Disturbing comment in BBC Wildlife Magazine (2 Viewers)

Martin Thomas · May 9, 2007

I was deeply disturbed by a paragraph in Richard Mabey's column on page 15 of the June 2007 edition of BBC Wildlife Magazine which reads as follows:

"And there are whispers that the Government may soon cave in to the powerful game shooting lobby and introduce some relaxation to the absolute protection currently afforded to birds of prey - long regarded as vermin, of course, by estate managers with rich syndicate shoots to keep happy."

After David Cameron's recent admission of how much he enjoys blasting living things I'd say it's nailed on we'll see it happen if he gets elected. It's bad enough that any raptors are shot under special licence but I fear we could be back to virtual extinction of our birds of prey once more in a repeat of history in England if the shooting lobby gets its way.

Capercaillie71 · May 10, 2007

I doubt if there will ever be a return to the sort of free-for-all on raptors that happened in the 19th and early 20th century - the Wild Birds Directive and domestic legislation should ensure that. However, there may well be circumstances in which limited control of raptors (under licence) could take place in the future to resolve conflicts between grouse moor management and hen harriers in particular.

As much as this goes against my instincts as a conservationist, over the last few years I have come to the view that this may not necessarily be a bad thing in the bigger scheme of things, particularly after listening to a talk by Steve Redpath of CEH a few years ago.

The argument goes like this:

1) Keepered grouse moors can be very good habitats for a wide range of upland birds - far better than unmanaged and unkeepered moors (not always though!).

2) Management of these moors is expensive and will usually only be carried out if grouse shooting is viable (conservation organisations will only ever be able to afford to manage a small proportion of the moorland in the UK)

3) If hen harrier populations rise above a certain level, they can remove enough young grouse to make grouse shooting unviable.

4) While most gamekeepers wouldn't mind a small population of hen harriers on their moors, the fear that the population will increase leads some keepers to tolerate no harriers at all.

5) It would therefore be theoretically possible to have a hen harrier quota for an area of moorland, whereby harriers are able to breed on moors where they are currently not able to, while gamekeepers have the safeguard that the harrier population will not 'get out of hand'

6) Limiting the harrier population does not require any shooting of raptors - eggs could be replaced with dummies, under licence, as most grouse are killed as food for chicks in the nest.

The benefits of this could be a net increase in the harrier population and the removal of one of the most significant barriers to conservationists and gamekeepers working together for the benefit of the uplands (they have more in common than you might think).

The downsides are that it would require a huge leap of faith for both sides to trust each other, the RSPB would feel forced by its membership to oppose such a proposal (even though some RSPB staff are privately supportive). There is also the danger that it would lead to pressure to control other raptor species.

Helenelizabeth2 · May 10, 2007

Capercaillie71 said:
I doubt if there will ever be a return to the sort of free-for-all on raptors that happened in the 19th and early 20th century - the Wild Birds Directive and domestic legislation should ensure that. However, there may well be circumstances in which limited control of raptors (under licence) could take place in the future to resolve conflicts between grouse moor management and hen harriers in particular.

As much as this goes against my instincts as a conservationist, over the last few years I have come to the view that this may not necessarily be a bad thing in the bigger scheme of things, particularly after listening to a talk by Steve Redpath of CEH a few years ago.

The argument goes like this:

1) Keepered grouse moors can be very good habitats for a wide range of upland birds - far better than unmanaged and unkeepered moors (not always though!).

2) Management of these moors is expensive and will usually only be carried out if grouse shooting is viable (conservation organisations will only ever be able to afford to manage a small proportion of the moorland in the UK)

3) If hen harrier populations rise above a certain level, they can remove enough young grouse to make grouse shooting unviable.

4) While most gamekeepers wouldn't mind a small population of hen harriers on their moors, the fear that the population will increase leads some keepers to tolerate no harriers at all.

5) It would therefore be theoretically possible to have a hen harrier quota for an area of moorland, whereby harriers are able to breed on moors where they are currently not able to, while gamekeepers have the safeguard that the harrier population will not 'get out of hand'

6) Limiting the harrier population does not require any shooting of raptors - eggs could be replaced with dummies, under licence, as most grouse are killed as food for chicks in the nest.

The benefits of this could be a net increase in the harrier population and the removal of one of the most significant barriers to conservationists and gamekeepers working together for the benefit of the uplands (they have more in common than you might think).

The downsides are that it would require a huge leap of faith for both sides to trust each other, the RSPB would feel forced by its membership to oppose such a proposal (even though some RSPB staff are privately supportive). There is also the danger that it would lead to pressure to control other raptor species.

That's quite a persuasive argument. I think a pragmatic course which takes into account the drivers on both sides is always more likely to succeed than the kind of head-on collisions we often get into. I can also see how it would be difficult for the RSPB to support it, though.

