Uk Peregrine Population Limit? (1 Viewer)

But how many PF HAVE been convicted?

So how do you ban someone from keeping pigeons, who hasn't (in the eyes of the law) done anything wrong?

Fines in general are not a deterent - hence their widepsread use. If they worked we wouldn't be doling so many out. In every day life, the vast majority of us don't break laws - it's not because we are deterred by the large fines though. Increased likelihood of being caught is the best deterrent avalable, after education.

valley boy said:

No Tim, when people stop illegally persecuting raptors, deeds not words, then we wont have any further need to highlight it

Click to expand...

I haven't said anything about not highlighting it, or not trying to do anything about it, have I?

Tim

Now we are into a whole different ball game i.e. criminal justice. It is great how apparently simple ideas regarding Peregrine populations take us in all sorts of interesting directions. As a mental health worker in a Youth Offending Team evidence is something I have to consider every working day. To Anthony and the others who find it easy to demand evidence, it is easy to take up this position because of course the evidence is not there in a form that would satisfy a court of Law. There is virtualy no-one out where the Peregrines are to gather HARD evidence for the courts, consequently there is nothing to bring before the court that could result in prosecution. Only sad, deluded or provocative individuals would pretend that it does not occur however. As a regular listener to talk sport I see similarities between Mike (seeker of truth and justice) Parry and Anthony (defender of truth and justice) Morton. Both are provocative and capable of putting together structured intelligent arguements based on bluster, provocation and half truths. I would however recommend that neither are taken seriously as both seem to be doing it for effect. (Although both do it very well). I am of the opinion that Mike Parry is a genius at this however who frequently makes me laugh. Anthony has never done this but I guess this is not his purpose.

Peregrine predation by RP fanciers does occur and this is partly what I alluded to when I talked about the peregrine population in Britain will be whatever "we" allow it to be. I'm not sure I would lable this interference as acceptable however (see Tims reply). I will never accept it as this but I might have to acknowledge it as unavoidable. The job of education/enforcement etc could be to aim to reduce interference to a minimum. Unfortunately the enforcement arm of society is somewhat biased towards Victorian persecution type attitudes whilst much of the Education Arm seems to be biased towards the environment. Until the enforcement arm is less inclined to support the Victorian attitudes it will be difficult to reduce the impact of persecution. Education of the masses is however slowly having an impact here.

Tim Allwood said:

Sorry CCB,

my comments weren't aimed at you in particular, and i have many moments where i am of the exact same opinion... it's easy to be a bit more liberal sat at home on a nice balmy evening sipping wine with the gf

lesson sounds great... keep up the good work!

Tim

Click to expand...

No offence taken. I've now had a couple of glasses of wine myself and will sleep happily. Dreaming of peregrines!! B

John o'Sullivan said:

Now we are into a whole different ball game i.e. criminal justice. It is great how apparently simple ideas regarding Peregrine populations take us in all sorts of interesting directions. As a mental health worker in a Youth Offending Team evidence is something I have to consider every working day. To Anthony and the others who find it easy to demand evidence, it is easy to take up this position because of course the evidence is not there in a form that would satisfy a court of Law. There is virtualy no-one out where the Peregrines are to gather HARD evidence for the courts, consequently there is nothing to bring before the court that could result in prosecution. Only sad, deluded or provocative individuals would pretend that it does not occur however. As a regular listener to talk sport I see similarities between Mike (seeker of truth and justice) Parry and Anthony (defender of truth and justice) Morton. Both are provocative and capable of putting together structured intelligent arguements based on bluster, provocation and half truths. I would however recommend that neither are taken seriously as both seem to be doing it for effect. (Although both do it very well). I am of the opinion that Mike Parry is a genius at this however who frequently makes me laugh. Anthony has never done this but I guess this is not his purpose.

