Huntable bird species lists (1 Viewer)

[Strandman]

I feel sure it was after 1981 but after doing a bit of research, I cannot find a definitive date so I happily retract my point about the curlew.

It was 1981 alright, same as Redshank- there was as you might expect a titanic battle between House of Commons and House of Lords on the topic, with some bizarre arguments being run on both sides....e.g. this from Hansard

"There is a real risk that some of the scarcer waders will have difficulty in maintaining their population levels. If the curlew and redshank are allowed to continue breeding unmolested—they are big, strong and aggressive birds—some of the smaller waders that are not numerous, such as the avocet in Suffolk, could find their existence at risk... If these two birds are protected, the balance on our foreshores, as we know it today, could be endangered."

 

[locustella]

"(...)If the curlew and redshank are allowed to continue breeding unmolested—they are big, strong and aggressive birds—some of the smaller waders that are not numerous, such as the avocet in Suffolk, could find their existence at risk...(...)"

:'D

 

[Robin Edwards]

It was 1981 alright, same as Redshank- there was as you might expect a titanic battle between House of Commons and House of Lords on the topic, with some bizarre arguments being run on both sides....e.g. this from Hansard

"There is a real risk that some of the scarcer waders will have difficulty in maintaining their population levels. If the curlew and redshank are allowed to continue breeding unmolested—they are big, strong and aggressive birds—some of the smaller waders that are not numerous, such as the avocet in Suffolk, could find their existence at risk... If these two birds are protected, the balance on our foreshores, as we know it today, could be endangered."

Thanks for sharing Ed - this shows that some things never change, politicians have no idea what they're talking about when it comes to the natural world and I would still expect many in both houses to try and defend an ability to shoot anything they can get away with given the chance.

 

[Johnny1]

I have recently returned from Tunisia where I was shown photographs of 2 dead flamingo's being held up by the person who had shot them also a similar picture of a common crane, I was told it was completely legal to shoot them as long as you paid a small amount for a permit.

 

[Robin Edwards]

I have recently returned from Tunisia where I was shown photographs of 2 dead flamingo's being held up by the person who had shot them also a similar picture of a common crane, I was told it was completely legal to shoot them as long as you paid a small amount for a permit.

There's plenty on YouTube if you want to depress yourself Johnny - brave men being photographed with corpses of all sorts of species.

This is where I find the human pysche so odd where gratiifcation is sought from destroying something so precious for no obvious reason other than "fun" and boredom.

 

[Strandman]

:'D

well done- I couldn't find the right smiley for it!

 

[Wildmoreway]

If the curlew and redshank are allowed to continue breeding unmolested—they are big, strong and aggressive birds

Were they running some kind of "protection" racket? |8.|

 

[MJB]

"There is a real risk that some of the scarcer waders will have difficulty in maintaining their population levels. If the curlew and redshank are allowed to continue breeding unmolested—they are big, strong and aggressive birds—some of the smaller waders that are not numerous, such as the avocet in Suffolk, could find their existence at risk... If these two birds are protected, the balance on our foreshores, as we know it today, could be endangered."

Never mind the unmolested breeding of Redshank and Curlew since 1981, what worries me is the unmolested breeding of the House of Lords since that year...:eek!::C:-C
MJB

 

[Capercaillie71]

It was 1981 alright, same as Redshank- there was as you might expect a titanic battle between House of Commons and House of Lords on the topic, with some bizarre arguments being run on both sides....e.g. this from Hansard

"There is a real risk that some of the scarcer waders will have difficulty in maintaining their population levels. If the curlew and redshank are allowed to continue breeding unmolested—they are big, strong and aggressive birds—some of the smaller waders that are not numerous, such as the avocet in Suffolk, could find their existence at risk... If these two birds are protected, the balance on our foreshores, as we know it today, could be endangered."

That's a superb quote - do you have a link to it in Hansard? It could come in useful in future discussions!

