Grousemore
Senior Member
Apparently not...
"The RSPB does not have any axe to grind against any sport unless it affects the conservation issues and then we would be very much against it."
-
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.
RSPB allows "wildfowling" (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter birdieboy123
- Start date
Apparently not...
"The RSPB does not have any axe to grind against any sport unless it affects the conservation issues and then we would be very much against it."
Nightranger
Senior Moment
Hi all,
Can I please repeat what I said earlier in the thread? If you have any doubts about the story, please contact the RSPB with a polite request for an explanation. I no longer work in Wildlife Enquiries so I have not been briefed on this subject but I know from experience, the press seldom report stories like this accurately. It is human nature to react on the basis of what we read even though we know the press are seldom truly balanced if there is a nice juicy controversial edge. I have no reason to think that large areas of the press have an axe to grind with the RSPB but gone are the days when at least one newspaper would pick something like this up and run the truth against their rivals. My personal guess is this has been drawn up by a single person and the press have simply gone with the report. They will certainly have contacted the reserve warden but whether they printed everything he said or more likely, asked loaded questions is only something the RSPB can clear up.
Ian
saluki
Well-known member
Come on Rozinante, that's a little unfair. Wildfowling is a legitimate pastime, egg collecting is illegal. Egg collecting only ever has a negative effect on bird populations, whereas many wildfowling clubs do far more practical conservation work than your average bird club or society. Locally, many birders visit Burton Marshes on the Dee, without ever realising much of the habitat was created and maintained by wildfowlers. This is from Richard Smith's excellent Dee Estuary Birding website:
http://www.deeestuary.co.uk/news0905.htm
Jonathan
rozinante
Anarchism is order
Ok Jonathon fair comment. I accept the massive difference you point out. I was pushing it a bit to make a point.
I can almost hear the eggers case that they should be trusted because it is in their interest to preserve and conserve species and habitat in order to perpetuate their "sport" though.
I would also point out that bager baiting was once "legitimate". Consideration of animal welfare among the public is only going one way, I am glad to say that I can't see it turning around.
Last edited:
Hi Ian
From your own experience, thank you for explaining things here as you have here :t:
Taking briefly, what you have said in a nutshell simply implies the the press seeing it as they do, add aggro to a situation which offend, and add juice to the written word to upset its readers, and other Wildife groups as it does
Also to cause friction to cause conflict with other close knit Wildlife communities. What can we do about this unfeeling behaviour to go along with the existing problem created by the press.
Maybe another thought plan here?
Last edited:
rozinante
Anarchism is order
Hello Kathy
I can't speak for Ian of course, but I don't think missleading or exagerated stories in the press are usualy targeted at all. I don't think in general terms that they are particularly for or against anything other than maximising profits from sales.
Osprey_watcher
Ένας ερασ&
It's not often I agree with rozinante, (in fact it may be a first
), but he's right here. These days they are only interested in printing a story or part of a story that is guaranteed to cause a section of the readers to get inflamed. Usually that section that doesn't have a lot of knowledge on the subject.
), but he's right here. These days they are only interested in printing a story or part of a story that is guaranteed to cause a section of the readers to get inflamed. Usually that section that doesn't have a lot of knowledge on the subject.I'm not saying they print falsehoods, rather that they take only part of the full story or part of the quotes. Controversey sells more papers.
My first reaction when I read the post was exactly what they intended. Then I thought about it, and thought about the paper the article came from. and decided to hold off doing or saying anything stupid until I knew the facts. Another first.
It is a complete mystery to me why there are so many people who seem to hate the RSPB so much and are willing to believe anything they are told from a third party without first checking the full facts.
Last edited:
Stop it. Stop it. Stop this belittling our
gun touting community.
Just because they love to kill for the fun of it,
providing that they them selves are not getting
hurt. Otherwise they would have joined our
brave lads in the services. But, they are
not quite brave enough for that. Sadly,the
nearest that these poor soles will ever get to
looking macho is:-
a) Wear camo 'obligatory' if you are really
somebody.
b) Carry a gun and walk like Lee VanCleef or
George Bush.
c) Don't forget the hide.
d) Wait for some poor unwary creature or
bird to come your way.
Blast it to 'Kingdom come' (knowing full well it
can't retaliate).
e) If married, go home to an adoring wife. Thinking
that she's thinking 'Ho,what a hero I've married'!!
Give'em a break after all said and done it is 'lawful'.
We all have to have somebody to look up to. Don't we.
Don't we?
Kindest regards,
young Ian.
gun touting community.
Just because they love to kill for the fun of it,
providing that they them selves are not getting
hurt. Otherwise they would have joined our
brave lads in the services. But, they are
not quite brave enough for that. Sadly,the
nearest that these poor soles will ever get to
looking macho is:-
a) Wear camo 'obligatory' if you are really
somebody.
b) Carry a gun and walk like Lee VanCleef or
George Bush.
c) Don't forget the hide.
d) Wait for some poor unwary creature or
bird to come your way.
Blast it to 'Kingdom come' (knowing full well it
can't retaliate).
e) If married, go home to an adoring wife. Thinking
that she's thinking 'Ho,what a hero I've married'!!
