of any animal.” Any injured bird picked up by any dog is likely to suffer stress on top of its injury, no matter how well trained the dog may be. But, and more importantly, what he does not say is how the injured birds are disposed of. I suspect he does not follow the example of Peter Scott, who, when out shooting with a friend in 1946, came across two birds they'd injured. Rather than put them out of their misery he nurtured them. Does this not suggest that the birds can be seriously injured enough to cause concern, at least to one hunter? Peter Scott's actions set himself off on the road to the foundation of the Wildfowl & Wetlands Trust, thereafter, or so I believe, forsaking the shooting of wild birds. The difference between Peter Scott's approach and A. Gunn's approach is that one became a knight and the other will forever remain a pseudonym.
But, as I said at the outset of this letter, my complaint is not the shooting of birds in general but the specific targeting of the birds whilst still within the confines of the park, and in such a way that there could be a danger to the public. Although I was in no danger, I was about a hundred feet away, the closeness of the shots certainly startled me, and frightened the birds in the park. And both of those I object to. Perhaps A. Gunn would like to bring this sequence of correspondence to a close by commenting on these actions.
Yours sincerely J.B., Olney
...be my petit bijou!
Tear out this page and keep it close to your heart and be sure to make a date with
‘le petit bijou’ for your Valentine’s Day gift!
Sumptuous, affordable costume jewellery, the latest ranges of watches from Paris, add a touch of shabby chic furniture, unique glassware, original works of art, we have something for her heart or for her home!
Or be selfish, just this once, tear out this page and leave it somewhere where it will be seen, we have
a fabulous range
of goodies in stock, suitable for all!
y. 01234241868
‘le petit bijou’, 9 High Str
eet, Olne
www.lepetitbijou.net
Phonebox Magazine 5
Valentine