MADAM,

In reply to: "Death comes to Monnow Valley".

I have often read rubbish such as that espoused by your reader R L Clarke in last week's Beacon, more usually in the populist press from the mouths of urban dwellers, left-wing politicians or anarchists.

R L Clarke claims to be an "ex-poacher" and is thus supposedly someone familiar with country ways. For such a person to hold these views is bizarre.

I am a member of a shooting syndicate, not in the Monnow Valley (though I have shot there as a guest) and have shot both clays and game for many years. Our shoot is fairly typical of small shoots throughout the country, the members being drawn from all walks of society. I therefore feel that I can respond to R L Clarke's correspondence.

Let us examine the facts of behind his claims:

1. Pheasants are shot on the wing because it would be dangerous to shoot them on the ground. 50 - 75% of all birds are missed. Shot on the ground, at close quarters, very few would be missed.

2. Well run shoots only allow "sporting" shots to be taken, that is those that are challenging and difficult. As with anything in life, true satisfaction stems from doing something difficult. If it were as easy as R L Clarke suggests, nobody would bother.

3. When pheasants are young, their first feeds are medicated to help them resist disease. This is quickly replaced with growing pellets (similar to chicken layer feed), wheat and maize until they are mature enough to feed for themselves. The use of antibiotics is minimal and certainly far less than that used in commercial livestock and poultry.

If the use of these antibiotics renders these birds inedible, we had better empty all of the supermarket shelves of meat, poultry and eggs. If you want to see what is fed to game birds just pop into your local feed dealer, it is there for all to see.

4. We eat the birds that we shoot.

5. R L Clarke stated that "on one big shoot in the Midlands they used a JCB to bury thousands unfit for human consumption". I have heard this story dozens of times before though usually it referred to '"massacres" and the un-saleability of the birds. Funny thing is, nobody has been able to say exactly where the "JCB shoot" is.

6. Your writer stated that the cost of rearing these birds amounts to £20 to £30 per head. A typical cost to a small syndicate would probably be in the range of £6 to £7 per head and that would include ongoing improvement of shoot facilities.

A large commercial shoot would have higher costs as they would employ a gamekeeper and maybe even assistant keepers but they would recover their costs from selling shooting days and shot birds. Let us remember that these large shoots provide much-needed rural employment at a time when this is generally contracting.

7. I note that R L Clarke is atypical of the anti-shooting lobby in that he/she conveniently neglects not only the employment issue but also the beneficial husbandry of the countryside (which he/she seems to enjoy) provided by shoots. He/she also fails to ask what would happen to the pheasant if shooting did not exist.

8. R L Clarke makes disparaging comments about the Queen dispatching a wounded bird. What would he/she do? Leave it to suffer?

Unlike your correspondent I am proud to be British, proud to live in a country where freedom has in the past, been taken for granted and assured for all. Long may this continue.

Finally I would ask R L Clarke (who through a quirk of fate, was fortunate enough to be born homo sapiens and British at that) whether given the choice of a less blessed existence, he/she would have chosen to be a free-flying pheasant or a battery-farm chicken?

M A Boden (Mr)

(Address supplied)