Why Shooting Times rejected RSPB hotline advert (1 Viewer)

[John Cantelo]

i know its whole load of other reasons that blackgrouse are declining in scottish borders not just birds of prey i go to alot of raptor nests and never seen a blackgrouse in any nest....

Your comment that the decline of Black Grouse is due to a variety of reasons and 'not just birds of prey' implicitly suggests that raptors ARE a cause of this decline. Something which I, and others, have been trying to suggest is essentially false. As pointed out earlier, predation by BoPs is only a crucial factor once population levels have dropped to a critical level. Unfortunately, for many its a short step between blaming raptors and justifying persecuting them (although given barnowlgirl's chosen monicker this clearly isn't the case here). As a matter of interest what survey/research are you involved in, barnowlgirl, to require frequent visits to raptor nests?

 

[nirofo]

While not wishing to take the wind out of anyones sails, especially someone who is obviously as keen as barnowlgirl, I do hope the visits to Raptor nests/sites for survey/research are legitimate and covered by the appropriate Schedule One Licences. If this is not the case then I suggest barnowlgirl contacts the official organisers of the survey's/research if there are any, and asks them to obtain Scottish Natural Heritage Schedule One Disturbance Licences for each species on her behalf. If she is still deemed to be training or assisting, then she will need to be registered as assisting and be accompanied by a licence holder at each visit to a nest site during the breeding season.

It should also be noted that any keeper, or anyone else for that matter, must be in posession of the appropriate licences before going anywhere near the occupied nest of a Schedule One bird. Because you own or work on the land where the protected bird is nesting doesn't automatically give you the right to go near it's nest knowingly. Once you know the protected bird species is there you should leave the area immediately and not go back until after the nesting season. It is still an offence under the 1984 Wildlife Protection Act to wilfully disturb at or near the nest of eggs or unflown young, any Schedule One protected bird.

nirofo.

 

[barnowlgirl]

i work with ringer ringing all birds of prey, i absail or climb into the nests to gather information for the guy i work with , i volunteer with tweed valley ospreys, i run by own barn owl project in scottish borders, i do consultant work for companys.

i am not blaming raptors at all i think that it is reason maybe blackgrouse can be preyed on by raptors but i have never seen it, others that i know have done. Am not saying that because they did or have killed blackgrouse that raptors should be killed i would never think that i left gamekeeping because i had more intrest in conservation and deer control work than rearing birds or killing vermin.

i wanted do conservation work with birds of prey because i have always liked them. And wanted help look at behaviour and study into them.

 

[barnowlgirl]

(While not wishing to take the wind out of anyones sails, especially someone who is obviously as keen as barnowlgirl, I do hope the visits to Raptor nests/sites for survey/research are legitimate and covered by the appropriate Schedule One Licences. If this is not the case then I suggest barnowlgirl contacts the official organisers of the survey's/research if there are any, and asks them to obtain Scottish Natural Heritage Schedule One Disturbance Licences for each species on her behalf. If she is still deemed to be training or assisting, then she will need to be registered as assisting and be accompanied by a licence holder at each visit to a nest site during the breeding season.)

Which i all am!

 

[sglynas]

Could the decline in numbers of grouse be that thousands are "Shot" each year?

 

[Barred Wobbler]

No.

 

[nirofo]

barnowlgirl:

Which i all am!

Pleased to hear it!

Good luck with your ringing training and Barn Owl project.

nirofo.

 

[nirofo]

Could the decline in numbers of grouse be that thousands are "Shot" each year?

No, it's more fundamental than that, overshooting would over simplify the Red Grouse situation. One of the biggest problems, particularly in the north of Scotland, is the poor quality of the heather and parasitic diseases which has decimated the birds. The parasite infestations seem to be cyclic and it's possible for the birds to recover, unfortunately the state of the heather is in terminal decline almost everywhere even with land management, which means that even if the birds could overcome diseases and parasites, they cannot overcome the lack of good heather for food, lekking and nesting!

nirofo.

 

[Nightranger]

I am not sure I go with this idea of raptors following black grouse into local extinction because they have nothing left to eat. Firstly, this would require all prey species to be eliminated. Secondly, it would require the assumption that all birds of prey have the same habitat requirements and are specific in these needs.

One of the now ignored aspects of the Langholm Moor study was that human intervention in the land management of the area was not changed. It was already clear that the habitat of the area was heavily degraded as far as black grouse were concerned and this continued through the period of the study. Incredibly, harrier populations increased slightly and this infers that black grouse were not a key prey item nor were so specific in their habitat requirements. Unfortunately, this increase in predators has been taken as evidence that harriers caused the decline in Langholm black grouse when it is clear that habitat degradation was still continuing. Therefore, it takes quite a leap of faith to say that birds of prey disappear through lack of food without any indicated decline beforehand. The sad fact is that some areas of the country have more than their share of 'bad apples' and there are obvious black holes in raptor distribution caused by illegal persecution.

Nirofo sets out the habitat degradation point very neatly in explaining how heather morrland is in decline across the UK. This is far from a trivial point given black grouse are much more habitat specifc (or food specific) than birds of prey.

