• Welcome to BirdForum, the internet's largest birding community with thousands of members from all over the world. The forums are dedicated to wild birds, birding, binoculars and equipment and all that goes with it.

    Please register for an account to take part in the discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.
ZEISS DTI thermal imaging cameras. For more discoveries at night, and during the day.

Gamekeepers (1 Viewer)

Hotspur

James Spencer
United Kingdom
Im not usually too involved in political threads on BF but i stumbled across this diatribe on a scottish gamekeeping site and it is so one eyed i couldn't believe it and thought i would post it here for everybody else to "marvel" at.

The Reply to Langholm Saturday December 04 2004

Official figures state, based on 1991 figures that there are nearly 1300 breeding pairs of peregrines in the UK and at least 2000 immatures. As peregrines produce 1-4 young per year per pair, (on average 2 young per pair) this is a possible 2600 young peregrines fledged per year. With the various raptor groups reporting no significant increase this means that the RSPB etc are saying that a possible 2600 peregrines die per year.

The total of sparrowhawks is quoted as 34,000 pairs in the UK with another possible 68,000 young fledged. Still there is no significant increase admitted to and in fact the various groups are now claiming a decline. The implication here is that the 68,000 born all die.

Taking just these two species of raptors pro raptor groups such as the RSPB are claiming a yearly loss of a possible 70,600 raptors. Where are they? How many are handed in to or reported to the police? (The RSPB and police are campaigning to have the deaths of raptors reported to them.) Taking into account that according to raptor reports, including the latest DETR Raptor Working Group report, raptor numbers are not “soaring” and some are declining, where are the carcasses of these dead birds? We believe the birds are out there not being counted, because no one can count immatures and many nests are not found.

The RSPB maintain that raptor persecution is affecting the population increase of raptors. Yet the accepted figures on raptor numbers over the last 20 years have shown a marked increase in most species, and gamekeepers’ experience leads them to believe that these figures are below the actual numbers. RSPB figures for Scottish species between 1970 and 1998 show an increase of 162% in Sparrowhawks and 224% in buzzards. As raptor numbers are actually increasing, even by their own figures, it has to call into doubt the RSPB’s statement that the raptors found dead are “only the tip of the iceberg.” The reality of the figures proves the fallacy of their dramatic, headline grabbing statements.

Reports from gamekeepers across the country as well as others suggest that raptor numbers as claimed by the RSPB and raptor groups are grossly underestimated and well under the actual numbers in the countryside. When quoting any raptor population it is only the known nesting pairs that are quoted. There is no hint of single or immatures in the numbers mentioned as numbers are always quoted in known nesting pairs. This gives a false impression of possible raptor predation. It is worth noting that raptors do not die just because they do not have a mate.

The RSPB continually report that bad farming practices are responsible for small bird declines and undoubtedly some of the practices farmers were encouraged to introduce damaged the native flora and fauna. But that is not the entire story. Pesticides are not used on moorland and very few moors are overgrazed by sheep. Also, here we have some quotes from the Historical Atlas of Breeding Birds in Britain and Ireland 1875 - 1900 by Simon Holloway (1996) (these same people are quoted by the RSPB in their references), which give a different angle on the situation:

“Tree sparrow populations increased when sparrowhawk numbers were decreasing in 1946 - 65 and decreased during the sparrowhawk recovery in 1966 - 92 (Smith Summers in litt)”

“House sparrow: Tawny owls, sparrowhawks, and domestic cats are all significant predators of the house sparrow and their increase in suburban areas may be sufficient to reduce the house sparrow populations in these habitats (Gibbon et al 1993)”

“Bullfinch: (Newton 1967) suggested that lower numbers of sparrowhawks were allowing the bullfinch to feed further from cover making much more food available. The bullfinches’ increase of the 50s and 60s has reversed and the population is in decline perhaps associated with the recovery of the sparrowhawk. (Newton 1993)”

Another quote from Newton (93/94) in the Hawk and Owl Trust Report (1999) states that most raptors are considered close to the maximum densities that their habitat can support.

