End of the road for grouse shooting? (3 Viewers)

[griffin]

As I've already mentioned, most species seem to be finding their natural levels over time at Langholm, including Harriers.
The experiment could therefore prove that upland moors can exist without keepering and if this means the end of managed grouse moors and gamekeeper persecution of raptors, GOOD!

:clap: Exactly ! Which answers the question of a previous poster- Nature has a habit of looking after itself when man does not interfere ( directly or indirectly). This includes "balancing" itself out. I will say no more as I am getting tired of continually arguing conservation issues with some members on this forum, a fact I find perplexing but I guess it takes all sorts........

 

[griffin]

And before you really go off into one by following a false trail you yourself have laid, I am not, nor ever have been, connected with the Countryside Alliance in any way, shape or form - at least not yet!

Never said you were, but with your attitudes you should be.........you (and some others on this Forum) would be warmly welcomed. But hey after all it is a BirdForum - for people with an interest in birds. I guess that can include supporting or sympthasing with sanctioned control or illegal persecution of raptors.

When it comes to "sides" as you refer to my stance as "your side", what do you expect ? I am a bird researcher, support several bird and wildlife conservation organisations, and reckon I am a compasionate human being. Does it really surprise you that I am against the illegal, or sanctioned (which will never happen) killing of our magnificent birds of prey ? Do you honestly expect me to empathize with a gamekeeper who kills these birds just so "I see both sides of the argument" ? I don't need to. It is against the law.


I dream of a day when ALL gamekeepers work with conservation organistions in preserving raptor numbers - but that will never happen. Certainly not while SGA et al continue to propaganda they way they are at present.

I do not think it is healthy to talk about "the raptor problem" - I don't know what it is about this you can't grasp. The only "problem" is that they are still being illegally persecuted and some species face regional extinction - 15 pairs of Eagles in NE Scotland is ridiculous. Even less Hen Harriers. Ospreys are more abundant here in Deeside. That is not good enough.

THAT, is the problem.

 

[Big Phil]

The only "problem" is that they are still being illegally persecuted and some species face regional extinction - 15 pairs of Eagles in NE Scotland is ridiculous. Even less Hen Harriers. Ospreys are more abundant here in Deeside. That is not good enough.

THAT, is the problem.

Quite. I struggle to see Harriers up here, despite regularly visting vast chunks of prime habitat. Witness the struggle of the reintroduced Red Kites to get a foothold in Scotland compared to the population explosion down south...any that stray near keepered areas are toast.

 

[Capercaillie71]

More evidence that raptor persecution is on the rise rather than fading away:

Glenfeshie eagle poisoning

Poisoning on the rise

I find it worrying that these criminals are using poison more and more as their method of choice. I am sorry to say that it will probably take a child to be poisoned while out for a family walk on the hills before some of these keepers think twice about laying poisoned baits.

 

[Anthony Morton]

As I've already mentioned, most species seem to be finding their natural levels over time at Langholm, including Harriers.
The experiment could therefore prove that upland moors can exist without keepering and if this means the end of managed grouse moors and gamekeeper persecution of raptors, GOOD!

In which case it will no doubt surprise you to learn that the RSPB does not seem to share this view.

(Quote)

"The RSPB, an organisation dedicated to the well-being of birds, is actually in favour of shooting. Or rather, that it accepts that a well-managed grouse moor, where keepers control vermin such as foxes and crows, is ultimately to the benefit of all wild birds, including the harrier. "It would be rather strange if a well-managed grouse moor did not have grouse, but we accept that good keepering affects a range of other species as well" said Avery.

Source - Press article 'Claws out on a silent moorland' in The Times on 25th August 2004, which neither favours one side or the other and gives a balanced account of the effects of the Langholm experiment. You can read the full article at -

'http://www.bloodybusiness.com/news/commercial_shooting/press_articles/claws_out_on_a_silent_moorland.htm

It's well worth a read if only for its impartiality!

 

[Anthony Morton]

:clap: Exactly ! Which answers the question of a previous poster- Nature has a habit of looking after itself when man does not interfere ( directly or indirectly). This includes "balancing" itself out. I will say no more as I am getting tired of continually arguing conservation issues with some members on this forum, a fact I find perplexing but I guess it takes all sorts........

I agree that if left to its own devices nature is capable of looking after itself. But once man has put his fingerprints all over it, what then? Can things ever return to square one without help? :brains:

 

[Anthony Morton]

Never said you were, but with your attitudes you should be.........you (and some others on this Forum) would be warmly welcomed. But hey after all it is a BirdForum - for people with an interest in birds. I guess that can include supporting or sympthasing with sanctioned control or illegal persecution of raptors.

What do you mean, the ridiculous 'attitude' of wanting to hear both sides of the story? Whatever next!

When it comes to "sides" as you refer to my stance as "your side", what do you expect ? I am a bird researcher, support several bird and wildlife conservation organisations, and reckon I am a compasionate human being.