Yet, it seems pretty likely that the manager of a grouse moor who trusted that the HH population was going to be controlled by others would abandon attempts to shoot them. And, if they are going to be controlled, then wouldn't it be infinitely better for the conservation orgs to be the ones doing the controlling?

harrier olley · May 10, 2007

Capercaillie71 said:
I doubt if there will ever be a return to the sort of free-for-all on raptors that happened in the 19th and early 20th century - the Wild Birds Directive and domestic legislation should ensure that. However, there may well be circumstances in which limited control of raptors (under licence) could take place in the future to resolve conflicts between grouse moor management and hen harriers in particular.

As much as this goes against my instincts as a conservationist, over the last few years I have come to the view that this may not necessarily be a bad thing in the bigger scheme of things, particularly after listening to a talk by Steve Redpath of CEH a few years ago.

The argument goes like this:

1) Keepered grouse moors can be very good habitats for a wide range of upland birds - far better than unmanaged and unkeepered moors (not always though!).

2) Management of these moors is expensive and will usually only be carried out if grouse shooting is viable (conservation organisations will only ever be able to afford to manage a small proportion of the moorland in the UK)

3) If hen harrier populations rise above a certain level, they can remove enough young grouse to make grouse shooting unviable.

4) While most gamekeepers wouldn't mind a small population of hen harriers on their moors, the fear that the population will increase leads some keepers to tolerate no harriers at all.

5) It would therefore be theoretically possible to have a hen harrier quota for an area of moorland, whereby harriers are able to breed on moors where they are currently not able to, while gamekeepers have the safeguard that the harrier population will not 'get out of hand'

6) Limiting the harrier population does not require any shooting of raptors - eggs could be replaced with dummies, under licence, as most grouse are killed as food for chicks in the nest.

The benefits of this could be a net increase in the harrier population and the removal of one of the most significant barriers to conservationists and gamekeepers working together for the benefit of the uplands (they have more in common than you might think).

The downsides are that it would require a huge leap of faith for both sides to trust each other, the RSPB would feel forced by its membership to oppose such a proposal (even though some RSPB staff are privately supportive). There is also the danger that it would lead to pressure to control other raptor species.

At present there are only 7 nesting female hen harriers in England all in Bowland and actually on united utility land no harriers are breeding on grouse moors does this tell us something. How can we have a cull of this species in England what are we going to do cull those birds that are breeding in Bowland then what extinction.

harrier olley · May 10, 2007

At present there are only 7 nesting female hen harriers in England all in Bowland and actually on united utility land no harriers are breeding on grouse moors does this tell us something. How can we have a cull of this species in England what are we going to do cull those birds that are breeding in Bowland then what extinction. We have actually lost the only two nests outside of Bowland ( 1 on grouse moor the other non grouse moor) within the last 3 weeks.

pe'rigin · May 10, 2007

The only comment I can make would be what gives us the right to determine what lives and what is executed.

Vectis Birder · May 10, 2007

pe'rigin said:
The only comment I can make would be what gives us the right to determine what lives and what is executed.

Quite. I just don't understand this moronic so-called 'sport' in which things have to be blasted out of the sky, and other things killed so that the things to be blasted out of the sky aren't killed prematurely...it's daft.

Capercaillie71 · May 10, 2007

pe'rigin said:
The only comment I can make would be what gives us the right to determine what lives and what is executed.

You are of course entitled to your view, but if you are suggesting that we should never kill any wildlife, then you would also have to accept that some of our scarcer species might disappear as the breeding success of many species that live in fragmented and suboptimal habitats (including terns, waders, black grouse and capercaillie) is highly dependent on the control of predators such as crows and foxes (often by nature reserve staff). I don't see that there is any moral difference between controlling foxes and crows and controlling hen harriers.

Capercaillie71 · May 10, 2007

harrier olley said:
How can we have a cull of this species in England what are we going to do cull those birds that are breeding in Bowland then what extinction.

The scenario that I was outlining is not a cull - it is setting a ceiling on the population of hen harriers on grouse moors. If it was implemented in England it could lead to a substantial increase in the hen harrier population. Imagine if the population was limited to a quota of 1 pair of harriers per 20 sq. km of moorland (a figure I have plucked out of the air but possibly not unrealistic). That could allow a population of over 100 pairs of Hen Harriers in England alone.

Capercaillie71 · May 10, 2007

Helenelizabeth2 said:
I think a pragmatic course which takes into account the drivers on both sides is always more likely to succeed than the kind of head-on collisions we often get into.

That's my thinking exactly. I have been involved with the capercaillie conservation effort for over six years now and the reason it has been a success is that people with different and often conflicting interests (conservationists, foresters, gamekeepers) have worked together in a positive and coordinated way. It would be great if that degree of cooperation could be extended to moorland habitats.

Jos Stratford · May 10, 2007

Capercaillie71 said:
Imagine if the population was limited to a quota of 1 pair of harriers per 20 sq. km of moorland .

Imagine if the population of persecuting gamekeepers was limited to a quota of 1 pair per country, preferably deprived of a gun, hmm how healthy that would be.