It is worth noting that the RSPB lay great store in the findings of Newton et al. when quoting figures that help to promote their cause, but fail to mention some of these other findings.

It seems logical to suggest that if sparrow hawks could effect the numbers of common birds like the sparrow and bullfinch they must be having a direct effect on less numerous species such as the skylark, bunting and thrush.

The RSPB in its haste to blame farmers for songbird decline omits to tell us that species such as the redpoll “fluctuate markedly in abundance both from year to year and as the present study reveals, in a longer term cycle, over periods of decades.” (I Newton in Litt) or that other species such as flycatchers, whitethroats, sedge warblers and sand martins suffered large losses of numbers due to rain failure in the Sahel region of West Africa used in passage from wintering grounds in Southern Africa. Further information in this book gives indications that large fluctuations have occurred because of climatic changes at home and abroad for many other species. The RSPB fail to explain this to the public. Instead they choose to scaremonger by blaming all bird declines on farming practices, ignoring varying reasons for songbird declines.

Although some of the above would appear to have little to do with game keeping it hopefully illustrates how selective the RSPB are in providing information on bird numbers.

Peregrine falcons are becoming a major threat on some grouse moors. These birds during the winter and spring months will kill at least one grouse every two days. As this is the only prey available until the return of the waders and even when the waders return grouse will continue to be killed. Every loss of an adult breeding grouse is a loss of a potential brood and hence to the potential surplus required to promote a good shooting season. Birds killed in the winter are the breeding stock for the next year. These losses can affect as much as 40% of the breeding stock.

Sparrowhawks attack partridge all year round, keeping stocks low. (The wild grey partridge is an endangered species.) During the release of pheasant poults the sparrowhawk is particularly troublesome, killing every day and terrorising the poults, which then do not feed. This adds more stress and usually leads to stress related diseases, which can be fatal.


Golden Plover

Goshawks are a particularly aggressive raptor that even attacks other raptors, and is also reported to be killing squirrels. In areas where red squirrels (an endangered species) have their last stronghold this bird is a threat to their survival. Goshawks kill adult game birds as well as poults, and also kill grouse. After a visit from a goshawk at a release pen the escapee poults are reluctant to stay in the area. This leads to starvation and predation by other species of predators in the thick summer vegetation.

The buzzard is now the main predator of pheasants and partridge. No up to date numbers are given for the buzzard population but we estimate that there is one pair of buzzards for every 100 acres of woodland in Scotland. This makes it the most numerous raptor in Scotland. This raptor is so numerous that it can be seen in groups of 6 - 10 birds. Yet the RSPB etc.(based on 1991 figures) have placed the number at only 17,000 in the whole of the UK and continually imply that this bird is rare and endangered. Buzzards according to the RSPB are carrion eaters and seldom kill their prey. This unfortunately is not the case. Buzzards regularly kill adult pheasants and partridge and those that live in the woods fringing heather moors will take grouse should the opportunity occur. The main prey of buzzards during the nesting period is ground nesting bird chicks and young rabbits. They also take young songbirds. They also find the released pheasant and partridge poults easy prey. Once the raptor has locked on to an area where it can predate pheasant or partridge chicks it will continue to visit. Not only will the killing do damage to the stock but the stress factor will be increased resulting from food deprivation caused by straying.

It is estimated that out of 1,000 lowland shoots each shoot is losing an average 150 poults to direct raptor predation in and around release pens. At £20 per bird that is a possible loss of revenue of £3,000,000 income to shooting estates across Scotland. This would eventually be ploughed back into the local communities. The direct damage done to grouse stocks can only be guessed, but a similar figure of £3,000,000 must be a close estimate. It is unlikely that this scale of financial burden is carried by any other Scottish industry without recourse to compensation. Gameshooting is not subsidised in any way and must make its own money to sustain habitat. Therefore it is important that budgets are met. These budgets are becoming increasingly difficult to meet with raptor predation on the increase.

