"Here are a couple of empties you left behind,” said Gerry. What he really meant, of course, was: “Look, I’ve had to clean up your litter, you slob.” I couldn’t help bristling. The two empty shotgun cartridge cases in question were made of paper, I pointed out. We had been shooting under the moon and it can be very difficult in such circumstances to catch all your empties. The possibility of not retrieving every empty is one of the very reasons I prefer
paper cases. And I always try to use fibre wads, too. Most of my cartridges are biodegradable.

None of this cut any ice with Gerry. “They’re not fully biodegradable,” he said of my paper cases. “Look, the heads are brass. You shouldn’t be leaving such things on pasture where there is livestock.”

As it happens, I have four of the same spent paper cases rolling around in the open back of my pickup. Within a week, I noticed, their ostensibly brass heads were spotted with rust. I have now buried a couple of these cases in the soil, with the spot carefully marked, and I am going to monitor their deterioration. This is my own little version of a body farm. I am praying for the complete disintegration of the cases. When little more than rust and dust is left, I intend to scoop it into a small plastic evidence bag and post it to Gerry — together with a note telling him to put it in his pipe and smoke it. Ha!

A rogue plastic case

In the meantime, I am delighted to say that I caught Gerry out. He was using a semi-auto .410 to shoot pheasants (no, don’t ask...) and after I had sneakily searched where he had been standing, I found one of his empty cases. It was plastic, and not a lot bigger than the end of a pencil. Being dark green it was actually very hard to see, so perhaps one could forgive Gerry. If one was inclined to be forgiving, that is.

I marched over to him, holding the spent case as one might hold a used needle and syringe, and said: “Lucky I found this. It could have done real damage if a cow had eaten it.” I then loftily expounded on our responsibilities to the wider environment.

At the same time, this really has got me thinking about plastic. Most plastic is virtually indestructible. Some types are now labelled “photodegradable”, but this seems a bit of a cop-out, as far as I can tell, because it seems to mean no more than the wretched stuff will eventually break down into tiny pieces which will remain in the soil for ever more.

Furthermore, I have seen for myself that tree shelters, which are made
from this type of plastic, seem to remain intact for far longer than the
manufacturers claim.

There is some plastic that is supposed to be truly biodegradable, but there is a lot of controversy about the manufacturer’s claims and, given the timescales involved, nobody seem to be quite sure what the side effects might be.

What we can be sure of is that plastic is a serious form of pollution. I once saw a deeply depressing television documentary about the amount of plastic waste — chiefly bags — that is now floating around our oceans. These placky bags are everywhere — even in the Arctic — and they snare and strangle all sorts of wildlife. Even when marine plastic breaks down into tiny granules, it is concentred by ocean currents into zones of “plastic soup”, one of which is twice the size of Texas.

Back on land, most plastic waste is simply buried in landfill, where it remains for our children’s children’s children to worry about. Some is incinerated — in which case it releases all sorts of toxic fumes.

Which brings us back to shotgun ammunition. The more I think about it, the use of plastic for shotgun cartridges and wadding is pretty indefensible, isn’t it?

Have your say: if you have a view on a current news topic, send it, in no more than 500 words, to steditorial@ipcmedia.com.

What is YOUR opinion?

Join other ST readers in our forums to discuss your views.

Like this article? Mark this page on a social bookmarking website...



What are social bookmarking sites?

Technology. It’s the enemy, ain’t it? Modern technology means your faithful old photocopier being replaced by a bit of kit the size of the USS Enterprise and about as easy to operate. Or DVD players that, by EU directive, can only be operated by people less than 15 years old. Don't you just hate technology sometimes?

I know I do. And as an unrepentant Luddite, I was thinking of this when I read a recent Q&A in Shooting Times about the use of wildfowl decoys with electrically powered rotating wings (Sporting Answers, 9 November). The gist of the response was that such devices were not illegal, but were frowned upon by some wildfowling clubs. Personally, I can understand why purists might be offended by such things. But then, when I thought more generally, it began to occur to me that one person’s technological cheat- achine might be another’s engine of progress.

Take telescopic sights on stalking rifles. It was not all that long ago that they were regarded by the stalking community as distinctly unsporting. They were derided as things to enable idle sportsmen unworthy of the name to take potshots at ludicrously long ranges, or as devices that made stalking too easy to be a sport in the first place. Yet I doubt there are many who hold that view today. If we accept that the sport in stalking is largely in the approach, rather than the actual shooting, then the gigantic benefit of telescopic sights is the minimisation of wounding. Who could argue against that?

Let’s look at modern outdoor clothing. Personally, I don’t really mind getting a bit wet, so long as I know when I am going to get dry. But today’s breathable fabrics have transformed our ability to enjoy getting out and about in all weathers, and as the old army saying goes, “Any fool can be uncomfortable”. Good clothing and boots don’t necessarily take the sporting challenge out of an activity so much as make it possible to enjoy it in reasonable health. If you simply want a physical challenge, try climbing Everest in tweeds — as Mallory and Irvine did (and look what happened to them: they’re still there).

