Support in favour of shooting . Why shooting / stalking / hunting helps our countryside

Support Shooting & Stalking  Just about every part of the UK countryside is not truly natural. Man cleared most of the original forests in Scotland (for fuel, ship building, tanning and charcoal) and in England & Wales (for ship building, clearing ground for farming). Many of the woods (as opposed to commercial forestry plantations)  you see in our classic 'natural' landscape have been planted for game shooting.  Unlike so many other industries, shooting has not been subsidised by any government and until only very recently no financial grants were available for landowners who wished to improve areas by planting native trees, create wetland areas and other activities which directly benefited gameshooting. 
Without game shooting, so many of the small copses and wood strips would simply not exist. The songbirds , insects and other wildlife would simply not exist in their existing numbers without such diversity of trees , shrubs and wet areas which have been kept by farmers and landowners interested in their pheasant and duck shooting. 
Heather moorland in many areas of the Highlands and North England are only still in existence because of grouse shooting. Grouse moors support a wide variety of fauna and flora (as well as that other endangered species - the hill gamekeeper) . So if grouse shooting was banned tomorrow - who will continue with those 'handkerchief' burns ? Who will pay for the hill to be kept unplanted with a blanket of conifers? Who will control the foxes, mink, crows and other predators of the ptarmigan, black grouse and other birds of the hills?  
Shooting & deer stalking create and support a huge numbers of full time and part time jobs, particularly in rural areas. City dwellers may enjoy their day trips or weekends in the country - but without people actually living and working in the countryside, our rural areas would simply become an outdoor museum. 
Deer in our countryside have to be shot in order to control the population. Man removed their natural predators many years ago and the main limiting factor on deer populations is food availability. For example, Red Deer have the least amount of food (in Scotland) during the months of February, March & April. Deer populations need to be kept to the level of the carrying capacity (food availability) of the ground for these months. Too many deer and they will simply starve. Anyone who has walked in the Highlands and found large numbers of dead deer in burns and gullies during spring time can attest to the effects of insufficient culling. Better to harvest the surplus population every year and maintain animals in their prime than to allow deer to starve to death. Our woodland deer populations are on the rise and there are increasing numbers of road accidents caused by deer collisions. The UK has a problem and other European countries have an even larger problem with animals such as Moose where human fatalities caused by deer collisions  in Estonia, Sweden etc. are significant. The only solution here is to shoot sufficient animals each year to moderate the problem. Traffic collisions with deer are on the increase. Red deer are capable of jumping fences higher than 2.5 metres (and if heavy snow occurs, they simple walk over fences) so fencing is not always an option and may only act as a deterrent . Roe deer can crawl under or through amazingly small gaps of fences.
Some of the more eccentric suggestions have included introducing wolves in Scotland to control deer. There are a few problems relating to this idea - probably the major one being that wolves , like any other predator, will go for the easy option of killing livestock rather than the fast running and generally very fit deer!
Many so called 'conservationists' seem to think that conservation of animals and plants is simply a case of protecting them and/or increasing the population of a  particular species. This "single issue" conservation is narrow minded and often destructive. The World's Flora & Fauna is a complex web where all plants and animals depend on a balance of other species and habitats. Because this crowded planet cannot avoid the legacy or future  effects of Man, we no longer have the luxury of just allowing any particular species to exceed its 'natural' balance because this would usually be at the expense of other plants or animals. We have to actively manage populations and in some cases this means shooting animals in order to control or harvest surpluses. 
There are plenty of examples...... The European Bison in Poland is on the endangered CITES red list and a hugely successful conservation programme there means surplus animals have to be culled to maintain a steady and healthy population. Elephant populations in some African countries are very high and in others very low. It's simply not practical or economic to re locate each every surplus animal - wildlife managers recognise the damage done to the flora by over large elephant populations. Selective culling manages the elephant population where necessary and  puts money into conservation and anti poaching projects. Many areas within South Africa are re introducing animals which were wiped out by meat hunters during the past 100 years or so. The populations of these re introduced animals have to be managed , and again, the shooting community is financing these projects which would not be viable without this financial input. 
Non hunters and anti hunters are sceptical about the motives of the shooting fraternity, but also we should all be aware of the motives of professional conservationists. If 'conservationists' propose the re introduction of the European Beaver and Wild Boar to the UK - are they really being so altruistic and have the interests of these animals to heart? By creating interest, they get themselves a job and attract taxpayer's money to finance these projects. Conservation charities such as the RSPB in the UK are against fieldsports , but even they are starting to recognise that in certain circumstances, shooting may be the only practical way of managing certain species and that game shooting itself can benefit wildlife . Many shooters are members of the RSPB.  The reintroduction of the Sea Eagle in Scotland sounds like an admirable project. The main beneficiaries apart from the birds themselves are the people employed to run this scheme. I don't necessarily disagree with the project itself - but have all the implications, causes and effects of such re introduction been thoroughly investigated and checked? By promoting such projects, such charities as the RSPB maintain and attract their paying members and thereby keep the staff in employment and promote the status of the organisation.  
 It should also be added that we, in the UK, have an obsession in running conservation projects with animals and birds which are at the top of the carnivore food chain. It's human nature to be more interested in big birds and animals, but all animals and plants have an equal right to thrive within the complex food web and any food chain can only support so many creatures above them. 
One of the great myths about shooters (hunters) should be exploded. Many shooters and deer stalkers are avid wildlife watchers and conservationists. Non shooters assume we are obsessed with killing animals and birds when the truth of the matter is that this activity is only part of our interest. Many shooters are involved directly or indirectly with numerous conservation projects which benefit our wildlife and not just our quarry species. 
So if you are an anti shooter reading this article - what is the alternative you propose? We appear to live in an increasingly intolerant world. If people do not agree with others' views, too many people appear to assume they have the right to physically or verbally assault or threaten supporters of the opposite view. Anti shooters have that reputation - game shooters and deer stalkers  don't have that reputation. There are many practices I don't agree with. I don't approve or support the eating of veal, for example. I don't rant and rave about it, threaten farmers who rear veal calves, shout at people in restaurants who order such food. I just don't eat it. If enough people just stopped eating veal, the practise of rearing veal calves would die out.  
Ethical shooting practises have a rightful place in our society. Harvesting surplus wild birds and animals (truly organic!) in a sustainable manner is perfectly right and benefits not just us as the consumer but also the rest of wildlife.                  

Top of Page