So you have a vested interest. That's fine by me but don't forget that the gamekeepers you so despise could argue exactly the same case!

Does it really surprise you that I am against the illegal, or sanctioned (which will never happen) killing of our magnificent birds of prey ? Do you honestly expect me to empathize with a gamekeeper who kills these birds just so "I see both sides of the argument" ? I don't need to. It is against the law.

Far from never happening, in certain circumstances it is already possible to apply for a licence to remove Sparrowhawks - but only in Scotland. I'm surprised you didn't know that, or were you perhaps just hoping that I didn't?

As for killing other raptor species, the law throughout the UK is currently quite clear and it is illegal. Don't forget, however, that all our laws can be amended if it is felt necessary.

I dream of a day when ALL gamekeepers work with conservation organistions in preserving raptor numbers - but that will never happen. Certainly not while SGA et al continue to propaganda they way they are at present.

And how can your dreamed for day ever arrive unless both sides adopt a more conciliatory attitude and begin to explore the middle ground?

I do not think it is healthy to talk about "the raptor problem" - I don't know what it is about this you can't grasp. The only "problem" is that they are still being illegally persecuted and some species face regional extinction - 15 pairs of Eagles in NE Scotland is ridiculous. Even less Hen Harriers. Ospreys are more abundant here in Deeside. That is not good enough.

THAT, is the problem.

On the contrary, I think I'm the one who has grasped what this is all about because I haven't brought any pre-conceived 'baggage' into this Hen Harrier argument. From their poles-apart and totally blinkered positions the only "problem" is that BOTH sides are equally wrong. You know that you are right, therefore it must follow that the SGA is wrong.

A word in your shell-like. The SGA thinks in exactly the same way and that's why this perceived "problem" between the two sides exists!

 

[griffin]

Anthony,

You obviously have more time on your hands than I do and I am tiring of this argument with you which is now down to semantic interpretation.

However, let me put you straight on a couple of issues and assumptions you have again wrongly made.

1) My point about Birdforum is that it is a Forum for a people with "an interest in wildbirds". I naively assumed this to be people who would object to illegal or sanctioned raptor control. Whilst the vast majority clearly do, obviously not all share this opinion. I continue to wonder what their "interest" in wild birds is. It is a fair question.

2) I do not despise gamekeepers and have never said that. The rhetoric on the SGA site is irresponsible in that it is perhaps influencing otherwise responsible estate employees. The threat of losing your job is enough to put the willies up anyone - that I can understand, but I can't approve their actions. The decision at Langholm was made by the landowners for their own reasons.

3) The licence you mention can possibly be applied for but is unlikely to be granted in the current climate, as far as I can tell. It may also interest you to know that all land owned my HRH is also exempt from the Wildlife and Countryside Act, though I don't think Liz would see it as good PR to shoot the Kite at Balmoral.

4) When I am referring to the law I am talking about "what is" not hypothetical "what could" - that is irrelevant. Raptors are being killed illegally, the rebuttal is not "well it could/should be legal".

Can somone else take the mantle over for me as I really am losing the will to live ?

And since Anthony you like your little sayings, I learned one long ago about dead horses and flogging, and I appear to have forgotten it.

 

[griffin]

Actually, don't take over the mantle anyone. This thread is going round in circles and I am partly guilty of helping perpetuate it.

I have also read AMortons last post and actually find it quite condescending and insulting on a personal level.

Let it die................please ?

 

[edenwatcher]

It is STILL illegal to kill sprawks in Scotland. No licences exist.

Rob

PS kill the thread, kill it now.

 

[griffin]

It is STILL illegal to kill sprawks in Scotland. No licences exist.

Rob

PS kill the thread, kill it now.

You are right, but I think Anthony may have been referring to the removal of nests, eggs, when they are a perceived threat to, amongst other human factors, wild birds ( including gamebirds). This can be applied through DERFA also, so it is not just "Scottish".

So far apparently only one such licence has been approved to prevent a threat to air traffic.

Thought it would be good to clarify that. Anyone interested should visit www.basc.com and read their raptor policy themselves.

Right, I am "done" - off to do something more constructive.

bye, bye.

 

[Anthony Morton]

It is STILL illegal to kill sprawks in Scotland. No licences exist.

On the contrary it IS possible to apply for a licence to control Sparrowhawks, but ONLY in Scotland as I've already indicated.

During the third reading of the Nature Conservation Bill in 2004, Allan Wilson MSP clearly spelled out that, under certain circumstances, control of Sparrowhawks was possible within the framework of current legislation. Since then the Scottish Executive has produced the necessary licence application forms specifically for this purpose.

 

[Anthony Morton]

You are right, but I think Anthony may have been referring to the removal of nests, eggs, when they are a perceived threat to, amongst other human factors, wild birds ( including gamebirds). This can be applied through DERFA also, so it is not just "Scottish".

Nothing whatsoever to do with the removal of nests or eggs as my comments in Posting #72 will confirm.

