End of the road for grouse shooting? (1 Viewer)

[griffin]

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

No. It is becoming counter productive and petty, as well as mud slinging. AM's last post is just pathetic " I told you so". Actually NO licences have been granted for this , or were ever likely. ANY bird ANYWHERE can be killed if it causes a particular risk or loss to human life or interests. That is not the issue.

Maybe you would have felt my exasparation had you actually contributed more to the current argument, ( you apparently share some views ) so please don't judge me - ok.

CLOSE THE THREAD.

 

[Big Phil]

No. It is becoming counter productive and petty, as well as mud slinging. AM's last post is just pathetic " I told you so". Actually NO licences have been granted for this , or were ever likely. ANY bird ANYWHERE can be killed if it causes a particular risk or loss to human life or interests. That is not the issue.

Maybe you would have felt my exasparation had you actually contributed more to the current argument, ( you apparently share some views ) so please don't judge me - ok.

CLOSE THE THREAD.

Get over yourself!. I thought this was a reasonably interesting thread until you went mad btw!.

 

[Anthony Morton]

No. It is becoming counter productive and petty, as well as mud slinging. AM's last post is just pathetic " I told you so". Actually NO licences have been granted for this , or were ever likely. ANY bird ANYWHERE can be killed if it causes a particular risk or loss to human life or interests. That is not the issue.

Maybe you would have felt my exasparation had you actually contributed more to the current argument, ( you apparently share some views ) so please don't judge me - ok.

CLOSE THE THREAD.

The 'problem' here seems to be that you are having trouble differentiating between facts, figures and references on the one hand, and what you describe as mud-slinging on the other. Pull your neck in, please!

Now then, two of you have stated categorically that there isn't the facility to apply for a licence to remove Sparrowhawks in Scotland. This is wrong and therefore needs to be corrected, which is what I've done. I do not dispute that so far none of the applications made has been successful but this is only because certain 'interested parties' keep moving the goal posts. However, unless you have a crystal ball (don't go there!) how can you be sure they won't be granted in the future? That's the trouble with giving someone the run-around, eventually you run out of space yourself!

On a personal note, as you were not the thread starter what makes you feel you have the right to call for it to be closed? As has already been pointed out to you, the fact that someone disagrees with your point of view does not in itself constitute sufficient grounds for such a request. In any case, as in all exchanges the worst that can happen is that you lose the argument but even that's not as bad as it sounds because you can always say that you came second!

When the going gets tough, the tough get going! :t:

 

[Touty]

Can't post the whole article even though I subscribe 'cos it has never ever accepted the passwords NS have supplied me with:

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn9722-grouseshooting-popularity-boosts-global-warming-.html

Grouse-shooting popularity boosts global warming

* 12 August 2006
* Fred Pearce
* Magazine issue

Burning of the UK's moors to make room for more heather - grouse's preferred habitat - is not helping the atmosphere

The "glorious 12th" falls this weekend. It's the start of the UK's grouse-shooting season, attracting the rich and famous from around the world. But the country will be getting a bigger bang than it bargained for. Attempts to breed more grouse on the moors to meet rising demand are boosting the UK's contribution to global warming.

"In terms of carbon storage, the moors can be thought of as Britain's rainforests," says Adrian Yallop, an ecologist at Cranfield University in Bedfordshire. Yet gamekeepers are burning the moors at an unprecedented rate to encourage the growth of heather, a prime habitat for grouse. The burning threatens to release billions of tonnes of carbon locked into the peat bogs underpinning the moors. "Where burning occurs, the hydrology changes and the peat is open to decomposition and erosion. This strips the moor of carbon as surely as setting fire to the Amazon forest," says ...

 

[griffin]

I am asking for this thread to be closed as all the points have been made and it it is getting personal. I am also not alone I see. I did not start the thread though have contributed several posts - a lot more than t:wats like "Little Phil" who are quick to take cheap jibes at me. Thus, I seem to be the object of at least two individuals in venting their angst and petty, ill conceived arguments. To me at least it is personal.

I will NEVER accept the killing of raptors, legal or otherwise for any reason other than if human lives (not jobs) are at risk. We are supposedly custodians of a planet that we share with other lifeforms. I hope others feel this and support this view.