Peregrine predation by RP fanciers does occur and this is partly what I alluded to when I talked about the peregrine population in Britain will be whatever "we" allow it to be. I'm not sure I would lable this interference as acceptable however (see Tims reply). I will never accept it as this but I might have to acknowledge it as unavoidable. The job of education/enforcement etc could be to aim to reduce interference to a minimum. Unfortunately the enforcement arm of society is somewhat biased towards Victorian persecution type attitudes whilst much of the Education Arm seems to be biased towards the environment. Until the enforcement arm is less inclined to support the Victorian attitudes it will be difficult to reduce the impact of persecution. Education of the masses is however slowly having an impact here.

Click to expand...

Like the Parry/Morton analogy John. Maybe we can get them both on the same show.

Tim Allwood said:

I haven't said anything about not highlighting it, or not trying to do anything about it, have I?

Tim

Click to expand...

...Certainly not that I've read and I wholly agree with your points about fines; but zealots are on the loose with a 'worthy' cause, so it doesn't matter.

The very worst of Birdforum has been exhibited on this (and a similar) Thread, in that facts and proof are irrelevant when faced with an opportunity to have a go at those whose hobbies we don't share.

You asked earlier about how many 'PF's' have been convicted; the lack of any response speaks volumes to me.

Grousemore said:

...Certainly not that I've read and I wholly agree with your points about fines; but zealots are on the loose with a 'worthy' cause, so it doesn't matter.

The very worst of Birdforum has been exhibited on this (and a similar) Thread, in that facts and proof are irrelevant when faced with an opportunity to have a go at those whose hobbies we don't share.

You asked earlier about how many 'PF's' have been convicted; the lack of any response speaks volumes to me.

Click to expand...

Hi Grousemore,

I'm up early this morning so that I can catch up on my BF 'hate mail' but Mrs Morton is not amused, even though I have taken her a cup of Earl Grey tea!

In reply to your question, to the best of my knowledge there has only ever been one conviction which related to pigeon fanciers. This was several years ago in South Wales, where two fanciers were quite rightly convicted of setting a poisoned bait in an area frequented by Peregrine Falcons. This has been mentioned on BF several times before and I have also publicly condemned it in my postings - but this is invariably quickly forgotten. As you will appreciate, the lack of further convictions does nothing to support the anti-pigeon fancier hype being whipped up by some members.

Based on this one conviction, however, something I will not do is simply put my hand up to act as some kind of convenient whipping boy whose job is to take the blame on behalf of all the UK's pigeon fanciers every time a BOP is found dead or goes missing, or when a raptor's nest is robbed or destroyed. I have never said that all pigeon fanciers are 'whiter than white', or that out of pure desperation some of them are not capable of doing wrong, but without any proof or evidence whatsoever all that's left is rumour, insinuation and unsupported accusations. In effect, the actions displayed by some here is best described as little more than an ornithological version of the Spanish Inquisition crossed with the Gestapo!

Much as I would love to, time and space does not allow me to answer all my critics, or the few members with a genuine interest and desire to hear the other man's point of view. Worst of all in my opinion, are those few who seek to deny the fact brought out several times in the past by The Tom that anyone who keeps pigeons cannot also be a lover of wild birds. Just for the record, I have held a life-long interest in wild birds which stretches back well over sixty years. By comparison, I have only kept pigeons for a mere 18 years!

I was responsible for starting this thread when I repeated a question asked by the late Chris Mead in one of his articles I had just read in relation to another thread which I did not wish to hi-jack. That is all I did, because I did not attach any comments or thoughts of my own on the matter. Almost instantly, however, the 'BF Spoilers' sprang into action to prevent any serious discussion on the subject. Why? What's wrong with the question; 'Is 2,000 pairs of Peregrine Falcons enough?' that causes this over-reaction from some quarters? Reactions like this make me suspicious, so what are those members concerned afraid of, or is there something they wish to hide? After all, I only asked another man's question!

Anthony

Tim Allwood said:

Maybe if Anthony acknowledged that it goes on at some (probably very minor in terms of numbers) level, and that when it does he doesn't condone it, we can put the thread to bed as there isn't much else to argue about...?

Click to expand...