If they can't be trusted not to shoot them when it is totally illegal, why should we believe they will respect quotas when they can shoot all and sundry claiming it was within the quota? Same reason that Kenya opposes limited sales of ivory, legal sales (shooting in the case of raptors) can cover illegal operations.

Helenelizabeth2 · May 10, 2007

Jos Stratford said:
Imagine if the population of persecuting gamekeepers was limited to a quota of 1 pair per country, preferably deprived of a gun, hmm how healthy that would be.

If they can't be trusted not to shoot them when it is totally illegal, why should we believe they will respect quotas when they can shoot all and sundry claiming it was within the quota? Same reason that Kenya opposes limited sales of ivory, legal sales (shooting in the case of raptors) can cover illegal operations.

Jos you didn't read it properly (just so busy busy these days

). The idea was that populations would be controlled by egg substitution so absolutely no excuse for anyone to shoot anything.

And, yes I agree with you and others, wouldn't it be nice if we could limit the numbers of persecuters instead but it's not working, is it? That's why I think - let's try a compromise solution that might actually work in the real world.

Capercaillie71 · May 10, 2007

Jos Stratford said:
If they can't be trusted not to shoot them when it is totally illegal, why should we believe they will respect quotas when they can shoot all and sundry claiming it was within the quota?

That's a fair point, although note that I wasn't suggesting that any harriers are shot. As I said in post#2 a huge leap of faith is required for both sides to trust each other - but if it can happen in Northern Ireland....

Personally I would prefer it if all moorland was managed primarily for nature conservation, but that isn't going to happen, so I take a pragmatic approach. If a quota system was introduced it would require a derogation from the Wild Birds Directive, which would probably mean that it could only procede if it resulted in an increase in the overall harrier population. If the overall harrier population didn't increase, the scheme could be stopped.

Capercaillie71 · May 10, 2007

Capercaillie71 said:
although note that I wasn't suggesting that any harriers are shot.

You beat me to it HE2 - I really shouldn't take so long thinking what to write!

Jos Stratford · May 10, 2007

Helenelizabeth2 said:
Jos you didn't read it properly (just so busy busy these days ). The idea was that populations would be controlled by egg substitution so absolutely no excuse for anyone to shoot anything.
.

So just means they have less birds to illegally shoot - they substitute eggs on all those they are allowed to, then shoot the rest. Better someone shoots them.

Helenelizabeth2 · May 10, 2007

Jos Stratford said:
Better someone shoots them.

Not going to happen though, is it - whatever we all feel about them. Better we work out a way of persuading them not to shoot them or preventing them from shooting them. Or a bit of both - as is being suggested.

GarethW · May 10, 2007

Capercaillie71 said:
The scenario that I was outlining is not a cull - it is setting a ceiling on the population of hen harriers on grouse moors. If it was implemented in England it could lead to a substantial increase in the hen harrier population. Imagine if the population was limited to a quota of 1 pair of harriers per 20 sq. km of moorland (a figure I have plucked out of the air but possibly not unrealistic). That could allow a population of over 100 pairs of Hen Harriers in England alone.

Hello Capercaillie, Your suggestion about a ceiling limit on harrier numbers may just be the way forward. But where will it stop, ceiling limits on owls peregrines goshawks gooseanders and cormorants? Gareth

Jos Stratford · May 10, 2007

Helenelizabeth2 said:
Better we work out a way of persuading them not to shoot them or preventing them from shooting them. Or a bit of both - as is being suggested.

Whilst I understand where Capercaillie is coming from, why should we be trying to reduce a crime by permitting it in controlled form? Hmm, yes, all you shoplifters, you can steal one time per shop, but please no more. Same with other crimes too?

Just put a total ban on any grouse shooting for one or two seasons on any estate convicted of any illegal actions. Up it for second offences.

Capercaillie71 · May 10, 2007

Jos Stratford said:
So just means they have less birds to illegally shoot - they substitute eggs on all those they are allowed to, then shoot the rest. Better someone shoots them.

I can understand why you feel like this - there are some real psycho keepers out there. But equally there are many keepers (and perhaps more importantly, shooting estate managers) who are acutely aware of the negative publicity they receive and would prefer to promote a more positive image. There will always be troublemakers, but I don't think it would be that hard to get a lot of shooting estates to agree to a scheme like this.

Jos Stratford · May 10, 2007

GarethW said:
But where will it stop, ceiling limits on owls peregrines goshawks gooseanders and cormorants? Gareth

Exactly, nothing is then protected. Conservationists will be arguing over quotas, not direct conservation - quotas have a habit of being overly in favour of economic concerns (eg fisheries), so there is every chance that the permitted numbers would be slowly tweaked ever downward.

Disturbing comment in BBC Wildlife Magazine (2 Viewers)

Retired student

Well-known member

What?!?

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Itchy feet

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Eastern Exile

What?!?

Well-known member

Well-known member

Eastern Exile

What?!?

Well-known member

Eastern Exile

Well-known member

Eastern Exile

Similar threads

Users who are viewing this thread