Gus Horsley
Well-known member
Why don't we just exterminate everything on the planet and let nature start all over again? Oh, I just realised - we're doing that anyway!
Gus
Gus
Offord said:Well, I'm afraid it's a fact that sometimes people kill birds, legally. There are sometimes conflicts between species protection and economics or public health, but we have some of most stringent wildlife protection laws in the World. The General Licence goes a long way to enforcing them.
Gus Horsley said:only let responsible people have it.
Jos Stratford said:I don't doubt any of this and fully understand the (occasional, well thought-out) culls for a specific purpose for the reasons you quote above. However, my point remains and I think is valid ...a species should be on each of the license categories for a real reason, supported by data to show this. I do not accept that Jay constitutes a threat to public health or safety, though would be happy to withdraw this statement if someone can show may any data that shows a real and general threat posed by these birds.
Jos Stratford said:I also think this is a valid point, what harm is there in keeping a register of who has applied for the license (earlier a comparison was made to the 'unregulated' T.V. license - well, they know who has and hasn't got a license). If a simple register is kept, at least people who have violated its conditions in the past can be turned down if applying for another licence.
Offord said:Jos, why should the onus be on someone to prove it to you? Why don't you provide evidence that it should NOT be on the list? After all, I assume you're basing your objection on little more than a gut feeling. Hardly scientific in itself, is it? (apologies if I'm wrong, and you're an authority on Jays and public health).
Jos Stratford said:Very simple why they should provide the evidence - species are added to the list, that means the species has been selected to be on that list, therefore those who have made that decision should have a reason and, I think when we are talking about culling a species, I think there should be supporting data for this and it should be available for those who perhaps debate this. Yes, I base my objection on a gut feeling - I have never heard of a health problem with Jays. And no I'm not an expert on public health.
This is why I posted my question "could someone explain to me how Jays have become a species dangerous to public health and safety?" If a supported source reveals Jays are indeed a general threat to public health, as I said, I would withdraw my objection.
Gus Horsley said:The point I'm trying to make is that, underneath it all, attitudes haven't changed much.
Gus Horsley said:Rare species are being persecuted at the moment because their existence conflicts with somebody's interests, as witness the recent spate of peregrine poisonings. This is now, not then. And as far as legislation in concerned, we have many recent examples of how birds have been killed due to conflicts of interest and the law hasn't done a vast amount to act as a deterrent.
Gus
Offord said:Jos, it's obviously up to you what you do and do not accept, but as I cannot really follow your pyrrhic argument I'll bow out of that one by saying that if you don't know the grounds for inclusion, then you're not in a position to object to the status quo
Steve G said:Have to admit Jos -I tried to do the same search to find out why Jay might be classed as a pest species-the only thing close was an article on one Jay kelly of Sussex who was served an ASBO(antisocial behaviour order) by his local authority!