 

[bitterntwisted]

I'd like to understand this better, but don't know enough about ecology. What does it practically mean to say that heather habitat is "in decline"? What would reverse the decline? Is the 'decline' natural succession, or does it arise from the absence of browsers or grazers from the eco-system? Is it climate-related?

Graham

 

[martin kitching]

The focus of the Joint Raptor Study was predation on Red Grouse, not Black. I'm not sure why in this, and other, threads you've persisted in claiming that the JRS was studying predation on Black Grouse. Also, the Hen Harrier population at Langholm didn't increase slightly - during the JRS, numbers at Langholm rose from 2 pairs to 20 pairs. Different organisations have, unsurprisingly, drawn different conclusions from the study so I would recommend that anyone with an interest in this topic reads the report and reaches their own conclusions.

cheers
martin

One of the now ignored aspects of the Langholm Moor study was that human intervention in the land management of the area was not changed. It was already clear that the habitat of the area was heavily degraded as far as black grouse were concerned and this continued through the period of the study. Incredibly, harrier populations increased slightly and this infers that black grouse were not a key prey item nor were so specific in their habitat requirements. Unfortunately, this increase in predators has been taken as evidence that harriers caused the decline in Langholm black grouse when it is clear that habitat degradation was still continuing.

 

[nirofo]

Nightranger:
I am not sure I go with this idea of raptors following black grouse into local extinction because they have nothing left to eat. Firstly, this would require all prey species to be eliminated. Secondly, it would require the assumption that all birds of prey have the same habitat requirements and are specific in these needs.

I doubt very much the Raptors would stay around long enough to go into local extinction, in my experience the birds tend to move out of an area long before prey items become so few that they would starve to death if they stayed. The moorland areas in the far north of Scotland are now virtually devoid of the normal moorland species that used to be plentiful as prey items. The Raptors over vast areas find dificulty in obtaining enough food on the hill, many of the ancient Peregrine sites are no longer occupied. Hen Harriers and Merlins are virtually restricted to the moorland edges where there tends to be better heather cover for nesting and more prey items such as Meadow Pipits; at least there was until continual indiscriminate burning of the heather destroyed the habitat, (probably for ever). Buzzards have never had it so good, what with road kills being handed to them on a plate, why should they struggle for food in the harsh environment on the hill when the pickings are so good all the year round in softer habitat, they were never a problem for the Grouse anyway. Golden Eagles cover huge territories and can normally find enough food to survive; while Red Grouse and Ptarmigan are taken whenever possible, Black Grouse generally being in or around forestry come somewhere very low on their preferred list of prey species. The majority of the Eagles prey, especially outside the breeding season consists of carrion, it's easier to catch and requires less energy expenditure. A Red Deer carcase will keep a Golden Eagle going for days if not weeks.

I would doubt very strongly that Raptors are the cause of the decline of any of our birds, let alone Grouse species. As has been said previously, man is the biggest problem for the decline of many species and not just birds, the continual destruction of habitat, destroying breeding and feeding territories, the loss of food due to changes in farming methods, the list is endless unfortunately.

nirofo.

 

[Capercaillie71]

I'd like to understand this better, but don't know enough about ecology. What does it practically mean to say that heather habitat is "in decline"? What would reverse the decline? Is the 'decline' natural succession, or does it arise from the absence of browsers or grazers from the eco-system? Is it climate-related?

There are some naturally heather-dominated habitats just above the natural tree-line and on areas of deep peat (blanket bog) which are too waterlogged for tree growth. However, most heather-dominated habitats in the UK are anthropogenic in origin - they would once have been wooded and are maintained as open moorland by grazing or burning, or some combination of the two.

Since the second world war the loss of heather-dominated habitats has been attributed to two main causes - afforestation (particularly conifer plantations) and overgrazing by sheep or deer. Moderate grazing can help prevent heather being invaded by woodland or scrub, but overgrazing can lead to it being replaced by grass-dominated habitats. Likewise, heather can benefit from moderate small-scale burning (as found on grouse moors), which results in a more diverse habitat structure than uniform unburnt heather (one of the reasons why managed grouse moors can be a good habitat for other species), but excessive burning (either too frequent or on too large a scale) can have a similar effect to overgrazing - killing off the heather and leading it to be replaced with grassy vegetation.

If grazing and burning stopped, then in theory there would be a natural succession back to woodland- certainly here on Deeside some former moorlands are reverting to native pinewood. That is not generally seen as a problem as it is relatively small scale and the native pinewood is a habitat of value too. However, in many areas, there is often no seed source for trees to regenerate, so what you end up with is tall, dense heather which is neither a 'natural' habitat nor particualrly good for wildlife in comparison to well-managed moorland.

It's estimated that the area of heather moorland declined by 20% between the 1940s and 1980s.

 

[Nightranger]

The focus of the Joint Raptor Study was predation on Red Grouse, not Black. I'm not sure why in this, and other, threads you've persisted in claiming that the JRS was studying predation on Black Grouse.