Tim,

I have no problem agreeing with this whatsoever. Hopefully my Posting #87 also covers it in more detail.

Anthony

Anthony a last but one posting that Mike Parry would have been proud of. I admire your tenacity and technique if not your intent.

Employing the stuck record technique of constantly repeating what you said earlier whilst also choosing not comment on a response to this is a reasonable technique to use (i.e. where is the evidence?). Repeating the views of supporters within your thread is an attempt to suggest a credibility to your arguement that is potentially fruitful. Acknowledging those points that you cannot refute easily ( SWales case) whilst making ridiculous extrapolations (ornithological gestapo) therby attempting to make yourself appear a reasoned person (defender of truth and justice) is also worth trying.

However here is a bit of stuck record of my own. Facts and Proof (Grousemoor) or as it is otherwise known the evidence is not gathered to allow prosecution because the enforcement arm of society have got other things that it is has been chosen that they do. (For a whole range of reasons). It is obvious, deniable but obvious that the persecution of peregrines by PF and others happens however.

I have got nothing against the hobby itself. I just believe losses to peregrines should be factored into the costs of the hobby. Not peregrines killed to support the hobby.

Anthony Is 2,000 pairs of peregrines enough? How would this perplexing question be answered. Firstly you asked is 2,000 peregrines the maximum population limit. (As I commented earlier I don't know. Lets leave them alone and find out). Is it enough however? What does this mean and to who?

John o'Sullivan said:

Anthony a last but one posting that Mike Parry would have been proud of. I admire your tenacity and technique if not your intent.

Employing the stuck record technique of constantly repeating what you said earlier whilst also choosing not comment on a response to this is a reasonable technique to use (i.e. where is the evidence?). Repeating the views of supporters within your thread is an attempt to suggest a credibility to your arguement that is potentially fruitful. Acknowledging those points that you cannot refute easily ( SWales case) whilst making ridiculous extrapolations (ornithological gestapo) therby attempting to make yourself appear a reasoned person (defender of truth and justice) is also worth trying.

However here is a bit of stuck record of my own. Facts and Proof (Grousemoor) or as it is otherwise known the evidence is not gathered to allow prosecution because the enforcement arm of society have got other things that it is has been chosen that they do. (For a whole range of reasons). It is obvious, deniable but obvious that the persecution of peregrines by PF and others happens however.

I have got nothing against the hobby itself. I just believe losses to peregrines should be factored into the costs of the hobby. Not peregrines killed to support the hobby.

Anthony Is 2,000 pairs of peregrines enough? How would this perplexing question be answered. Firstly you asked is 2,000 peregrines the maximum population limit. (As I commented earlier I don't know. Lets leave them alone and find out). Is it enough however? What does this mean and to who?

Click to expand...

This is of course the opposite view of AM, well put John. Its easy for people when they dont see this going on first hand year after year.As for the proof AM, as asked before you are damn sure PF aint involved , CAN YOU PROVE IT?

Grousemore said:

...Certainly not that I've read and I wholly agree with your points about fines; but zealots are on the loose with a 'worthy' cause, so it doesn't matter.

The very worst of Birdforum has been exhibited on this (and a similar) Thread, in that facts and proof are irrelevant when faced with an opportunity to have a go at those whose hobbies we don't share.

You asked earlier about how many 'PF's' have been convicted; the lack of any response speaks volumes to me.

Click to expand...

only two PF convicted, as i actually found the poison bait at this site this is something i know about.The idiots left a wing stamp on the bird with their telephone number on it, this is despite AM telling me by pm that fanciers wouldnt be stupid enough to use their own birds. Apart from that i have found and handed in shot and poisoned falcons several times. Ive also visited countless nests that have had their eggs smashed, this isnt the work of eggers or falconers, we dont have gamekeepers down this way , so can you take a guess at who you think is doing this year after year

nirofo said:

Hi Tim

I'm sorry to say I have to agree with you, unfortunately the other extreme means the ridiculously low penalties that are meted out are no deterrent to a determined PF. A more realistic penalty might be banning the PF from keeping any more RP's until he can show he has atoned for his misdeeds by doing several years voluntary conservation work in the protection of Raptors! I suppose then the politically correct gang would cry infringement of human rights. WHAT ABOUT THE INFRINGEMENT OF THE RIGHTS OF WILDLIFE TO LIVE?

nirofo.

