On Monday morning the Daily Mail published a report on the decision by WH Smith to ban the sale of shooting magazines to children under fourteen.
To supply the logic behind this extraordinary step a WH SMith spokesperson was reported as stating
“this being the legal age at which someone can possess a firearms certificate”
However as the Daily Mail pointed out, under the current law, there is no minimum age for applying for a shotgun certificate in the UK, the decision to grant such a licence rests with a senior police officer.
So where does this unprecedented action come from? And why do the ‘powers that be’ at WH Smith, think our shooting magazines are unsuitable reading matter for our children?
Is this partly our fault?
Part of the problem is, as always, the power of small but vociferous pressure groups.
Animal Aid have produced a report stating that shooting magazines should be on the top shelf of the newsagents, alongside porn. No surprises there then.
But are we in any way to blame for this development?
Simon Clarke of BASC is quoted by the newspaper in that report as saying that the death of the animal is not glorified in any way. But is that actually true?
I seemed to remember reading an item quite recently in a shooting magazine, where the death of a deer was described in fairly gratuitous detail without proper reference to the purpose of that death.
I couldn’t find the article in question so I flicked through a recent copy of the Shooting Times. The first item was an article on goose shooting. It was a three page colour spread and as far as I can see, it contains not a single mention of cooking or eating the geese that were shot.
Next was an article on grouse shooting. Again, no mention of the excellent meat provided by grouse. Anyone who did not know about game shooting could be forgiven for thinking that the true purpose of shooting was purely for the pleasure of killing.
A harvest
The next item about rabbit shooting cheered me up. It used the word ‘harvest’ in the title. It also recognised the food value of the animal being shot in the very first paragraph. The author then goes on to talk about the impact of rabbits on crops, and the importance of headshots when using an air rifle. Well done Mathew Manning.
What are they thinking?
But the next item was an excerpt from a book containing a detailed description of a muntjac deer being taken down by a lurcher!
Animal Aid must be overjoyed to see a national shooting magazine demonstrate such an apparent lack of respect for a wild animal. What was the Shooting Times thinking?
Yes, this happened many years ago. Yes, dogs do sometimes kill deer. And yes, I appreciate that the incident was an accident.
Of course, we all know that this is not a good way to put venison on the table. We all know that deer are large mammals that should be humanely shot with a rifle of appropriate calibre, but sadly many people do not know that we know!
I am not judging the author, or her dogs, or even her sentiments. What concerns me is that the Shooting Times considered this an appropriate excerpt for publication in their magazine. An appropriate way to represent me, and others like me, to the general public. And this is by no means an isolated example. Alongside much that is good, I have read articles that make me cringe in several shooting mags over the years.
A window for the world
Magazines like these are a window for the outside world to look through at our lives.
Is this accident really a suitable topic to report on in a national magazine that is read and inspected not only by those that enjoy country sports, but by those that would see our way of life gone forever?
I think it is important that we print articles that encourage youngsters to think about why they are killing animals, about the point of shooting. We should be teaching them to promote our sport by explaining the importance of eating healthy meat, and of protecting crops.
We need to think hard about how we present ourselves, and we need to do it now.
Food glorious food
Every single article on shooting is an opportunity to explain to the rationale behind our way of life to those who have no idea why we do what we do. We must not let any more opportunities slip through our fingers.
We need to recognise that the pleasure we take in shooting well, in field-craft, in being outdoors, all those things, is not sufficient ethical grounds for the long term survival of shooting.
We must always remember that the purpose of game shooting is to provide a healthy and ethical source of meat. We should sing this from the rooftops.
Game is food! Healthy, ethical, wonderful food.
What can we do?
So will other newsagents follow WH Smith’s lead? I hope not but a lot will depend on the public reaction to their stance.
What can we do to avoid more retailers treating shooting magazines as something liable to poison children’s minds?
I think we can do two things.
- We can voice our disapproval loudly
- We can improve our own image
Voicing our disapproval
Shooting sports are often wronged, sometimes through ignorance of what is involved in our way of life. Sometimes through deliberate misrepresentation of what we are about.
We need to vigorously defend our sport at every opportunity.
You can write to WHSmith and protest about their illogical and unfair discrimination against a popular and important sport, and against an important rural minority.
You can also sign this petition asking them to reverse their ill thought policy.
And here is a poll on The Telegraph’s website, please place your vote!
However, defending ourselves from attack is not sufficient. It is no good just yelling “unfair!”
We need to make sure that we have our own house in order too.
Improving our image
We need to improve the public image of shooting and the shooting community. We should be pointing out the important part the shooting sports play in the rural economy and in the maintenance of our wonderful rural habitats.
Shooting magazines represent us, and should be educating children who read them as to the principles of ethical shooting. We need these magazines to emphasise the importance of game as a healthy and ethical food source.
The pursuit of any mammal should always have a reasonable purpose, and that purpose should be made clear at all times.
We need to promote our way of life properly. There is absolutely no room for arrogance or complacency.
If we fail it will be gone forever. There will be no repeal, and no going back.
What do you think?
Is this the thin end of the wedge? Will other retailers follow suit? Do we need to improve our image? Share your thoughts in the comments box