...and in virtually every interpretation of the results the conclusions have been extrapolated to black grouse so this is not exactly a trivial point in the context of this thread. Not to mention the fact that more than one Internet site comments on black grouse population trends in the light of the controls applied during the study. It is also clear that certain parties chose to see the JRS as a model to understand predator impact on gamebird populations and these ideas persist to this day - again, not inappropriate to the general context of this thread before it drifted into specifics.

Also, the Hen Harrier population at Langholm didn't increase slightly - during the JRS, numbers at Langholm rose from 2 pairs to 20 pairs. Different organisations have, unsurprisingly, drawn different conclusions from the study so I would recommend that anyone with an interest in this topic reads the report and reaches their own conclusions.

I certainly agree with your final point although to take it a stage further, it is important to read reports and interpretations posted by views from both sides as it were. As I have said before, the results have been so severely interpreted by various parties that the original study is as good as being a waste of time. Personal interpretation does not always work because it is easy to fall prey (sorry!) to personal opinions. When these are presented as interpretation on this wonderful vehicle for free speech we call the Internet, it is not difficult to see that many are mutually exclusive.

On the other hand, there are other studies to look at and some even involve artificial controls such as predator removal and whilst not necessarily involving black grouse, they are essential in understanding how predator - prey relationships in actual practise.

 

[Nightranger]

I would doubt very strongly that Raptors are the cause of the decline of any of our birds, let alone Grouse species. As has been said previously, man is the biggest problem for the decline of many species and not just birds, the continual destruction of habitat, destroying breeding and feeding territories, the loss of food due to changes in farming methods, the list is endless unfortunately.

nirofo.

I realised after I started writing my reply that this is what you were saying but there seemed to be hints on the thread that the discussion was drifting into the same old raptors/predators dunnit theme. To be absolutely clear, there are cases where predators can make a difference but I have yet to see an example that implicates (definitively, in case someone pulls me up about specifics) raptors. The jury is out when it comes to Corvids although there is some suspicion in at least one specialised circumstance (do your own research...LOL) that carrion crows are culpable (not magpies vs bullfinch or song thrush BTW according to latest research). Foxes are a different matter but I have been reluctant to mention the subject because it is off-topic although to point out the specifics relating to another post - black grouse are reported to have increased when foxes and Corvids were controlled.* It does not take such a leap of faith to see that hen harriers also benefited from reduced competition under controlled conditions and not (as claimed in some places) at the expense of grouse populations.

* This claim is not a universal one and has been used to indicate that predator control was essential to maintain game stock levels so I am not sure if there are any data sets to confirm the claim. As pointed out elsewhere, Langholm Moor was looking at the question of red grouse populations. I may be wrong in believing that black grouse are more habitat specific than red grouse but I am surprised that black grouse are claimed to have increased during a period when red grouse reportedly, declined. Note: the careful distinction between the words 'predator' and 'raptor' is essential to this kind of debate

 

[ColonelBlimp]

black grouse are reported to have increased when foxes and Corvids were controlled.

Hardly surprising though is it? They'll just end up increasing until they are limited by another factor.

Not exactly great for biodiversity though is it, removing a great big tranche of it?!

 

[James Thomas]

I think the issue has gotten more publicity than if it were posted in Shooting times so it must have really backfired(excuse the pun) on the Shooting times.

What bothers me is if the shotting times are such good law abiding shooters why it would bother them to post it.

The fact of the matter is Gamekeepers, and sometimes just idiots with guns are the majority of people that shoot raptors, so they are going to be branded, however wrongly because 'bad apples' do spoil it. Publishing this could have been a chance for Shooting times to show that they do protest raptor shooting, but they turn there backs, what does that say???

Surely they take the view that the RSPB are being provocative in their attempt to place an advert and the result could be a hostile one from their readership, both to the Shooting Times and to the RSPB? In such a scenario everyone loses.

I know very few shooters but I would argue that the majority of the readership are against shooting raptors but there is so much overlap with the fishing lobby that I would also argue a majority are in favour of shooting cormorants. Every time you get into a discussion on this subject it will come round to the 'what's next?' question. Many will hold to a more extreme view simply to retain the staus quo.

Simple fact is you can't have a constructive debate on the issue without including the shooters.

If you believe the Shooting Times editorial viewpoint that it holds a responsible attitude then surely they have done the right thing?

 

[mikfoz]

Surely they take the view that the RSPB are being provocative in their attempt to place an advert and the result could be a hostile one from their readership, both to the Shooting Times and to the RSPB? In such a scenario everyone loses.

I know very few shooters but I would argue that the majority of the readership are against shooting raptors but there is so much overlap with the fishing lobby that I would also argue a majority are in favour of shooting cormorants. Every time you get into a discussion on this subject it will come round to the 'what's next?' question. Many will hold to a more extreme view simply to retain the staus quo.

Simple fact is you can't have a constructive debate on the issue without including the shooters.

If you believe the Shooting Times editorial viewpoint that it holds a responsible attitude then surely they have done the right thing?

I kind of see where you're coming from, but if the RSPB tries to include shooters in the debate and they remove themselves from it, where do we go from there?

 

[James Thomas]

Here?

 

[mikfoz]

Here?

I somehow started hearing John lennon's Imagine while I was reading that article. If only this sort of thing would spread.