Why Shooting Times rejected RSPB hotline advert (1 Viewer)

[mikfoz]

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.?

Half of the problem would seem to be people trying to see a natural habitat in what is effectively a giant zoo/farm.

I know that's simplistic, but we're talking feral birds here that can't actually survive without a fence, not a natural balance.

 

[Johnny Allan]

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.

Hi there,

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

by "not artificially managed" I mean without the intervention and continued intervention of man. Does such habitat, supporting Red Grouse, exist ?

Kind regards

Johnny Allan

 

[Johnny Allan]

Half of the problem would seem to be people trying to see a natural habitat in what is effectively a giant zoo/farm.

I know that's simplistic, but we're talking feral birds here that can't actually survive without a fence, not a natural balance.

Sadly, I think the whole country/planet is becoming one giant zoo/farm/safari park in which humans find themselves intervening more and more to control wildlife populations in one way or another. This is spurred on by unabating, uncontrolled and unsustainable human population growth. What a mess.

 

[saluki]

Hi there,

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

by "not artificially managed" I mean without the intervention and continued intervention of man. Does such habitat, supporting Red Grouse, exist ?

Kind regards

Johnny Allan

Hi Johnny,

My uncle was surveying some hilltops for the FC in Kintyre, Argyll a few years ago. These hilltops were never planted as they were too exposed, but are surrounded by mature pine plantations. He was surveying the wildlife and checking regen. wasn't encroaching upon the open hill. He was surprised to flush several red grouse, so next time he went up there he took an English pointer with him. I can't remember now how many grouse he said he'd found but the dog pointed several small coveys.

The hilltops are visited maybe once or twice a year by the FC's rangers perhaps, other than that no-one goes there. No predator control is carried out by the FC in the surrounding area, and what shoots there are locally are lowland pheasant shoots with a few released redlegs.

I've flushed red grouse myself from similar FC ground in areas where no real predator control took place.

Cheers
Jonathan

 

[jerkin]

Found similar habitat in northumberland,not shot over but public have limited access also almost surrounded by commercial and recreation wood land.This area holds healthy breeding populations of Goshawk and Peregrine,although I had the advantage of two pointers I found plenty of small coveys of Grouse,it would be debatable if the population could be maintained if shooting took place

 

[Tideliner]

Its true a percentage of grouse and other game birds are not eaten by the shooter , for the simple reason it costs so much to manage a grouse moor the estate sells the grouse to expensive restraints. When a days driven game shooting is bought it only entitles the shooter to a brace of birds , if he wants any more he has to buy them.

In contrast 99% of wildfowlers eat what they shoot or give them away to friend for food. In the case of pigeon shooters , they are in for pest control as well as sport and sometime they kill 100s of pigeons. The vast majority are sold to game dealers and many exported to France. Of course there a few bad apples in the shooting community as you get in any hobby ( we have all seen to aggressive twitching or disturbance caused by poor birdwatchers ). But the vast majority of shooters eat or sell for eating what they shoot.

Whether you accept shooting or not the majority of natural woods in this country would not exist if it was not for one bird. The pheasant. From a farming point of view woods give little return apart from the rents shooters pay for them. Without the rents shooters pay for these woods and other wild areas on the farm such as ponds these wild areas would be drained or cut down and be growing crops. And what would happen to the majority of our woodland and farmland birds , they would be undergoing even steeper declines than they already have.

I am not supporting or opposing shooting just stating facts and if shooting stopped tomorrow we would see many of our birds disappearing. The alternative would be the government to fund a nation wide conservation to maintain “ wild habitats “ to replace the rents \ conservation work the farmers receive from shooters with a vastly expanded form of countryside stewardship which would cost a bomb. The government doesn’t fund out statuary conservation bodies properly now and I cant see them increasing taxes by the billions needed to cover such a project.

 

[martin kitching]

Which species?

cheers
martin

I know that's simplistic, but we're talking feral birds here that can't actually survive without a fence, not a natural balance.

 

[Apodemus]

I wondered that too. Some confusion going on here.

 

[Farnboro John]

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.

Along with the wider range of ages that BOP take you should consider the wider range of species. Goshawks will cheerfully chop corvids. More Goshawks, fewer losses to corvids.

If Red Foxes had a competitor/predator (Lynx/Wolf) then many of the issues about local control of them would probably go away as well. Golden Eagles take the odd one which is mathematically provable to outweigh any "bad behaviour" by the eagles. The Wolf: Coyote interaction in Yellowstone suggests very strongly that an apex predator would depress mesopredator numbers considerably.

John

 

[Johnny Allan]

Its true a percentage of grouse and other game birds are not eaten by the shooter , for the simple reason it costs so much to manage a grouse moor the estate sells the grouse to expensive restraints. When a days driven game shooting is bought it only entitles the shooter to a brace of birds , if he wants any more he has to buy them.

