Why Shooting Times rejected RSPB hotline advert (1 Viewer)

[Farnboro John]

So, you are not prepared to reveal what you are talking about. Fair enough.

The homework you refer to would be difficult without knowing what you mean so I will make the assumption that you were referring to the existence of shooting rights on certain reserves. However, you infer that there are shooting estates owned by individuals in management/executive positions of the RSPB. If this is the case, it is untrue and potentially libellous even though you have failed to name names. The Chief Executive is a well known person and I don't for one moment think he would relish having to take the time to explain that he is not one of the people you have slung mud at here.

Actually (and this is a hobby-horse of mine, but it should be everybody's) he wasn't inferring at all. You were. He was implying.

John

 

[Farnboro John]

Seems to be a classic case of thinking with your stomach and not with your mind. It is not as if we are starving and hunting is a necessity to keep us alive in todays world. It's anything but, as it is only really the upper class and well to do people that can afford high end grouse shooting.

Yes but if they shoot them we get the chance to eat them. By doing so we are contributing to maintaining grouse moor as grouse moor. Now, if people refuse to eat grouse, albeit as an expensive treat, one of two things will happen: grouse moor maintenance will become less economic and the estates will go under leading to sheepwalk everywhere and no grouse at all: or the shooting bag will be left uneaten and that really would be a waste of natural resources in every way!

Get a grouse down your neck.

John

 

[ColonelBlimp]

That is one of the most nonsensical posts I've ever come across.

If you're going to make a statement like that, at least try and justify it.

My point was in response to your earlier one, which I would find more nonsensical, as I explained in my last post. How does not 'being able to see the point' of something immediately debar you from discussing it-if that were true, all threads about shooting, falconry, etc. would immediately fold because all the people who couldn't see the point of it (loosely interpreted) would not be able to comment.

By the way. What are your views on culling of grey squirrels, and how do these tie in, if at all, with your statement in your last paragraph?

I would be happy for an invasive species such as grey squirrels to be controlled, but if I were doing it I certainly wouldn't take any pleasure in it. My point in my earlier post about taking pleasure in killing an animal being abhorrent doesn't therefore apply.

 

[mikfoz]

There's absolutely no need for this healthy debate to degenerate to personal sniping, surely.

The germane point is still whether law-abiding gamekeepers and other shooting enthusiasts should be encouraged to shop their more unscrupulous colleagues in the interests of finding useful compromise and whether the Shooting Times' actions amounted to political censorship.

There's not really going to be a meeting of minds on the whole "shooting creatures for fun" thing as it's not that black and white in the first place and it's bound to be polarised. As has been pointed out, also, it's experience of being on the receiving end this attitude that probably prompted their actions in the first place.

Shooters are bound to make the point that some sort of predation in what is effectively a managed landscape has to take place and it may as well be them doing it. It's not been that much of a step for the majority to accept that a bit of natural competition from B.O.P. is no significant threat. We're not going to encourage the last few if we get them to dig their heels in against a bunch of falcon-loving tree-huggers, as they would see it.

 

[razorsharp]

Yes but if they shoot them we get the chance to eat them. By doing so we are contributing to maintaining grouse moor as grouse moor. Now, if people refuse to eat grouse, albeit as an expensive treat, one of two things will happen: grouse moor maintenance will become less economic and the estates will go under leading to sheepwalk everywhere and no grouse at all: or the shooting bag will be left uneaten and that really would be a waste of natural resources in every way!

Get a grouse down your neck.

John

I watched a programme about Grouse Shooting and it said that a huge proportion of Grouse was not eaten by the shooter, but the shooter still has to pay a large sum. If a wild animal is shot, I know so much about it's habits, behaviour and rearing of it's young, that eating it isn't something I could do.


I can see that Moorland management is important to the lives of some species and I can, to an extent, accept this, but it is not something I would condone or like to do myself.

I can see the benefits, but unlike the wealthy Grouse shooters, Grouse isn't something I can afford to eat, and if I could I would rather pay a reserve the money to protect the grouse rather than eat a dead one.

Birdwatching gives me the thrill, finding the animal and observing it rather than killing it gives me the excitement. But just because I don't condone or wouldn't shoot doesn't mean I am ignorant to the benefits.

P.S.This isn't a grammer forum so please excuse me for any mistakes.

 

[Capercaillie71]

Now here's an interesting suggestion!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/tayside_and_central/7896743.stm

 

[Isurus]

If a wild animal is shot, I know so much about it's habits, behaviour and rearing of it's young, that eating it isn't something I could do.

This, and this isn't an attack but more a query on your logic/reasoning, is a common view I have never been able to understand. Do you eat farmed meat? If so is the difference that it is "bred to die"? I've always thought that [sustainably collected] wild food would in many ways be the perfect food as the animal is living as nature intended, not cruelly confined etc throughout its life, less eco-impact and so on and so on.

If on the other hand you're a vegetarian then i totally get the logic and fair play.

