Demi
Tue, Oct-12-04, 11:06
I thought that the hunter gatherers among us might find this article interesting :)
The Times, London, UK
October 12, 2004
Reform of antiquated hunting laws may make us all game for healthy diet
By Valerie Elliott, Countryside Editor
ANTIQUATED laws that prevent the sale of wild game in supermarkets and butchers’ shops all year round are to be scrapped by the Government. The aim is to encourage more healthy eating in Britain and for consumers to take advantage of the high-protein, low-cholesterol meats such as pheasant, partridge and venison, which are widely available.
Ben Bradshaw, the Minister for Animal Welfare and Nature Conservation, will review the Game Act 1831 and the Game Licences Act 1860 and expects to abolish them before the general election.
Mr Bradshaw said: “The game laws are archaic and we are going to have to get rid of them. We will launch a formal review of the laws very soon but my inclination is to abolish game licences. I also believe their value as a deterrent to poaching is questionable.”
He is particularly impressed by the health benefits of the meat and intends to lift the ban on selling game all year.
“I want to see greater demand for this meat. There is a lot of game out there — the deer population in the UK is exploding at the moment. Game is very high in protein, low in fat and contains important omega-3 oils. Managing game also makes a massive contribution to our landscape and to biodiversity,” he said.
The move will be a fillip to the rural economy and help to raise the prices paid to farmers and gamekeepers for produce. The game market is worth between £30 million and £50 million a year. The overwhelming majority of British game — 85 per cent — is exported to the Continent.
Under the game laws, anyone who shoots game is required to buy a £6 licence and anyone wishing to sell game must buy a separate £4 game dealer’s licence, as well as paying a £55 registration fee to the local authority. These fees are on top of the requirement to own a shotgun licence.
The game laws hark back to the days before widespread refrigeration when, for health reasons, the sale of game was limited to the season in which the quarry was shot. Mr Bradshaw said: “These Acts are antiquated. We don’t need this bureaucracy. It costs us about £250,000 a year to administer for about 30,000 or 40,000 licences.”
The game laws also set out the seasons when each bird or animal may be shot so as not to interfere with breeding. These seasons would remain in law.
The British Retail Consortium, representing the main supermarkets, supports a change of the law. A spokeswoman said: “The process of applying for and renewing these game-dealer licences is burdensome.” She said that stores want to sell frozen game year-round to offer customers more choice.
The British Association for Shooting and Conservation is also keen for the laws to be scrapped. Christopher Graffius, its spokesman, said: “These laws are part of an anachronism that was designed to keep shooting game for the gentry and to stop peasants taking deer or birds and selling them to dealers. By introducing licences the squirearchy in Parliament ensured that shooting remained exclusive. But the laws have no purpose now.”
However, scrapping the laws is certain to upset the influential lobby of land and estate owners. They regard the laws as a protection against poachers. Christopher Price, the public law adviser to the Country Land and Business Association, which represents 50,000 landowners, said: “The game Acts are the only legal protection landowners have against poaching. Game birds, once released, are not property. Anyone who enters land and kills them is not committing theft, only trespass, which is not a crime.”
ONE LAW FOR THE RICH
The purpose of the Game Act 1671, whose origins went back the 14th century, was to ensure only landed gentry could kill game
Only those with a freehold worth at least £100 a year or a 99-year leasehold worth £150 a year could take game. The threshold was 50 times the value of property required to vote
The game hunter’s wealth had to come from land. The growth of the middle class made the law outdated
Under the Game Act 1831 the owner of the land and nobody else had the right to take or kill game on that land. A landowner could pass his rights to a tenant
The Act covers pheasant, partridge and red and black grouse. Not deer and rabbits
Hunting requires a game licence under the Game Licences Act 1860
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-1305038_3,00.html
The Times, London, UK
October 12, 2004
Reform of antiquated hunting laws may make us all game for healthy diet
By Valerie Elliott, Countryside Editor
ANTIQUATED laws that prevent the sale of wild game in supermarkets and butchers’ shops all year round are to be scrapped by the Government. The aim is to encourage more healthy eating in Britain and for consumers to take advantage of the high-protein, low-cholesterol meats such as pheasant, partridge and venison, which are widely available.
Ben Bradshaw, the Minister for Animal Welfare and Nature Conservation, will review the Game Act 1831 and the Game Licences Act 1860 and expects to abolish them before the general election.
Mr Bradshaw said: “The game laws are archaic and we are going to have to get rid of them. We will launch a formal review of the laws very soon but my inclination is to abolish game licences. I also believe their value as a deterrent to poaching is questionable.”
He is particularly impressed by the health benefits of the meat and intends to lift the ban on selling game all year.
“I want to see greater demand for this meat. There is a lot of game out there — the deer population in the UK is exploding at the moment. Game is very high in protein, low in fat and contains important omega-3 oils. Managing game also makes a massive contribution to our landscape and to biodiversity,” he said.
The move will be a fillip to the rural economy and help to raise the prices paid to farmers and gamekeepers for produce. The game market is worth between £30 million and £50 million a year. The overwhelming majority of British game — 85 per cent — is exported to the Continent.
Under the game laws, anyone who shoots game is required to buy a £6 licence and anyone wishing to sell game must buy a separate £4 game dealer’s licence, as well as paying a £55 registration fee to the local authority. These fees are on top of the requirement to own a shotgun licence.
The game laws hark back to the days before widespread refrigeration when, for health reasons, the sale of game was limited to the season in which the quarry was shot. Mr Bradshaw said: “These Acts are antiquated. We don’t need this bureaucracy. It costs us about £250,000 a year to administer for about 30,000 or 40,000 licences.”
The game laws also set out the seasons when each bird or animal may be shot so as not to interfere with breeding. These seasons would remain in law.
The British Retail Consortium, representing the main supermarkets, supports a change of the law. A spokeswoman said: “The process of applying for and renewing these game-dealer licences is burdensome.” She said that stores want to sell frozen game year-round to offer customers more choice.
The British Association for Shooting and Conservation is also keen for the laws to be scrapped. Christopher Graffius, its spokesman, said: “These laws are part of an anachronism that was designed to keep shooting game for the gentry and to stop peasants taking deer or birds and selling them to dealers. By introducing licences the squirearchy in Parliament ensured that shooting remained exclusive. But the laws have no purpose now.”
However, scrapping the laws is certain to upset the influential lobby of land and estate owners. They regard the laws as a protection against poachers. Christopher Price, the public law adviser to the Country Land and Business Association, which represents 50,000 landowners, said: “The game Acts are the only legal protection landowners have against poaching. Game birds, once released, are not property. Anyone who enters land and kills them is not committing theft, only trespass, which is not a crime.”
ONE LAW FOR THE RICH
The purpose of the Game Act 1671, whose origins went back the 14th century, was to ensure only landed gentry could kill game
Only those with a freehold worth at least £100 a year or a 99-year leasehold worth £150 a year could take game. The threshold was 50 times the value of property required to vote
The game hunter’s wealth had to come from land. The growth of the middle class made the law outdated
Under the Game Act 1831 the owner of the land and nobody else had the right to take or kill game on that land. A landowner could pass his rights to a tenant
The Act covers pheasant, partridge and red and black grouse. Not deer and rabbits
Hunting requires a game licence under the Game Licences Act 1860
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-1305038_3,00.html