With raptor populations in excess of 100,000 and rising in Scotland alone, raptor predation on all prey species can only get worse. A solution to this problem must be found now.

I hope im not the only one that finds this most disturbing.
 
100,000 raptors hey? I wonder where they are all hiding then? certainly not around here, lately the only raptors I've seen on my local patch are a couple of kestrels.
Seriously though, this makes disturbing reading.
 
It's unbelieveable the amount of dribble that some people can drove on about. The whole point of his 'story' is that he claims that shoots are losing money because of predation. Well the only solution I can offer the (gamekeeper/landowner) man is a total ban on shooting, then predation will not be an issue.

And before I get slagged off by those people that think that shooting etc maintains the 'country side' then you must realise that the 'country side' will find a new natural balance, with plenty of opportunity for nature lovers/birdwatchers.

The whole issue of 'balance' and biodiversity is the reason that the guy is taking rubbish.
 
lee_adc said:
It's unbelieveable the amount of dribble that some people can drove on about. The whole point of his 'story' is that he claims that shoots are losing money because of predation. Well the only solution I can offer the (gamekeeper/landowner) man is a total ban on shooting, then predation will not be an issue.

And before I get slagged off by those people that think that shooting etc maintains the 'country side' then you must realise that the 'country side' will find a new natural balance, with plenty of opportunity for nature lovers/birdwatchers.

The whole issue of 'balance' and biodiversity is the reason that the guy is taking rubbish.

I am always inmpressed by the balance achieved on the Isle of Man. Without the assistance of game keepers, there is a stable, but lower density than on keepered moors, population of Red Grouse.... (and this will be down to the habitat) the healthiest Hen Harrier Population in the UK and the most diverse and natural moorland ecology that it has been my pleasure to witness, and believe me I have witnessed a lot.
 
Trouble is that the same statistics can always be manipulated to suit whatever arguement any side wants to put forward, depending on which part of the table needs to be used for that arguement - as used regularly in politics.

Similarly, as in politics, the visual facts can reveal far more (or less???).

Firstly I am against shooting (try living close to a clay pigeon shoot - in an area where red backed and great grey shrikes were seen some time ago - and have the peace and quiet ruined nearly every Sunday) and hunting but I recognise that there may be a value to conservation of the countryside from these practices. But visual is the point being raised - if there is a population increase in raptors why can't we see them.

Try this, I frequently travel from East Surrey to Bridport, Dorset. Normally while driving I will see few raptors until I reach Dorset then there is a marked increase, perhaps eight or more and that is just as a driver.
At the Hawk conservancy near Andover, Hants which I pass on ocassions (and maybe one or 2 Buzzards for the whole of A303 in Hampshire and Wiltshire). Here they put on displays and we stopped one day to have a look around. Part of the display we saw was a American Bald Eagle being released about 2 miles from the display site which had been trained to return to the display arena.

During it's flight back maybe 20 Buzzards appeared to defend their territories.

Point being that Rapters are largely at the top of their food chain. Their only worry is food supply (and natural balance of wildlife) and mankind which they stay clear of where possible. However as soon as a potential threat arrives in the air that's slightly higher up in the food chain they also take to the air and become visible.

So I wonder how many buzzards and others there are lying low. Good weather = more raptors. Surrey Bird club say there are 8 pairs of Buzzards in the county. maybe once a year I see one and we do have good weather reasonably often.

What do you guys think? Am I more blind than I think I am?

Steve
 
I might have got a little carried away, but I worry that a tiny minority of gamekeepers or landowners are totally uninterested in looking after the biodiversity of they landscape in favour of profits to be made from that land.

It only takes one landowner to pressure his employees into persecuting a bird of prey for it to completely disappear from that area.
 
