NA TURE 



501 



THURSDAY, OCTOBER 5, 1876 



THE WOUNDED IN SHOOTING 



SOME time since a well-known public writer excited 

 the surprise and anger of a large portion of the com- 

 munity by vehemently protesting against the amount of 

 animal suffering caused by field-sports, and a long and 

 rather bitter controversy ensued, Mr, Freeman's remarks 

 were, if we recollect right, limited to " hunting," in the 

 conventional sense of the word — that is, the chase of the 

 fox or the hare with hounds, and many estimable persons 

 were not a little shocked to find themselves accused of 

 having, nearly all their life-time, been committing the 

 grossest cruelty. Whether the principles and practice of 

 humanity sustained any benefit by this fierce attack, 

 whether the attack was made in the best possible taste? 

 and whether in making it Mr. Freeman did not overlook 

 a very important consideration (of which, by the way, we 

 are not aware that any of his opponents took advantage), 

 are questions we do not here propose to discuss. We are 

 now led to make a few calculations based on the re- 

 turns contained in the Eighteenth and last Report of the 

 Board of Inland Revenue of the number of persons who 

 take out licences to kill v/hat the law calls " game " and 

 to carry a gun. This Report (which we may observe is 

 one presented to both Houses of Parliament, and can be 

 obtained by anybody at her Majesty's Stationery Office 

 for the small sum of sixpence) is undated, but refers to 

 the financial years 1873-4, and 1874-5. That for the 

 past year (1875-6) is not, we believe, published, or we 

 would gladly avail ourselves of it. However, in the 

 Report before us it stands that, in the year 1873-4, 

 there were, 132,036 holders of gun licences and 65,846 

 holders of licences to kill game. In the year 1874-5 the 

 corresponding numbers were 144,278 and 68,079. It 

 would not be easy to estimate the number of " head " 

 slain by these persons, but there is no reason why, for 

 our present purpose, we should attempt to do so. The 

 beast or bird killed by the gun generally dies as speedy 

 a death as can possibly be inflicted, and the tenderest 

 and most sentimental of hearts cannot complain on the 

 score of humanity quoad the victim. But how about 

 the wounded — which everyone knows to be many ? Is it 

 possible to estimate their num.ber ? We think it is ; but 

 let us premise that in making the computation we have no 

 desire to harrow the feelings of our readers by a sensa- 

 tional description of the miseries which an animal may 

 suffer from the lodging of one or many pellets of shot in 

 any part of its body. In some cases they may be frightful, 

 in others productive only of a slight degree of pain, 

 hardly amounting to more than personal inconvenience ; 

 but in striking the balance we may, on the whole, assume 

 that acute pain, enduring for some hours or days, is suf- 

 fered by every beast or bird which the shot strikes, 

 and the shooter does not " bag." Now as to the number 

 of these wounded. 



Recalling our own shooting days, we should say that a 

 man must be an uncommonly good and careful shot who 

 does not on an average wound without "bagging" more 

 than three head of game each day that he takes the field. 

 Many men will " lose " that number every day, and by 

 Vol. xjy.— No. 362 



" losing " a bird, a hare, or a rabbit, we mean that it has 

 fallen to the gun or been hit hard enough to insure its 

 capture, had not the retriever, the scent, or the marking 

 been bad. But such cases bear no proportion to the 

 numbers (of grouse or partridges especially) that are hit 

 but not hard enough to be counted "lost." They are 

 seen to flinch as they are struck, but that is all ; away 

 they go, whether to the next hill-side, into the next field, 

 or much further, no one asks, and no one thinks more 

 about them, A la guerre comme d, la guerre. Now 

 supposing that all who shoot game are good and careful 

 shots, we should have on our estimate each shooter 

 wounding his three head per diem irrespective of what he 

 brings to bag. But all shots are neither good nor careful, 

 therefore we think our estimate cannot be too great, and 

 we have also to take in cases of what may be called 

 extravagant shooting, where the numbers of wounded 

 must transcend any ordinary computation.^ 



We have now to reckon the number of days that each 

 holder of a game licence may be supposed to shoot. The 

 shooting season begins for grouse on August 12, for par- 

 tridges on September i, and for pheasants on October i. 

 As we do not wish to be guilty of any exaggeration, but 

 only to strike a fair average, . let us take the partridge- 

 shooting season, i.e., from September i to February i, 

 inclusive."^ Herein we have twenty-one weeks. It does 

 not seem an immoderate assumption to suppose that each 

 holder of a licence to kill game goes out on an average 

 two days a week during that time. There are, no doubt, 

 many men who get no more than two days' shooting 

 throughout the whole season and yet take out a licence ; 

 but there must be at least as many, if not more, who are 

 not so conscientious and run the risk of shooting for the 

 whole season without paying the duty. The Commis- 

 sioners in this very Report say (p. 18) of the Game 

 Licence, that " while it is used by game preservers as a 

 means of punishing poachers, there can be no doubt that 

 among persons of a higher station in life it is very largely 

 evaded." Then there is a very considerable number of 

 inveterate sportsmen who go out day after day throughout 

 the whole season — to say nothing of the grouse shooters 

 who, as most of them pay highly for their moors, unques. 

 tionably shoot every day they can for a month or six 

 weeks. Therefore taking the partridge season as a basis 

 we think that our assumption of an average of two 

 days a week for those twenty-one weeks is not excessive 

 This will give an average of forty-two days of shooting 

 for each of the 65,846 holders of licences to kill game in 

 1873-4, and of the 68,079 in 1874-5. Now we have 

 already shown the likelihood that each ot them wounds 

 on an average three head of game per dtem, we therefore 

 multiply both of these numbers by 126 (= 42 X 3) and 

 we find that in the former of these two years there must 



I One such very recent case we may cite from the columns of a contem- 

 porary {The Field, Sept. 23, 1876). In nine days, between the ist and isth 

 of September, inclusive, ot this year, the Maharajah Duleep Singh, on his 

 estate at and near Elveden, killed to his own gun 26*3 head of game, of 

 which 2530 were partridges. This is vouched for by his Highness's head- 

 gamekeeper. It is true that there is only one Elveden and one Mjiharajah 

 in this country, and that the fact of its being communicated to a newspaper 

 shows that both master and man thought the slaughter rather remarkable ; 

 but instances which approach it are not altogether unknown. 



^ The Report on which we base our calculations is in one respect defective, 

 since it does not separate the respective numbers of holders of licences for 

 the entire year or for the half-year. Judging, however, from the amounts 

 of duty charged, the latter are about one-fifth of the whole. The majority 

 of them are supposed to be chiefly schoolboys, and, as they are learning the 

 art, they may be justly considered clumsy performers with the gun, wound- 

 ing more than the average of adult shots. 