 

[Mono]

http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1981/oct/29/birds-which-may-be-killed-or-taken

 

[Capercaillie71]

http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1981/oct/29/birds-which-may-be-killed-or-taken

:t: Excellent thanks

 

[Nightranger]

Thanks for sharing Ed - this shows that some things never change, politicians have no idea what they're talking about when it comes to the natural world and I would still expect many in both houses to try and defend an ability to shoot anything they can get away with given the chance.

Oh you are so right, a local MEP (UKIP) has posted letters in local papers around here in support of repealing hunting with hounds this week. It is particularly interesting in that the arguments he submits (basically, pest control) were rejected by the hunting community long before the hunting ban became law. He links hare coursing (basically, working class) with fox hunting (definitely middle and upper class) and it is clear what kind of argument is being set out (I can imagine some of the responses other than my own that will appear) - appear to unite rather than divide an conquer. OMG, it makes you realise how thin the veneer is when it comes to both conservation and animal welfare in the UK.

 

[Wildmoreway]

http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1981/oct/29/birds-which-may-be-killed-or-taken

"Tastes and wildfowling practices have changed. Shore waders are not a major part of the wildfowler's quarry. The Royal Society for the Protection of Birds has received reports from East Anglia of people using redshank for practice, and not even bothering to retrieve the birds once they had been shot. In the earlier debates in the Lords many wildfowling peers agreed that shore waders were unpleasant to the modern palate and therefore could see no reason why they should be shot. Some of us will say "Amen" to that."

A ptarmigan is a lovely bird. It is also great fun to shoot.

So it was still all down to "fun" and "taste" and enjoying shooting anything that moves.

 

[Phil Andrews]

It is interesting the arguments being put forward by the hunting lobby ie "we only slaughter a few hundred / thousand so they might as well stay on the list as its not significant" whilst most right-minded people would be saying "well in that case if its so few its not a problem to remove them from the list".

 

[Johnny1]

There's plenty on YouTube if you want to depress yourself Johnny - brave men being photographed with corpses of all sorts of species.

This is where I find the human pysche so odd where gratiifcation is sought from destroying something so precious for no obvious reason other than "fun" and boredom.

I agree with you Robin, photographing birds is much harder than shooting them! The Tunisians who showed me the pics told me that they ate the birds and didn't just shoot them for fun/sport.

 

[Mayo Corncrake]

It is interesting the arguments being put forward by the hunting lobby ie "we only slaughter a few hundred / thousand so they might as well stay on the list as its not significant" whilst most right-minded people would be saying "well in that case if its so few its not a problem to remove them from the list".

In the Republic of Ireland Curlews were only taken off the quarry list last year. Numerous hunters gave the excuse you quoted. Curlew are barely edible so people weren't even shooting them for food.

Another excuse given was that if hunting Curlew was banned it would be a victory for the "anti's" and they would try and get other quarry species taken off the list

 

[locustella]

Why peole shoot Western Capercaillie Tetrao urogallus ? It is still hunted i.e. in Belarus and Finnland:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B9Sh1QHbblo
This species almost dissapeared from many regions of Europe because of conversion of forests into cultivated by people still so called "forests" and hunting during tooting (!).

 

[jaco]

This makes hunters extremely dangerous. Frustrated hunter often shoots at something moving in bushes, which his imagination wants to be a deer or a bird. And this "something" turns to be a human.

Often? Got a reference?

 

[Wildmoreway]

Often? Got a reference?

Not exactly a daily event in the UK, but perhaps it is frequent in Jurek's part of the world.

 

[MJB]

Not exactly a daily event in the UK, but perhaps it is frequent in Jurek's part of the world.

Perhaps some of our Italian members of BF can extract some statistics on the 'hunter versus "anything-but-the-quarry"' incidents that I was told (by, memory insists, Lorenzo Fornasari at a conference) were prevalent several decades ago in Italy...?:h?:
MJB