In contrast 99% of wildfowlers eat what they shoot or give them away to friend for food. In the case of pigeon shooters , they are in for pest control as well as sport and sometime they kill 100s of pigeons. The vast majority are sold to game dealers and many exported to France. Of course there a few bad apples in the shooting community as you get in any hobby ( we have all seen to aggressive twitching or disturbance caused by poor birdwatchers ). But the vast majority of shooters eat or sell for eating what they shoot.

Whether you accept shooting or not the majority of natural woods in this country would not exist if it was not for one bird. The pheasant. From a farming point of view woods give little return apart from the rents shooters pay for them. Without the rents shooters pay for these woods and other wild areas on the farm such as ponds these wild areas would be drained or cut down and be growing crops. And what would happen to the majority of our woodland and farmland birds , they would be undergoing even steeper declines than they already have.

I am not supporting or opposing shooting just stating facts and if shooting stopped tomorrow we would see many of our birds disappearing. The alternative would be the government to fund a nation wide conservation to maintain “ wild habitats “ to replace the rents \ conservation work the farmers receive from shooters with a vastly expanded form of countryside stewardship which would cost a bomb. The government doesn’t fund out statuary conservation bodies properly now and I cant see them increasing taxes by the billions needed to cover such a project.

Thanks Saluki and Jerkin, could it be that we can have healthy a Red Grouse population without killing for fun ?

Jonathan, interesting. Where do your figures regarding what wildfowlers eat or give away come from? I do know this, they are not killing to eat, they are killing for fun. Grouse, pheasants, Duck etc may be sold off for eating but they still have been killed for fun. Like yourself, I am not against shooting, but I am against killing birds/animals for fun and there are shooting alternatives to this. I understand the argument and fears that "many of our birds would disappear" if killing some of them for fun ceased, but disagree that the effects of this would necessarily be as costly as feared. In any case, and correct me if i'm wrong, the practise of killing birds/animals for fun has decreased in popularity over the past century so some of these shootings estates will have to switch to alternative ways of raising income anyway (does anyone know of any that have in recent times and the consequences?).

Kind regards

Johnny Allan

 

[jerkin]

Hi Johnny,don't get the concept of shooting being fun,but those that practise it do get a lot of pleasure from the activity.I must admit I don't have much time for most shooters as I see them simply as bag fillers who judge there day on the size of the bag.However I do admire the individual who works a Pointer over wild moors and is content with a good days bird dogging and maybe a brace.On estates giving up on shooting I have herd of a Grouse moor in North Yorkshire that has gone over entirely to Hawking and is managed by one of the Falconry Clubs

 

[Johnny Allan]

Hi Johnny,don't get the concept of shooting being fun,but those that practise it do get a lot of pleasure from the activity

Amongst some of the descriptions of "fun" in the dictionary are "sport", "entertaining" and "enjoyable". If you wish to use "pleasure" instead, these shooters get a feeling of satisfaction or joy having killed a bird/animal to show how good a marksman they are.

As I have said, I am not against, for example, target or clay pigeon shooting but I will not sit on the fence when it comes to involving the killing of birds/animals for "sport" (or whatever you want to call it). I would like to see no more of it.

Kind regards

Johnny Allan

 

[barnowlgirl]

i know few estates that do holiday cottages now to get abit more money into the estates, the ones i know up north use red deer stalking as main money coming in, estates in scottish borders cant do that as much as only have roe so they keep pheasant or partridge shooting.

i used shoot alot doing pheasants/partridge but now i only do the deer controlling i prefered working with them and i was better with a rifle than shotgun (i missed alot)!!

now with the barn owls i tend not get time and i prefer being with the owls or doing surveys. i think the law does need be alot more tougher.

 

[Guizotia]

As I have said, I am not against, for example, target or clay pigeon shooting but I will not sit on the fence when it comes to involving the killing of birds/animals for "sport" (or whatever you want to call it). I would like to see no more of it.

Ditto! I think it's immature to derive pleasure from killing animals.

 

[Tideliner]

The issue of killing for food or fun or both is not revilement in terms of conservation of our wildlife. As I said some way back we have a choice let shooters pump millions of pounds into the countryside economy for their sport , dig very deep into our pockets and pay to maintain the countryside with very heavy taxes or let the farming community turn even more of our countryside into food factories.

The effect of the latter will be to impoverish our wildlife and we will see even more of our once common birds disappear from wide areas of the countryside.

I cannot see the public supporting billions of pounds of tax payers money to support wildlife .