 

[Tideliner]

Quote “This is the one area where there is a distinct lack of honesty because (suppressed) data from game estates revealed that less than 5% of losses were attributable to predators. “.

It would be impossible to make a general statement on the impact of predators on prey species as it depends on the predators concerned , the habitat structure and population levels. There can be little doubt that in some cases the impact can be severe , I.e. fox predation on tern colonies ,or slight i.e. the impact of common buzzards on game birds. Open landscapes with narrow hedges can be very open to predation from crows or stoats , while these species may have only a small impact in a diverse landscape with plenty of woods , copses and rough areas.

I do not know where you got your “ suppressed “ data from , but though it may be accurate for that estate it would have little relevance in the wider countryside

 

[Farnboro John]

Now here's an interesting suggestion!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/tayside_and_central/7896743.stm

I'm guessing an absence of a criminal record is a prerequisite?

Or a positive record of shopping people to the rozzers?

John

 

[Nightranger]

I do not know where you got your “ suppressed “ data from , but though it may be accurate for that estate it would have little relevance in the wider countryside

I know of one very specific study from Norfolk but the information I was talking about came out of a general report from the shooting industry. As I said, if I can find a reference I will pass it on although I am guessing it will not be easy to find on the Internet and I do not have access to a suitable library at the moment. What I can remember was that the report came from inside the industry and not from a joint study, which means the contents could not be used by other agencies (say, the RSPB or RSPCA). Given the contents effectively showed that raptor control was not necessary and thereby condemmed anyone doing this, it is not surprising the information is not easy to find. However, one thing I will agree with is that it is possible the report concentrated on one aspect of game rearing (probably, lowland pheasant operations) so you may be right about application to the wider industry.

Please note: I am not against shooting per se although neither do I support it particularly. I have never taken part so I do not feel qualified to comment about the wider welfare issues that are largely beyond the scope of this forum anyway. My objection is solely on the grounds of raptor persecution and I am neutral over the question of mammalian and corvid controls but it would help if there was a little more honesty over the entire thing.

 

[Nightranger]

http://www.thefoxwebsite.org/agriculture/agrigamebirds.html

Some pointers here but not really specific.

 

[razorsharp]

This, and this isn't an attack but more a query on your logic/reasoning, is a common view I have never been able to understand. Do you eat farmed meat? If so is the difference that it is "bred to die"? I've always thought that [sustainably collected] wild food would in many ways be the perfect food as the animal is living as nature intended, not cruelly confined etc throughout its life, less eco-impact and so on and so on.

If on the other hand you're a vegetarian then i totally get the logic and fair play.

I can see what your saying and yes, I do eat farmed meat. I have grown up eating farmed meat. Eating a Red Grouse isn't something I need or want to go out of my way to do, nor could I afford it if I wanted it. I don't see why I should eat a grouse to protect it's habitat when I could give the money direct to a charity organisation to protect a reserve.

Also, there are so many other animals killed in order to protect the gamebirds, it's never just the gamebird, foxes, stoats, weasels and corvids all perish to protect the grouse. And what about the illegal Bird of Prey persecution, how am I to know the grouse I eat hasn't come form a moor where raptors are being illegally persecuted? And the domestic animals are killed as humaely as possible, which definatly can't be said for the wild ones.

Again, I will say, I can see the advantages of grouse shooting, in fact one of the major contributors to their decline here in Ireland was the break up of shooting estates. So I do understand that it can be beneficial.

I don't want to shoot or go out of my way to eat grouse meet so I shouldn't have to.

 

[Tideliner]

Foxes do take a small percentage of released birds , but many of these birds would have ended up being shot anyway so make little difference to the overall population. Any losses with released birds can easily be covered by rearing a few more birds , but with the modern trend to establish wild bird shoots foxes can have a major impact. And wild bird shoots are a lot more environmentaly friendly than the mass release of thousands of pheasants which can have a negative impact of many invertebrates.

The real problems with foxes come during the nesting season. I will never forget walking along a section of alder Carr in a reserve in the Wensum Valley and finding 11 headless female mallard , all with brood patches so they had been snatched off their nests. A couple of pairs of greylag nest in a pond in my local wood . In 10 years they have never raised any goslings and in dry years foxes have taken females of there nests. On several occasions I have watched a fox stalking the goslings. You may say we have plenty of mallard or greylag , but they are just the easily visiable sign of their activity. How many other other nests are destroyed of far more valuable birds , many of conservation concern. I love to see foxes , but as in beer and women they are fine in moderation , but hell in excess.

One thing to think about Razorsharp is the money needed to protect our upland moors would be way more than the government or and conservation body would ever be prepared to put into it . Remember we are talking about moor land management on a landscape level covering many hundreds of thousands of acres across Northern England and Scotland , not just fiddley little reserves.

 

[Farnboro John]

I don't want to shoot or go out of my way to eat grouse meet so I shouldn't have to.

Nobody is suggesting it should be compulsory, just that some people should think a little more deeply before decrying it wholeheartedly.