No mention of how many pheasants/poults are killed beacause they end up wandering all over nearby roads. I saw a lorry in front of me hit five at once not so long ago!
Or that if the raptor numbers were so high then this would actually indicate a very healthy population of prey species. Basic predator/prey population dynamics.

JP

http://www.scottishgamekeepers.co.uk/index.htm

I see they are even calling for a cull of "fish eating birds" ie Ospreys.
 
Last edited:
Believe what the game keeper/shooting fraternaty say....DONT MAKE ME LAUGH,I wouldent trust them as far as i could through them.
I have listened to the rubbish they come out with befor at a talk one of them gave, to anyone with half a brain it was utter rubbish,He was vauge to say the least when asked about the control of Hen Harriers, goshawks, peregrines and any other raptor that may take his grouse.
Here in north staffs we have had problems with a red kite being poisoned and harriers being disturbed and windows being shot out in the r.s.p.b. land rover and know the person/persons involved but proving it is another matter.
 
Stevie babe said:
Trouble is that the same statistics can always be manipulated to suit whatever arguement any side wants to put forward, depending on which part of the table needs to be used for that arguement - as used regularly in politics.

Steve

Steve

The issue is not the level of raptors... being higher than estimates or not... though high of course does indicate that there are healthy prey levels......

The shooting fraternity are always on the look out for excuses to cull raptors.
 
Last edited:
The bit about Golden Plover makes me laugh, I saw a Peregrine stuka diving plovers yesterday at Wheldarke Ings, N.Yorks with zero success while there were 5,000 Golden Plovers, equal numbers of Lapwing and about the same of various wildfowl. These birds are not going to seriously dent these populations because if they did, the predators would die off through lack of prey species. Its the way the ecosystem works! Managing it is a false economy.
 
Hotspur said:
The bit about Golden Plover makes me laugh, I saw a Peregrine stuka diving plovers yesterday at Wheldarke Ings, N.Yorks with zero success while there were 5,000 Golden Plovers, equal numbers of Lapwing and about the same of various wildfowl. These birds are not going to seriously dent these populations because if they did, the predators would die off through lack of prey species. Its the way the ecosystem works! Managing it is a false economy.
Well said,James.
 
No doubt many readers will have visited Langholm in the Borders during the well publicised Harrier project several years ago. It was wonderful with harriers to be seen almost all over the moor, spectacular breeding displays absolute heaven not to mention Buzzards literally everywhere, Merlin and Short-eared Owl scarce but breeding. Then the project ended, result for the last couple of years, Harriers numbers have crashed and are hardly seen, Buzzards ditto, couldnt find Shorties or Merlins this year.

Of course it couldn't be anything to do with keepering and bag numbers???

Stewart J. :C :C :C
 
"No doubt many readers will have visited Langholm in the Borders during the well publicised Harrier project several years ago. It was wonderful with harriers to be seen almost all over the moor, spectacular breeding displays absolute heaven not to mention Buzzards literally everywhere, Merlin and Short-eared Owl scarce but breeding. Then the project ended, result for the last couple of years, Harriers numbers have crashed and are hardly seen, Buzzards ditto, couldnt find Shorties or Merlins this year."

Stewart J. The above was an interesting observation. It's unfortunate that you did not add the levels of prey species as well, so a comparison could take place between predator and prey. In my opinion, and it's just an opinion, there is far too much one sided use of information, utilised in an attempt to prove or disprove a claim. Comparitive levels of both, predator/prey, prior to, during the project and post project status would be far more helpful in comparitive studies.

Regards

Malky
 
Hello Stewart J.
Whats happened to the Langholm project? Whys it ended?
I was under the impression that the landowner had handed over the property to the Rspb?
Its a few year since i was up, but saw all the species you mention aswell as Goshawk & Ravens.

