BirdForum is the net's largest birding community dedicated to wild birds and birding, and is absolutely FREE!

Register for an account to take part in lively discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="John Cantelo" data-source="post: 1397220" data-attributes="member: 2844">Since the question posed was specifically regarding Pheasant/Partridge shooting then that was the specific point to which I was trying to respond.  I'd agree that the siutation regarding fisheries, grouse shooting and deer stalking is rather different .   The inability of Golden Eagles to spread into what seems to be suitable habitat and the well known fate of Hen Harriers is clear evidence of this.  As I've indicated, I'm not so naive as to think all game estates operate a policy of tolerance.  However, I don't think that we should be blind to the fact that some birds of prey are thriving in areas where they would have hitherto been shot or poisoned very quickly (Sparrowhawks, Marsh Harriers and Buzzards come to mind).  In my youth, for example, Buzzards were restricted to the New Forest in Hampshire, but now they can be found througout that county in areas that were, and still are, heavily 'keepered'.   Things have changed - not enough I agree - but it's still much better than it was.  From a Kent perspective it's simply undeniable that many of the best places to see raptors also host shoots.  So the game shooting fraternity are threat in terms of potential direct persecution, but also an asset since they preserve/provide better habitats.  It would be much easier to have everything black-and-white, but life often tends to be more grey than we'd like.  However much  I personally dislike game shooting characterising all devotees of this sport, without exception, as wanton destroyers of raptors won't help, but will merely polarise the situation. In fact, it might just be this approach that persuaded the 'Shooting Times' not to run the advert,</blockquote>

Verification