Click to expand...

Hi nirofo,

Aren't you forgetting one major difference between birders and pigeon fanciers? There are no official rules in bird watching and that consequently birders are not required to pay either an annual membership fee to a club or association. Consequently they are disorganised because they do not have a governing body with its own set of rules.

In pigeon racing, however, each of the UK's countries is represented by its own union and in some cases more than one. In order to race his pigeons, a fancier has to not only belong to a recognised club, but also agrees to be governed by its rules, plus the rules of the governing body. In my case, this entails paying annual subscriptions to a recognised club and to the the Royal Pigeon Racing Association (RPRA) which represents the interests of the majority of English fanciers.

The RPRA's rule book contains around 230 separate rules, including those dealing with the conduct of its members. Under the heading 'Disciplinary Proceedings' Rule 70(a) reads;

"If any member of the Association shall be guilty of any dishonourable conduct or of conduct which renders him unfit to be a member of an Organisation or the Association ... he may be excluded from membership of that Organisation or expelled or suspended from the Association..."

In other words, if one of our members ever brought the sport of pigeon racing into disrepute for whatever reason (and that includes offences against raptors!) he will be judged under these rules and excluded from membership. Furthermore, if it was felt necessary to ultimately expel the member, then expulsion is for life and he would not have any way back into pigeon racing - ever!

So although I can at least partially agree with your comment about lenient penalties, in a case like this the fancier would be dealt with in a much harsher fashion by his peers than by the courts. In fact, he would almost certainly lose the opportunity to ever enjoy his chosen hobby again - a far harsher 'sentence' than the "Fined £50 and be a good boy in future" attitude you are describing!

Anthony

Anthony Morton said:

Hi nirofo,

Aren't you forgetting one major difference between birders and pigeon fanciers? There are no official rules in bird watching and that consequently birders are not required to pay either an annual membership fee to a club or association. Consequently they are disorganised because they do not have a governing body with its own set of rules.

In pigeon racing, however, each of the UK's countries is represented by its own union and in some cases more than one. In order to race his pigeons, a fancier has to not only belong to a recognised club, but also agrees to be governed by its rules, plus the rules of the governing body. In my case, this entails paying annual subscriptions to a recognised club and to the the Royal Pigeon Racing Association (RPRA) which represents the interests of the majority of English fanciers.

The RPRA's rule book contains around 230 separate rules, including those dealing with the conduct of its members. Under the heading 'Disciplinary Proceedings' Rule 70(a) reads;

"If any member of the Association shall be guilty of any dishonourable conduct or of conduct which renders him unfit to be a member of an Organisation or the Association ... he may be excluded from membership of that Organisation or expelled or suspended from the Association..."

In other words, if one of our members ever brought the sport of pigeon racing into disrepute for whatever reason (and that includes offences against raptors!) he will be judged under these rules and excluded from membership. Furthermore, if it was felt necessary to ultimately expel the member, then expulsion is for life and he would not have any way back into pigeon racing - ever!

So although I can at least partially agree with your comment about lenient penalties, in a case like this the fancier would be dealt with in a much harsher fashion by his peers than by the courts. In fact, he would almost certainly lose the opportunity to ever enjoy his chosen hobby again - a far harsher 'sentence' than the "Fined £50 and be a good boy in future" attitude you are describing!

Anthony

Click to expand...

So are we to take it that the two idiots from Port Talbot have now been expelled from the Union?

John o'Sullivan said:

Anthony Is 2,000 pairs of peregrines enough? How would this perplexing question be answered. Firstly you asked is 2,000 peregrines the maximum population limit. (As I commented earlier I don't know. Lets leave them alone and find out). Is it enough however? What does this mean and to who?