However, as to my remiss of "facts and figures" - GET YOUR OWN FACTS STRAIGHT FIRST. Regarding the issue of me and another failing to acknowledge that a licence to "remove" Sparrowhawks exists that seems to be causing someone sleepless nights, I have already said this is not the issue here. I have also stated that DEFRA et al will grant permits under exceptional circumstances to kill ANY animal. What it is NOT is the norm, that is sanction for the "legalised" control of raptors. They won't grant it because a grouse got eaten. That is misleading.

All you people that are so interested in it be my guest and continue the "debate"....rather than sitting back enjoying a slagging match on a personal level. This is beyond a debate and as such it has served its purpose, surely.

 

[Andrew Rowlands]

Now then, two of you have stated categorically that there isn't the facility to apply for a licence to remove Sparrowhawks in Scotland.

No they did not, as you well know - yet more of your "putting words into mouths" - you have a case to argue, do it - don't try to twist the words of others into what you would liked to have them say.

This is yet another ploy of yours to turn a legitimate subject for discussion on BF into one that isn't.

The Topic's grouse shooting - stick to it or clear off.

 

[griffin]

Can't post the whole article even though I subscribe 'cos it has never ever accepted the passwords NS have supplied me with.....

Did see this and it is very interesting. It surely has less impact on global warming than the motor car though ?

The concern most of us have is that you often see single keepers burning the moors, when there should be at least two for control. However, AMorton will be on saying there is only one keeper 'cause the other one lost his job due to a Hen Harrier :'D

I have no problem with them responsibly managing the habitat and optimising the moors for shooting grouse, by burning some areas of heather. That said I don't think they should get carried away. More worried about fossil fuel emissions from cars, planes etc.

Glad we are back on Grouse Shooting ! ( and look, I haven't adopted an "anti" opinion or stance, shock, horror )

 

[griffin]

OK Time to stand up and be counted and get something from this so called "debate" !

Who is for sanctioned killing of raptors if they MAY have an impact on game stocks such as grouse, and subsequently MAY have economic consequences that MAY threaten jobs ?

Who is against the sanctioned killing of raptors period ?

Me - AGAINST

 

[Anthony Morton]

No they did not, as you well know - yet more of your "putting words into mouths" - you have a case to argue, do it - don't try to twist the words of others into what you would liked to have them say.

Oh yes they did! Try reading Posts #70 and #71 on this thread which contain the following comments -

(quote) - edenwatcher "...No licences exist." (Posting #70)

and in response to this point

(quote) - griffin "You are right...." (Posting #71)

Both these comments are quite specific, especially since they were made in response to my Posting #67, where I said (quote) "... in certain circumstances it is already possible to apply for a licence to remove Sparrowhawks - but only in Scotland."

Based on this, how can you possibly accuse me of twisting the words of others? This simply isn't necessary when responding to anyone who isn't sure of his facts.

This is yet another ploy of yours to turn a legitimate subject for discussion on BF into one that isn't.

The Topic's grouse shooting - stick to it or clear off.

It is nothing of the sort. As many of my comments on this thread deal specifically with grouse and grouse shooting, it appears that you haven't even bothered to read all the postings.

I might also add that remarks such as telling me to "clear off" do you no credit whatsoever. Was this made in your capacity as a forum moderator, or was it purely personal?

 

[Andrew Rowlands]

No they did not, as you well know - yet more of your "putting words into mouths" - you have a case to argue, do it - don't try to twist the words of others into what you would liked to have them say.

This is yet another ploy of yours to turn a legitimate subject for discussion on BF into one that isn't.

The Topic's grouse shooting - stick to it or clear off.

You're the one who isn't reading Posts, or is it that you are unable or unwilling to do so?

There's a big difference between 'applying for a licence' and 'no licences exist'.

It's still illegal to shoot Sparrowhawks in Scotland.

Now can we get back to grouse?

 

[Big Phil]

Who the hell are you to say that ?

You but in and lurk then insult someone who has stood their ground and fought their corner against, to be frank, quite ridiculous assertions.

The only point I went "mad" was when I read your post u t:wat :C

Who the hell are you anyway Phil, you "big" man you ? I would really like to know incase I ever have the "pleasure" of running in to you.

|:d|. Gosh I'm so scared!. You're a good man for the rant, Grif, i'll give you that!.

