to think that if you are Royal and want to campaign against wildlife being killed, you shouldn't shoot them?

[HollyMiamiFLA]

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-26106137

Granted he's talking about the danger to endangered wildlife in Africa from poachers and he's only shooting boar on a private estate and they're not endangered so that's ok - but it doesn't come across too well.

Why would shooting an animal that has been reared in freedom, probably helps with the environment on the estate where it roams (National Trust use pigs as an environmentally friendly landscape keeper on their estate), and is killed instantly, make you come across as less warm and humane like than somebody who has a battery chicken sandwich from their local caff or a hamburger from McDonald's?

I don't get it.

Separate species, maybe. But certainly not less humane.

He's not hunting endangered species on the one hand.

In the other hand he risks losing ALL credibility. Nice own goal there William you twat.

Surely it is better to keep woods and moors, with all their biodiversity for pheasant and grouse shoots, rather than clear the land for low level sheep grazing.

Especially in the light of research showing tree covers huge be idiot in encouraging water to soak into the growing and reduce flooding.

I certainly prefer the mixed wood land on our hills to bare grass, more polly tunnels and yet more water and mud on our lanes.

I'll even try not to moan about the pheasant that smashed my windscreen.

Be idiot = benefit, sorry

Like many people, I don't mind pheasant and grouse shooting per se. However it's all the associated cruelty - game keepers poisoning birds of prey for example. The hills of the Border should be supporting many golden eagle pairs. There are none. A single female was found poisoned a couple of years ago though. For healthy biodiversity, a habitat needs predators.

the only drawback I can think of, starball, is that keepers of grouse moors are very often implicated in killing threatened birds of prey

having said that, this could be got round by stricter policing- and if the moors weren't there there would be fewer habitats for birds of prey in the first place

cross-posted with Heather

Great minds, Cory...

Heather :o

anyway, I don't think there is anything you need to poison to keep boars on your estate and compared to the often horrendous living conditions of Danish bacon pigs I'd say it seems a pretty humane thing to do

Sorry, bit Freudian that, Hester

though my typing is awful at the best of times

I am vehemently anti-Royalist but I think YABU. Shooting an non endangered animal for pest control or food is completely different to poaching an endangered species.

Philip was blasting tigers to high heaven a few decades ago.
People seem to have forgotten about that, conveniently enough.

Totally agree that game keepers do have their rotten eggs.

Round here we need better controls on keeping foot paths maintained and too much is private no entry. However, the woodland you can get access to is lovely with spring wild flowers, bluebells and brimstone butterflies. That has to be worth preserving when almost everywhere else is winter wheat and polly tunnels.

Pheasants are suicidal, it amazes me that any of them survive.

I once had to drive at about 1MPH swerving down a empty road to avoid a Pheasant that seemed hell bent on throwing itself under my wheel. I had to park up and shoo it away.

I hate the attitude that all all animal slaughter is equal, it isn't.

I am Vegan, but any cruelty, bio diversity/environment protection or raising awareness of any issues relating to unneccasary practices is welcome, from any source.

They are two complete seperate issues and it is good that meat eaters get involved in these campaigns, otherwise they are dismissed as "hippie" "tree huggers" rants.

Seconded. Culling red dear in the Highlands really is not the same as herding pilot whales into bays and hacking them to death.

"Philip was blasting tigers to high heaven a few decades ago."

Phillip isn't the one raising awareness.

Even so, nearly all of us did things decades ago that are no longer social acceptable, or at least we are, personally embarrassed about.

moondog, not everybody who argues against the OP is a royalist or saying that every member of the royal family is beyond reproach

prince Philip shooting tigers in the past is not relevant to an argument as to whether another member of the royal family shooting boars now is cruel and inhumane

it might be relevant to an argument as to whether prince Philip is a plonker or not

but then I would not have any problem at all with that argument

Do n

Glad we've settled on that definition Cory!

I still think William has scored an own goal though. With the Royals, perception is everything, and most stupid people can't perceive anything other than his apparent "hypocrisy". This is why he's done his own cause no good.

Game that is shot and managed for sport, wouldn't exist without the money that goes in to shooting and nor would much of its habitat.

Sorry.

But how many people use Ant/Insect killer?

So you cannot complain about the man that has bred pigeons to train ferrets and JR's, then, who has just been sentenced to prison.

There are excellent sketchers and cartoons about this picking apart of any environmental/animal campaigning.

It's like the Anti Porn argument on here.

I could wade in, every time and bring up the argument that if you worry about the exploitation and deaths of women and children, then make sure that you only use Fair Trade Cocoa Beans/Tea/Coffee.

But any chipping away of any sort of exploitation is what is important, as is any improvement in any environmental issue.

Yanbu.