Or we can ride on the backs of shooters who pay for or carry out in their own time a massive amount of habitat management ( admittedly for selfish reasons – to have game to shoot ) and provide a huge spin off in terms of habitat preservation and benefits to a wide range of wildlife. This may sound a bit harsh , but how much does the average birdwatcher pump into conservation and habitat management , perhaps a hundred pounds a year ( I have known on several occasions birders refuse to pay entrance fees to enter a reserve to see a rarity and yet be happy to pay for the fuel to travel 200 miles to see a rare bird in a public area.). We expect to gain access to the birds we want to see for free or at most the cost of a few pounds reserve entrance fee. Yet we gladly spend hundreds of pounds on fuel to travel the countryside looking for the birds we want to see.

. As for killing birds for food , if you eat meat you can not argue with that as there is no difference between you killing your own food or having a slaughter man do it in an abattoir , the end result to the animal is the same.

Getting back to the topic subject , yes we still have some trouble hot spots that need the law to come down hard on anyone who kills raptors , but away from these areas a more enlightened attitude prevails as a whole. If raptor killing was wide spread would we see the large increases in common buzzard , marsh harrier , hobby , red kites ect . Its all to easy to forget what the situation was 40 years ago. Sparrowhawks were very rare in my part of the country ( Norfolk ), common buzzards non existent and we were down to a single pair of marsh harriers in the whole country.

Perhaps I should add that my job involves raptor protection of rare species.

 

[ColonelBlimp]

The trouble is Tideliner, if some gamekeepers feel that birds of prey on their shooting grounds are reducing grouse populations below viability for shooting, I can see how they would be very troubled at being able to do one sort of pest control and not another, seemingly mainly on the basis of aesthetics!

 

[Nightranger]

I cannot see the public supporting billions of pounds of tax payers money to support wildlife .

Or we can ride on the backs of shooters who pay for or carry out in their own time a massive amount of habitat management ( admittedly for selfish reasons – to have game to shoot ) and provide a huge spin off in terms of habitat preservation and benefits to a wide range of wildlife.

Indeed! It is the biggest dilemma of all although there is a growing suspicion that game management has not as many advantages to conservation as was once believed. However, the biggest obstacle is making the public understand the distinction between conservation and animal welfare, which makes for quite a fine line to walk for the conservation organisations. For example, most organisations are not declaring opposition to the game industry, thereby suggesting that they support the subject. This is quite a tricky position to have for an animal-loving UK public so it is no surprise that there is no open declaration of support but instead, an open opposition to elements of bad practise. I have become fascinated with this confusion between conservation and animal welfare because it could be one of the biggest hindrances to wider support for conservation in the UK. I was particularly interested in Billy Connolly's reaction to a seal being shot for food on Baffin Island - he grasped the concept but it was clear he was uneasy with the issue even though he justified the kill on conservation grounds.

Getting back to the topic subject , yes we still have some trouble hot spots that need the law to come down hard on anyone who kills raptors , but away from these areas a more enlightened attitude prevails as a whole. If raptor killing was wide spread would we see the large increases in common buzzard , marsh harrier , hobby , red kites ect .

Within the scope of this thread, it is difficult to understand the seeming conspiracy of silence within the shooting industry. There is nothing more certain than the fact that not all game estates are bad and do not subscribe to the 'only good raptor is a dead raptor' idea. However, the implicit suggestion is that they still support persecution because they are not condemming it (et tu Shooting Times). A key strategy in conservation is education and this will only move forward into the bad estates if a more open debate on the subject was allowed to develop within the industry. In that respect, it was a good attempt by the RSPB and it is a pity the Shooting Times did not rise to the challenege.

 

[Farnboro John]

I have no difficulty with the concept that grouse rearing is just a form of organic farming and harvesting with a good sideline in marketing (how many farmers can persuade the public to pay to ride a combine to cut their wheat crop?) but adherence to the law is a requirement for all farmers and calling this lot something different doesn't make them different. Stop calling them game managers and start calling them grouse farmers. From there a parallel with Badger culling to protect cattle (which many many people and organisations are against on grounds of both absence of necessity and animal welfare) could help isolate the badduns.

John

 

[ColonelBlimp]

I always think, and have seen nothing to the contrary, that the wildlife on grouse moors is for the vast majority of the time just there because it dooesn't actively hinder the grouse. Economy over ecology every time.

I have no difficulty with the concept that grouse rearing is just a form of organic farming

Including the lead shot that gets bunged into the ground?

 

[davercox]

The trouble is Tideliner, if some gamekeepers feel that birds of prey on their shooting grounds are reducing grouse populations below viability for shooting, I can see how they would be very troubled at being able to do one sort of pest control and not another, seemingly mainly on the basis of aesthetics!

Indeed they may be troubled. But this thread is about enforcement of the criminal law of England and Scotland, not about whether the perpetrators are 'troubled' or not.