Click to expand...

John,

How indeed would what you describe as 'this perplexing question' be answered? Could this be why Chris Mead closed one of his pieces with this same question? What a pity that the great man isn't here to answer for himself.

You say that you don't know the answer - and neither do I, that's why I asked. As to what this means and to whom, once again I confess that I don't know but I would love to know - THAT'S WHY I ASKED!

Oh blast, now I'm repeating myself too!

Anthony

valley boy said:

As for the proof AM, as asked before you are damn sure PF aint involved , CAN YOU PROVE IT?

Click to expand...

Of course not - no more than you can prove they are!

Anthony Morton said:

Of course not - no more than you can prove they are!

Click to expand...

Well that just shows that my assumption that they are involved carries the same weight as your assumption they are not( because as you said you cant prove they're not involved,) . As all other possible culprits have been eliminated due to previous explained reasons , i ask again who do you think is targetting just perrys( not any other raptor) in the SW valleys?

from the RPRA website http://www.rpra.org/raptors.html >

'Our stance on illegal persecution of birds of prey by anyone is that the RPRA do not condone this in any way shape or form and any of our members convicted of such an offence is also likely (note the word likely, not definately) to be dealt with severely by the RPRA. We will therefore continue to lobby for a change in the laws protecting raptors (!) so that our members can fly their birds without the constant threat of persecution from birds of prey. The media will say we want to shoot these raptors. We do say that there should be opportunities to humanely destroy troublesome birds (presumably that means hungry birds) and particularly those that take our pigeons from within our own property'.

.... reading that it seems to me that a persons hobby is deemed somewhat more important, if not equally important, than the protection of our native wildlife. Not sure either how 'our own property' is to be defined ... a loft? 60 hectares of land?

London Birder said:

from the RPRA website http://www.rpra.org/raptors.html >

'Our stance on illegal persecution of birds of prey by anyone is that the RPRA do not condone this in any way shape or form and any of our members convicted of such an offence is also likely (note the word likely, not definately) to be dealt with severely by the RPRA. We will therefore continue to lobby for a change in the laws protecting raptors (!) so that our members can fly their birds without the constant threat of persecution from birds of prey. The media will say we want to shoot these raptors. We do say that there should be opportunities to humanely destroy troublesome birds (presumably that means hungry birds) and particularly those that take our pigeons from within our own property'.

.... reading that it seems to me that a persons hobby is somewhat more important than the protection of our native wildlife. Not sure how 'our own property' is to be defined ... a loft, 60 hectares of land?

Click to expand...

i think fanciers define their property as anywhere their pigeons fly. Otherwise we have nothing to fear as i couldnt see a Perry going into a loft to take a bird... a spar maybe, but thats another story

I see this thread is still going strong. Incidentally, how many people actually participate in p***** r*****? Is it likely to increase or decrease over the years? I agree that only a small minority would be stupid enough to persecute peregrines or other raptors but if the hobby is on the wane then perhaps raptor numbers would have more scope for increasing beyond current limits.

valley boy said:

So are we to take it that the two idiots from Port Talbot have now been expelled from the Union?

Click to expand...

Why do you say 'So are WE to take it...'? That assumes that everyone else is of a similar mind to you. If you want to know, then it should be 'Am I to take it...' without involving the silent majority who have clearly not expressed an opinion one way or the other on this.

Anyway, to try to respond positively to your rather impertinent post describing the two of your countrymen who were convicted as 'idiots from Port Talbot' is rather difficult for me because, as I carefully explained in my earlier post, I do not live in Wales, I am not a member of the Welsh Homing Pigeon Union, nor do I have a copy of its rules. Sorry!

By the way, given that you are a self-proclaimed holder of a Schedule 1 Licence, wouldn't you perhaps be better advised spending a little more of your time 'out and about' rather than poncing about here trying to annoy me? I don't care what you say, even if you are wearing climbing boots, you're not getting up my nose! :t: