The price of popularity

Is British shooting in danger of selling itself short? Richard Negus asks the experts

- Richard Negus

The television series Jack’s Game was first screened on Channel 4 in 1983. In one episode, the cameras follow Jack Charlton, two of his friends and their dogs as they walk up some wild and wonderful land on their rough shoot.

Jack ruefully points out that the money they spend on sporting rights, releasing and feeding 100 birds and myriad other expenses makes their bag of seven pheasants and one brace of teal a costly haul.

Some say that, since those halcyon 1980s days, game shooting has become too cheap and too gluttonous, citing this as the cause of overproduction and the resulting devaluation of game.

Sam Carlisle, shooting campaign manager for the Countryside Alliance, said: “I think shooting is affordable rather than cheap, particularly if you live in a truly rural area. Shooting is remarkably good value if you compare it with other adventurous sports, such as skiing or sailing.”

This is an important point. There is a gulf of difference between ‘cheap’ and ‘affordable’. Cheap implies a lowering of quality and cost. Affordable suggests something is reasonably priced and attainable.

Comparing 1983 with today, our average salaries are now 24% higher, fuel costs 24% lower and our groceries shop is 54% less costly.

Shoots in the early 1980s faced markedly higher costs. In 1980, wheat prices were £105 per ton (£453.60 in today’s money), pheasant poults were nearly three times the price. Thus, due to basic economics, in the early 1980s fewer people went driven shooting or if they did, they shot fewer birds.