To answer your question down thread, I don't have a hardened stance but am broadly anti.

I'm sure we agree that the Law as it stands is largely flaunted as concerns persecuting raptors, certainly in large chunks of Scotland. Isn't it possible that a compromise where raptor poulations can be controlled to a sustainable level on certain Grouse Moors would more be in the birds interests then the current situation?.

Extreme viewpoints from either side will tend to alienate both the general public and decision makers. I agree with AM (an unusual event) that common ground should be sought where possible.

 

[Anthony Morton]

You're the one who isn't reading Posts, or is it that you are unable or unwilling to do so?

There's a big difference between 'applying for a licence' and 'no licences exist'.

It's still illegal to shoot Sparrowhawks in Scotland.

Now can we get back to grouse?

Ignoring the jibes, I'm afraid you're splitting hairs. If there is an application form then it stands to reason that there must be a licence. I was particularly careful with my choice of words on this point, because although I understand applications for a licence to remove Sparrowhawks have been made in Scotland, to the best of my knowledge none have been granted yet.

While I'm more than happy to agree with you that it's still illegal to shoot Sparrowhawks in Scotland, or anywhere else in the UK come to that, I can't remember ever mentioning anything about it. I just wanted to point that out, because that's how rumours start!

By the way, we were quite happily discussing grouse until just recently when someone spat his dummy out!

 

[Andrew Rowlands]

... we were quite happily discussing grouse until just recently when someone spat his dummy out!

No, it was until you brought up the o/t discussion of 'removing' Sparrowhawks:- Post #67

Far from never happening, in certain circumstances it is already possible to apply for a licence to remove Sparrowhawks - but only in Scotland.

Can we get back to grouse now?

 

[griffin]

|:d|. Gosh I'm so scared!. You're a good man for the rant, Grif, i'll give you that!.

So "scared" you didn't say who you were ! I have argued my points not "ranted". At least I don't "stir" or wind people up.

PS It wasn't a threat - but interesting you saw it that way.

I really don't think we are at the stage we need a compromise that involves sanctioned killing of any raptors for preseravtion of grouse stocks. Such a situation would surely only fuel and justify the illegal killing of such birds.

The question is AGAINST or FOR, your answer would put you FOR potentially.

Linz

 

[griffin]

By the way, we were quite happily discussing grouse until just recently when someone spat his dummy out!

If you are referring to me then I really do take offence at that and feel that such a comment is both unfounded and unwarranted as well as immature. There is only one "dummy" in question as far as I am concerned - not nice is its ?

Go join Countryside Alliance, or shoot some grouse - get of this Forum and do us all a favour.

And, by the way Phil someone like me who is not against sport shooting, but who objects to the control of raptors can hardly be described as having "an extreme view". Now, if I was flushing grouse before shoots, digging up graves of old ladies who had "lab connections", blowing up scientists who worked there, releasing lab animals etc etc then you could say I had an extreme view. I would never support such actions, and indeed am strongly opposed to them. I hardly think my views expressed are "extreme".

Don't imply I am something I am not - that is misleading and unfair OK ?

 

[KC Foggin]

Gentlemen! Let's take a deep breath and chill out a bit.

 

[griffin]

Gentlemen! Let's take a deep breath and chill out a bit.

Better still - Close the thread. I am sure Paul won't mind !

 

[Big Phil]

...if I was flushing grouse before shoots, digging up graves of old ladies who had "lab connections", blowing up scientists who worked there, releasing lab animals etc etc then you could say I had an extreme view. I would never support such actions, and indeed am strongly opposed to them. I hardly think my views expressed are "extreme".


Don't imply I am something I am not - that is misleading and unfair OK ?

Where did that come from?. I was talking about extreme viewpoints in the raptor control argument i.e at one end shoot everything with a bent beak and at the other protect everything at all costs. From the outside both viewpoints can seem equally unreasonable.

The question is AGAINST or FOR, your answer would put you FOR potentially.

Well yes. Potentially. But as I previously mentioned I wouldn't be sad to see the end of grouse shooting (which would make this rather academic) as I also think the benefits of grouse moor management to the environment and local economy have been rather overstated (but see, for instance, Toutys responses).