 

[Franky70]

In which case it will no doubt surprise you to learn that the RSPB does not seem to share this view.

(Quote)

"The RSPB, an organisation dedicated to the well-being of birds, is actually in favour of shooting. Or rather, that it accepts that a well-managed grouse moor, where keepers control vermin such as foxes and crows, is ultimately to the benefit of all wild birds, including the harrier. "It would be rather strange if a well-managed grouse moor did not have grouse, but we accept that good keepering affects a range of other species as well" said Avery.

Source - Press article 'Claws out on a silent moorland' in The Times on 25th August 2004, which neither favours one side or the other and gives a balanced account of the effects of the Langholm experiment. You can read the full article at -

'http://www.bloodybusiness.com/news/commercial_shooting/press_articles/claws_out_on_a_silent_moorland.htm

It's well worth a read if only for its impartiality!

No it doesn't surprise me. Obviously if predators are controlled then certain species will benefit.
What I am saying is that I would rather see natural levels, with (possibly)lower numbers of more species instead of high numbers but fewer species.

 

[griffin]

Moderators, PLEASE LOCK/CLOSE THIS THREAD !!!


It is beyond getting SILLY.

 

[Big Phil]

Moderators, PLEASE LOCK/CLOSE THIS THREAD !!!


It is beyond getting SILLY.

Someone disagrees with you so you want the thread shut?.

 

[scampo]

Someone disagrees with you so you want the thread shut?

Not being too well at the moment, I've read this thread right through and I've throughly enjoyed it and learned much, too. I also was thinking it would be a shame to close it for the reasons suggested. I've enjoyed reading the learned contributions made - and it's a shame exasperation has resulted in one key contributor.

Picking up on a couple of points made... I don't enjoy what they do, but I don't see why some of those who hunt and shoot shouldn't also be passionate about preserving wildlife? Also, I did wonder at the RSPB's idea of importing dead rats to feed the harriers to prevent grouse predation. Now if rats had wings, talons and hooked beaks instead of beady little eyes and a bad press...

 

[Anthony Morton]

Not being too well at the moment, I've read this thread right through and I've throughly enjoyed it and learned much, too. I also was thinking it would be a shame to close it for the reasons suggested. I've enjoyed reading the learned contributions made - and it's a shame exasperation has resulted in one key contributor.

Picking up on a couple of points made... I don't enjoy what they do, but I don't see why some of those who hunt and shoot shouldn't also be passionate about preserving wildlife? Also, I did wonder at the RSPB's idea of importing dead rats to feed the harriers to prevent grouse predation. Now if rats had wings, talons and hooked beaks instead of beady little eyes and a bad press...

Hi Steve,

I'm sorry to hear that you're apparently 'confined to barracks' at present. Get well soon!

As for diversionary feeding, I believe this has been suggested by the RSPB for other species as well, but always if someone else is footing the bill.

This thread began with the question; End of the road for grouse shooting? By coincidence it is the 12th August tomorrow, which is traditionally the day grouse shooting starts, and there is an article by Magnus Linklater in today's edition of The Times about it.

One fact which emerges is that "Far from sliding apologetically off the map, however, grouse shooting is still big business, a key contributor to rural employment, and worth about £70 million to the national economy."

The full article, which is well worth a read, can be found at -

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,6-2304551,00.html

and it's bang up to date too! (Sorry, no pun intended.)

Anthony

 

[Anthony Morton]

It is STILL illegal to kill sprawks in Scotland. No licences exist.

Rob

Would you care to reconsider this in the light of the information I gave in Posting #72, please?

 

[scampo]

Hi Steve,

I'm sorry to hear that you're apparently 'confined to barracks' at present. Get well soon!

As for diversionary feeding, I believe this has been suggested by the RSPB for other species as well, but always if someone else is footing the bill.

This thread began with the question; End of the road for grouse shooting? By coincidence it is the 12th August tomorrow, which is traditionally the day grouse shooting starts, and there is an article by Magnus Linklater in today's edition of The Times about it.

One fact which emerges is that "Far from sliding apologetically off the map, however, grouse shooting is still big business, a key contributor to rural employment, and worth about £70 million to the national economy."

The full article, which is well worth a read, can be found at -

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,6-2304551,00.html

and it's bang up to date too! (Sorry, no pun intended.)

Anthony

I can just see Prescott in his plus fours. Interesting article, Anthony. It is odd isn't it, how we'll happily slaughter hundreds of rats and rabbits but get uptight about a raptor... Not that I'm saying that I'm any different but logic sometimes creeps into my head.

If we think at all deeply about how we lead our lives in the round, we'll realise that - if only by proxy - we're causing the mass slaughter of untold living things. I was intrigued to see how jelly-fish eating whales are dying by eating Tesco carrier bags floating in the sea mistaking them for their prey (or being taken in by the slogan, "Every Little Helps!"). Cars alone must kill off more foxes than the hunts ever did.

Complex issues.