Give'em a break after all said and done it is 'lawful'.
We all have to have somebody to look up to. Don't we.
Don't we?
Kindest regards,
young Ian.
mooskibaby
Well-known member
The RSPB (The Royal Society for the Protection of Birds) is supposed to protect birds, not to be killing them. A couple of years ago i was up for supporting the RSPB, i'm beginning to hate them more and more. First of all it's the culling of the ruddy ducks admittedly a hybrid but it's here now, and now it's killing wildfowl for no apparent reason. Why do it? The word in the name of the charity "PROTECTION", well that doesn't exist anymore does it really. I'm only 16 years old, and i'm a very keen environmentalist and i don't tolerate this at all in the slightest some serious action will have to be taken. If anyone is in favour of the killing of wildfowl then.......
rozinante
Anarchism is order
Although I don't consider questioning the actions of an organisation I have given support to for more years than I suspect you have been alive as "having a go at" I suspect that you might.
Whatever you may think I will not be apologising at your request.
Who says its the "best way" anyway? Not everyone shares the view that killing is ok provided its for a greater good.
Twite
Well-known member
Hybrid? The Ruddy Duck is being culled for a reason. If you're going to use this as a stick to beat the RSPB at least take the time to find out why this is happening. Then when you know the reason come back and justify why they should not be culled.
Twite.
Isurus
Well-known member
I would suggest those people would be better placed in an animal rights organisation of which there are many rather than a conservation organisation like the RSPB.
Mooskibaby - the RSPB are protecting the birds on the site, read the post by robinm. Protecting the greater good, forsake a few birds for the protection of a greater area and more birds. Is that not better than protecting a small area while a lot more birds are blown apart??
Rozinante - what qualifications/knowledge/expereince have you got to say that the RSPB are wrong. This is not some small crack pot organisation, this NGO has some of the largest amount of money and expertise to exercise within the conservation industry. I can tell you from my personal experince dealing with the RSPB and several Wildlife Trust's that the shooting of one creature to protect another/for the greater good is not taken lightly.
I dont personally consider myslef to have enough knowledge to be able to say that we should X number of birds or particular species but I know that the RSPB has experts who have been there and done it who can be called on to offer advice.
one interesting comment I heard once by an RSPB warden was that 90% of conservation was destructive - when I sat back and thought about the work I do he was right.
One last comment on animal rights supporters - they let mink into British water ways to save them from a future as coats....... is that for the best????
Rozinante - what qualifications/knowledge/expereince have you got to say that the RSPB are wrong. This is not some small crack pot organisation, this NGO has some of the largest amount of money and expertise to exercise within the conservation industry. I can tell you from my personal experince dealing with the RSPB and several Wildlife Trust's that the shooting of one creature to protect another/for the greater good is not taken lightly.
I dont personally consider myslef to have enough knowledge to be able to say that we should X number of birds or particular species but I know that the RSPB has experts who have been there and done it who can be called on to offer advice.
one interesting comment I heard once by an RSPB warden was that 90% of conservation was destructive - when I sat back and thought about the work I do he was right.
One last comment on animal rights supporters - they let mink into British water ways to save them from a future as coats....... is that for the best????
Pete Mella
Getting there...
I think people are confused as to what the RSPB is about - as a conservation organisation it's about protecting species and populations of birds through management, and not the protection of individual birds. It is a conservation group not an animal welfare group, as it states clearly on the website. Hence the fact, for example (and please search for one of the gazillion threads on the matter to take this point further!), that they support the ruddy duck cull whereas the RSPCA don't.
Now I'm against bloodsports, and I don't see they have any place in a civilised society and can't imagine the mentality behind them. But sadly I have to grit my teeth and admit that, working with the responsible and law-abiding section of the hunting fraternity will get the RSPB a lot further in certain situations.
Now I'm against bloodsports, and I don't see they have any place in a civilised society and can't imagine the mentality behind them. But sadly I have to grit my teeth and admit that, working with the responsible and law-abiding section of the hunting fraternity will get the RSPB a lot further in certain situations.
Isurus
Well-known member
Twite
Well-known member
rozinante
Anarchism is order
I would prefer to think that the goals of animal rights and conservation are not mutualy exclusive as you suggest.
In fact for me they are inseperable. Conservation being the product of respect for the fundemental right of animals to life.
If not based on respect for life, what is the motivation for conservation, killing for fun, ticks, entertainment?
To give unquestioning loyalty to any orginisation because of its wealth, power and dominance is a very dangerous course.
With respect, you can hardly expect your personal anecdotes of heart searching to cause me to dismiss my long held view that unnecessary killing should only be considered as a last resort, not as a convenient option.
Your faith in the great and the good is very touching.
Perhaps you might both consider a different hobby?
One last comment on the fallibility of NGO's... they let the ruddy duck into british water ways because they looked pretty and got their punters another tick. Was that for the best?
Hello Anna,
I did not like the RSPB's position regarding the Ruddy Duck either. But please consider the bigger picture and think about what state Britains Birdlife would be in if there was no RSPB. Try and look at all the positive things the Society is involved in.
Best wishes, Gareth