Maybe the disappearance of several of the previously regular breeding raptors are as a result of an effective predator being re-introduced....

that'll be the one with 2arms, 2legs & a 12bore.

Malky
"Comparative Studies......" The only comparison you need for Langdale is :-
that it was full of breeding falcons, hawks, buzzard & raven while the project was on the go

and now it isnt as the raptors no longer have protection.

Nothing to do with prey numbers (unless You classify Peregrine & Hen Harrier in this catagory)

SE.
 
Didn't the RSPB rather shoot itself in the foot with Langholm? I seem to recall that the grouse numbers plumetted and they effectively handed the pro-raptor control lobby the information it needs for its arguments on a plate.....
 
lee_adc said:
It's unbelieveable the amount of dribble that some people can drove on about. The whole point of his 'story' is that he claims that shoots are losing money because of predation. Well the only solution I can offer the (gamekeeper/landowner) man is a total ban on shooting, then predation will not be an issue.

I understood that a report recently showed that raptor predation of gamebirds was insignificant and well within the levels of natural mortality. This report came from within the shooting industry so the renewed calls for raptor culling in Scotland is a little hard to understand.

Ian
 
DJ Sideboard said:
Didn't the RSPB rather shoot itself in the foot with Langholm? I seem to recall that the grouse numbers plumetted and they effectively handed the pro-raptor control lobby the information it needs for its arguments on a plate.....

From http://freespace.virgin.net/paul.kennedy1/harried_hen_harriers.htm

It was also shown that peregrines and hen harriers eat grouse throughout the year. At Langholm, in the years with highest raptor numbers, losses of adult grouse in spring and chicks in summer were high, but, despite all this, spring numbers (the breeding population) remained constant throughout the study. Birds of prey were not wiping out the grouse population - but they were affecting the autumn 'bag': overall, it decreased by up to half during 1992-96, and by over 90% in the last two years of the study. In essence, raptors were eating the grouse a few weeks before the 'guns' could shoot them. For the time being at least, driven grouse shooting is no longer viable at Langholm. This effect, in contrast, was not seen on 'Moor C', where bird of prey numbers remained at a level which left driven shooting viable: over 2,000 grouse were shot on this moor in 1996.


Red grouse bags have fallen at Langholm by about 1.7% per year for more than 80 years. For about half that time, birds of prey were unprotected in the UK and effectively 'controlled'; for most of it hen harriers would have been absent or very scarce. Only recently have bird of prey numbers begun to recover. The study considers it highly improbable that birds of prey are responsible for the long-term fall in grouse bags and cites habitat change as much the most likely explanation.


The rest of the page is well worth a read if anyone is interested because it comes from Birds magazine originally.

Ian
 
DJ Sideboard said:
Didn't the RSPB rather shoot itself in the foot with Langholm? I seem to recall that the grouse numbers plumetted and they effectively handed the pro-raptor control lobby the information it needs for its arguments on a plate.....

Only if one accepts the premise that a given piece of moorland should have an artificially high number of grouse on it. They're not called managed moors for nothing... though the shooting estate interpretation of management can leave something to be desired... You only have to look at a small pheasant shoot for the grouse issue in microcosm - anyone can manage a piece of land exclusively for one species (albeit in this example bolstering numbers with young birds every year) with great success - the trick is managing it for biodiversity as a whole. So grouse numbers plumeted at Langholm? Was anyone really surprised? Just nature rebalancing itself.

You're right though DJ in that the pro-raptor control lobby were able to use the RSPB study to justify their own ends, but in the overall scheme of things it hardly signified - any beleagured "minority" (bracing self for vitriolic over-reaction from everyone on here who's got a gun) will twist and selectively interpret data to suit their agenda. Could mischeviously name another group who have a small following on Birdforum which also tends to do this... ;) best not though!
 
Warning! This thread is more than 20 years ago old.
It's likely that no further discussion is required, in which case we recommend starting a new thread. If however you feel your response is required you can still do so.

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top