Those old wildfowlers who used to lie out all night under the moon, clad in oilskins, were admirably hardy. Right up until the time their arthritis got so bad they couldn’t get out of an armchair, that is. And given their fascination with all things technical, I don’t doubt they would have welcomed Gore-Tex, not to mention smokeless powder, waterproof cartridges, plastic decoys, LED headlamps, rubber boots, Thinsulate mitts...

Down with binoculars?

Mind you, as always, the real issue is not the kit but how you use it. Devices that could play sound were banned from wildfowling because they were too likely to be abused in certain circumstances. The same goes for semi-automatic shotguns which hold more than three rounds. Binoculars are, I suppose, one of the most widely accepted bits of kit that, in a strict sense, give humans an artifi cial benefit. But you don’t hear anybody advocating a ban on binos with a magnification of more than, say, 10x, do you?

And what about those active ear defenders, where you can wind up the sensitivity until you can hear a leaf fall in the next county? Talk about the call of the wild. In the US, I note, a hearing aid called the Game Ear is popular among some deer and turkey hunters (though a friend reckons this is a marketing ploy to appeal to the vanity of those middle-aged folk whose hearing has been damaged by shooting for many years without proper ear protection.) Come to think of it, the ultimate technological advantage is given by that most fundamental bit of kit: the gun. When you start to ponder, you rapidly decide that the boundaries of acceptable technology are purely subjective.

Anyway, enough of this philosophising; I’m off to do battle with the bloody photocopier...

Have your say: if you have a view on a current news topic, send it, in no more than 500 words, to steditorial@ipcmedia.com.

What is YOUR opinion?

Join other ST readers in our forums to discuss your views.

Like this article? Mark this page on a social bookmarking website...



What are social bookmarking sites?

Where did you start your shooting career? I mean, did you have access to a bit of land where you could shoot? I was lucky enough to be brought up in the country, so I was able to walk out the door with my first shotgun (a single-barrelled 12-bore that had an unnerving habit of opening itself after each shot) and wander about with intent. Many of today’s youngsters, growing up in one of the most crowded countries in Europe, are not so fortunate.

Lack of ready access to land on which to go shooting must be one of the key factors limiting participation in the sport. Aware of this, BASC has been doing a lot of good work — not least in helping wildfowling clubs to buy or lease their marshes, and arranging various deerstalking schemes.

In the US, meanwhile, our shooting comrades do things on an altogether more ambitious scale that is wondrous to behold and gladdens the heart. Recently, the National Rifl e Association (NRA) and other prohunter groups have really got their teeth into the state-owned sector in a way which is simply beyond comprehension over here, cowed as we are by the massed ranks of politically correct protectionism. Can you imagine us demanding of public bodies such as Natural England, Scottish Natural Heritage and the Countryside Council for Wales to be allowed more access to shoot on state-owned land? Well, in the US, our sporting friends are doing just that.

A coalition of fieldsports groups, including the mighty NRA, Safari Club International and the US Sportsmen’s Alliance, is supporting a Bill in Congress to release millions of acres of public lands administered by the US Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) from continued management as single-purpose wilderness areas with little or no hunting.

Currently, approximately 43million acres of state-owned land across the US is being managed as wilderness area, even though the Forest Service and BLM have stated that many of these areas are not suitable for true wilderness designation. However, because of current law, this marginal land must be managed in a restrictive fashion. These restrictions limit motorised access, impede many forest management practices, and hinder the public’s ability to access and enjoy these lands.

Now, a new piece of legislation has been introduced to lift the restrictive management practices on these 43million acres. (Just to put this into perspective, the whole of the UK amounts to 60million acres, of which England accounts for 32million acres.) Supporters say that lifting the current restrictions would return these lands to multiple-use management, allowing hunters and other users better access to these areas through roads and paths that are already in place.

According to the NRA, protectionist management severely restricts hunter access in three ways: by failing to authorise roads and trails that would help disabled and elderly hunters; by stopping hunters from using vehicles for game retrieval; and by making areas virtually inaccessible due to the closure of existing roads and paths. (Again, just think how these sorts of lobbying lines would play in the UK. Fun, isn’t it?)

The NRA argues that allowing these lands to be managed for multiple uses opens them up to healthy forest management, better access for firefighting capabilities, and numerous recreational activities, such as hunting and fishing — all of which represent an economic benefit for local economies.

An NRA spokesman said: “Unlike the current ‘one-size-fits-all’ management of these lands, this Bill will allow local communities to determine whether multiple-use management is most appropriate and improve access for sportsmen.” Wonderful stuff. That’s the great thing about the Yanks — say what you like about their weak beer, but they are hell on wheels when it comes to defending freedom. Unlike us, they’ve not forgotten that public authorities are supposed to work for the people, and not the other way round.

Have your say: if you have a view on a current news topic, send it, in no more than 500 words, to steditorial@ipcmedia.com.

What is YOUR opinion?

Join other ST readers in our forums to discuss your views.

Like this article? Mark this page on a social bookmarking website...



What are social bookmarking sites?