We'll still be at it but it might be different

An encounter with hundreds of low-flying birds makes James Fisher wonder whether shooting needs to evolve in order to survive

- James Fisher

As the first birds heaved themselves out of the cover, it rapidly dawned that what we were about to witness would be as close to a slaughter as you’ll see in an East Anglian field. Plump pheasants desperately climbed into the sky, but it was no use. We were right there, in a semi-circle, and it is no exaggeration to say it would have been harder to miss these birds than hit them. And hit them we did, in their droves, to the point where the landowner — from whom my friends and I had bought this day — came over and said with some glee that we were finally on track to hit our ‘numbers’ for the day.

Pause for thought

It was a telling sentence, not just because it suggested none of us could shoot, but also because it gave me pause for thought when it came to driven shooting that I hadn’t necessarily experienced before. If birds are treated as just ‘numbers’, then the accusation of shooting as some kind of relentless quest for bloodlust begins to hold more water, and that cannot be good for the sport.

Shooting, like everything else, is currently in a desperate bid to show its sustainable credentials. Its future depends on it working in concert with the land and the natural environment, and not against it. Which begs the question: “If we continue as we are, will we still be shooting in 30 years’ time?”

“The answer is yes,” says Jake Fiennes. “Everyone should have the ability to harvest wild protein, especially if there is a surplus. If I look at the UK deer population, which is ridiculously high, there is no reason not to. When landscapes are managed well, there are harvestable surpluses.”