• 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.

Crossley ID guide to waterfowl (1 Viewer)

I just looked at this, it's only North American birds and it's also marketed at hunters.....

If I were being cynical, I'd wonder if targeting the large, hunting culture in NA whilst stating conservation aims, is just a cold, marketing ploy to increase sales?

I have to say also, that I really don't like the style they've adopted, super imposing images over a background, not for me.



A
 
Last edited:
I know a couple of people living in the states that love watching ducks. To the best of my knowledge, their hunting is limited to deer and turkey ...

Niels
 
I have to say also, that I really don't like the style they've adopted, super imposing images over a background, not for me.

A

The main idea of the super imposed images is to try and allow the guide to show a single bird in a wider range of poses and possible positions and shapes than the typical picture ID guide (which might show only one or two poses and an under-wing in-flight view). It's an interesting idea and the cut/paste work is well done and photographs are likely the most cost effective means to show this in time and money compared to commissioning dozens of drawn pictures per bird.


As for the aiming at hunters its a good thing all round. Honestly its a shame there isn't a greater unity between hunters and conservation as, barring the extreme ends of both groups, there's a huge amount of overlap between the two. Where its not something like grouse or pheasant managed hunts, hunters should be aspiring to protect the same wilderness as conservation so that populations are protected and viable to provide excess for hunting.

Sadly there's an often seen divide between the two groups and extreme ends of both cause trouble for the other party. Plus marketing wise its a lot harder for conservation to market itself if its "in bed with the hunters" to the mass populations.
 
Sorry but I've never bought this justification of hunting by citing conservation.

How does duck hunting, aid conservation?

If an introduced species is doing damage to the native fauna, such as certain Deer species in the UK, I can accept a need for controllibg them but I can never accept 'hobby' hunting. Sky news carried an article last night where some dumb American with too much money, took about six shots to kill an old Bull Elephant in Namibia. Having put numerous rounds in to the now grounded beast, he then had the huge challenge, of getting down on one knee from about three yards, for the kill shot, sickening.

Conservation was the main justification for hunting in Namibia in this piece and a big deal was made of the Elephant being hacked to pieces to be distributed among the locals.


A
 
Last edited:
I just looked at this, it's only North American birds and it's also marketed at hunters.....

If I were being cynical, I'd wonder if targeting the large, hunting culture in NA whilst stating conservation aims, is just a cold, marketing ploy to increase sales?

I have to say also, that I really don't like the style they've adopted, super imposing images over a background, not for me.



A

I have yet to meet a hunter that would read a bird ID book. Around here they have no idea what species they are shooting at. “What’s hit is hit”.
 
Last edited:
Sorry but I've never bought this justification of hunting by citing conservation.

How does duck hunting, aid conservation?

If an introduced species is doing damage to the native fauna, such as certain Deer species in the UK, I can accept a need for controllibg them but I can never accept 'hobby' hunting. Sky news carried an article last night where some dumb American with too much money, took about six shots to kill an old Bull Elephant in Namibia. Having put numerous rounds in to the now grounded beast, he then had the huge challenge, of getting down on one knee from about three yards, for the kill shot, sickening.

Conservation was the main justification for hunting in Namibia in this piece and a big deal was made of the Elephant being hacked to pieces to be distributed among the locals.


A

For me, conservation is about habitat more than anything else. There are places where the choice is between conserving a hunting reserve or converting the area to farmland. There I certainly prefer the first option.

For a related story see https://www.fws.gov/birds/get-involved/duck-stamp/history-of-the-federal-duck-stamp.php (obviously this could be a very biased story, but I have seen very positive expressions towards the duck stamp program from US birders).

Niels
 
I just looked at this, it's only North American birds and it's also marketed at hunters.....

It's also marketed to birders, and might be a great resource for those legions of us who are challenged by North American waterfowl ID. I have the eastern NA ID guide & the [diurnal] raptors guide. They haven't solved every puzzle for me, but in a few instances Crossley's approach has tweaked my perceptions a bit.

Gary H
 
andyadcock - as njlarsen says a huge part is about the habitat. It you look at a lot of species going extinct or at risk of then habitat loss is one major aspect that many suffer from. Reintroduction programs, protection and a lot of other schemes basically break down to nothing if there's no habitat. So if hunting helps contribute toward making owned land earn its keep through preservation of the habitat then its a good thing instead of it being converted to other economic gains like farming.
This is, of course, when conservation groups can't step in to buy the land or where governments lack interest/ability to police or otherwise find other economic gain.

Of course uncontrolled hunting is a huge risk, which is why I put the term "good" hunter (somewhat a loaded term of course). Uncontrolled hunting is, of course, a huge risk as is the kind you outline where the hunter lacks sufficient skill to make a safe clean kill.

My view is that its a lot easier to change views of the hunting society by including them within conservation rather than trying to push them out. Inclusion has a greater chance of them accepting the alternative view and of finding a mediation point between the two groups - since in theory both groups want the target species to remain viable in the wild (a hunter can't well hunt without game to hunt and hunting societies/groups would want to preserve game for their shoots).