John

 

[Johnny Allan]

Are there any healthy populations of Red Grouse in suitable habitat in the UK which is not artificially managed ?

 

[Nightranger]

Foxes do take a small percentage of released birds , but many of these birds would have ended up being shot anyway so make little difference to the overall population. Any losses with released birds can easily be covered by rearing a few more birds , but with the modern trend to establish wild bird shoots foxes can have a major impact. And wild bird shoots are a lot more environmentaly friendly than the mass release of thousands of pheasants which can have a negative impact of many invertebrates.

I think this is a good example of what the entire thread is about and shows the folly of raptor persecution. However, there is a different way of looking at this given we are talking about several different things. What is indisputable is that the majority of birds are lost before they are mature so we can dispense with the distinction between shooting yields and overall population to some extents. I think the fact that most people forget is that post-maturity mortality runs at anything between 65%-90% and can amount to (effective) 100% loss under some conditions and/or in some years (largely in immature birds and not breeding adults). This is interesting because it means recruitment to the mature population (arguably, shooting yield) is far more dependent on weather conditions and predation is a relative constant (at least in terms of a proportion of losses). This means that this is almost certainly the same whether we are talking about mass-reared lowland pheasants, red-legged partridges released on agricultural land or upland grouse moors. As a component of mortality, predation is minor although the relative numbers may be high (e.g., mass-reared lowland pheasants) and I suspect the accuracy of figures produced is often over-stated because it is not as important as first seems. For example, if there is a claim that fox predation on pheasants increased between 2007 and 2008 by more than 80, it suggests a huge increase in losses. However, as a component of overall percentage losses there is likely to be no more variation than 1%-3% (as I said, numbers could be noticeably larger). I am delberately using foxes as an example because as Tideliner points out, their impact can be very dramatic due to cache-killing. The impact of raptors is even (proportionally) smaller and that is where the concept of raptor persecution is so pointless.

 

[Nightranger]

Are there any healthy populations of Red Grouse in suitable habitat in the UK which is not artificially managed ?

It depends what you mean by 'artificially managed'. Climax vegetation is woodland in the UK below a certain altitude but there are a number of ways of managing this. Not all management strategies (grazing, for example) would be sympathetic towards certain birds. In addition, encroachment of housing/development can shrink a habitat below a threshold level for population dynamics even though good areas of suitable habitat remain. However, it is risky to equate management and predator control in a general context.

 

[razorsharp]

Nobody is suggesting it should be compulsory, just that some people should think a little more deeply before decrying it wholeheartedly.

John

I have thought deeply about it, obviously I would eat Grouse without a care if I didn't think deeply about the situation. I CAN understand that people do eat grouse and I CAN understand the benefits of grouse shooting. Just becasue I don't eat the grouse doesn't mean I don't understand the situation.

Back to a point mentioned earlier about Grouse being sustainable. I thought the Red Grouse was in decline in the UK. And with the majority of moors being sustained by shooting, what is the reason for the decline?

Nightranger, is there anywhere in the UK with sutainable Red Grouse numbers where predators aren't controlled?

 

[Nightranger]

Nightranger, is there anywhere in the UK with sutainable Red Grouse numbers where predators aren't controlled?

I would have to check. I would tentatively suggest that it is possible that there is no place that fits this profile. However, I am not sure that would prove much because upland management probably often (if not, exclusively) involves some measure of predator control even if it is just foxes. This equally could be true of upland sheep farming areas (fox control) as opposed to upland shooting estates (additional raptor persecution). Heavy grazing probably denies habitat to red grouse even though there is no reason why the birds could not venture beyond game estate boundaries. I have certainly seen red grouse in areas that are not known for shooting and include upland sheep farms but I cannot exclude the possibility of land management somewhere in the area or that there is absolutely no predator control (for whatever reason).

It is interesting that this thread is discussing a number of general issues along with the specifics of raptor persecution. Therefore, the local control of foxes to help grey partridge or carrion crow to help curlew is not the same as the archaic claim that removal of all raptors from an estate is beneficial. As was mentioned elsewhere on the thread, foxes (and presumably, mustelids) and corvids take a heavy toll of young birds or eggs whereas birds of prey take a wider range of ages. There is also a predator - prey density question that would be difficult (not to mention, too mathematical) to represent with the limited size of forums.

 

[ColonelBlimp]

It is interesting that this thread is discussing a number of general issues along with the specifics of raptor persecution. Therefore, the local control of foxes to help grey partridge or carrion crow to help curlew is not the same as the archaic claim that removal of all raptors from an estate is beneficial. As was mentioned elsewhere on the thread, foxes (and presumably, mustelids) and corvids take a heavy toll of young birds or eggs whereas birds of prey take a wider range of ages. There is also a predator - prey density question that would be difficult (not to mention, too mathematical) to represent with the limited size of forums.

But isn't the removal of predators such as the ones you mention in most cases just a papering over the cracks of structural changes in habitat degradation etc.?