Of course the extreme end is hard to avoid - you don't want to turn it into grouse or pheasant shoots where the focus becomes so great on a handful of target species that the protections swing so far to the extreme to protect those species at the cost of others
 
Of course the extreme end is hard to avoid - you don't want to turn it into grouse or pheasant shoots where the focus becomes so great on a handful of target species that the protections swing so far to the extreme to protect those species at the cost of others

Completely agree! To me the people attracted to those shoots are not hunters, and most of the hunters I know would agree.

Niels
 
Completely agree! To me the people attracted to those shoots are not hunters, and most of the hunters I know would agree.

Niels


Unfortunately, that's pretty much the commonest form of shooting in the UK. Stalking wild Deer to a far lesser degree but that's far too much hard work for most 'hunters'. In fact, I think very few 'shooters' will even call themselves hunters in the UK, so easy it is?


A
 
The commercial market that has grown around the pheasant and grouse shoots is certainly nothing like the "hunting" community that, say the USA has. It's very much more a rich club focused more on a day out doing an event once associated with the aristocracy than it is anything about the hunt itself. It's an exercise in excess and sadly it pays very very well whilst having relatively low upkeep costs and running on low manpower for most of the year and very cheap during the actual shooting season itself. So for a lot of estates it provides a significant income boost.

Of course one side you can look at the market and see that there's big money to be made which means that land which supports it won't be converted to another use; on the other the financial pressures are such that its almost too much money and results in a negative result - ecologically speaking. Finding the sweet spot in the middle is hard and I suspect only possible if you can impose a conservation mind set in the land owners - and/or likely also throw a lot of red tape and legislation around it (which is only any good if it can be enforced - which is hard when you consider that the UK police force for crimes against wildlife is something like 12 people for the whole country - and I think it might be even less I can't recall the number and that was from a few years back)
 
I have yet to meet a hunter that would read a bird ID book. Around here they have no idea what species they are shooting at. “What’s hit is hit”.
This is a hugely inaccurate statement. I know lots of hunters who are highly skilled nature lovers and even birders. I was one myself until I gave up hunting. Bag limits are often linked to species and therefore the hunter has to know what he /she is shooting. There are lots of organizations that work hard to conserve habitat, Ducks Unlimited is one example but there are lots of other local clubs and groups.
 
This is a hugely inaccurate statement. I know lots of hunters who are highly skilled nature lovers and even birders. I was one myself until I gave up hunting. Bag limits are often linked to species and therefore the hunter has to know what he /she is shooting. There are lots of organizations that work hard to conserve habitat, Ducks Unlimited is one example but there are lots of other local clubs and groups.

So I take it you know the people I know? And where did I state they don’t care about the birds habitats? There is a lot I could say about the the killing of protected raptors and the setting of traps but I’ll leave it for now as the authorities are aware. I think across the pond it may be different to here in Yorkshire.
 
Last edited:
So I take it you know the people I know? And where did I state they don’t care about the birds habitats? There is a lot I could say about the the killing of protected raptors and the setting of traps but I’ll leave it for now as the authorities are aware. I think across the pond it may be different to here in Yorkshire.


The USA still has problems, but they've a vast amount more wilderness which somewhat "hides" the problem in some respects. At least compared to the UK (the USA has some national parks as big if not bigger than the UK) where our significantly smaller habitats are under far more competitive pressure.


I also recall the game keeper at the college I was at being rather furious at the light punishments issued to game keepers cause killing protected species or using unlawful traps etc... His argument was how could he train new keepers to respect the law if the law only wrist-slapped the keepers (or if there was a fine the land owner/employer would likely pay it) when they are caught. And, of course, a lot of that hinges back to things like the UK police force for wildlife crime being tiny coupled to other issues (eg when video is captured of those using illegal traps but is not admissible in court).



I don't think anyone is (or should) be saying that its black and white. There are clearly those who hunt with respect to the wildlife and those who do not. My view is that the best way to convert more to the respectful side is to make them more involved, educated and aware of the ecological and conservation aspects. A lot of the people who don't are are often ignorant or are employed by those who are ignorant/self serving in terms of cost vs profit when running a shoot.
 
The forum moderators permit relatively wide latitude, but it might be worth noting this excerpt from the BirdForum guidelines:

"Please stay on topic as far as possible. If you want to discuss a different subject, start a new thread - don't hijack someone else’s thread. Hint: If your comments don't match the title of the thread, you are probably off topic.

Please - no discussions relating to hunting, pigeon racing, the keeping of caged birds, captive birds or falconry."
 
The forum moderators permit relatively wide latitude, but it might be worth noting this excerpt from the BirdForum guidelines:

"Please stay on topic as far as possible. If you want to discuss a different subject, start a new thread - don't hijack someone else’s thread. Hint: If your comments don't match the title of the thread, you are probably off topic.

Please - no discussions relating to hunting, pigeon racing, the keeping of caged birds, captive birds or falconry."


This is a valid diversion IMO and one related to the target audience of said book.

It was me that started it by pointing out that the book is aimed at hunters and I still believe, that it's a cynical way to expand sales.


A
 
And don’t forget that I live in the raptor persecution capital of the UK. After 55 years of watching birds I don’t need to be lectured by hunters in the USA...ex or not!

In the past I’ve met gun holders on Pheasant shoots that thought shooting Sparrowhawks, Kestrels, and Buzzards was good fun!
 
Warning! This thread is more than 6 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