Government u turn

[Ratreeper 441]

"I don't understand why a pheasant is important to the countyside"

 

Then you are a moron and need to try reading a book on the heritage of the English Countryside. Don't blame others for your ignorance.

 

"It should not be one rule for those who are rich enough to release and shoot pheasants and another for those who don't own land. I don't want to stereotype pheasant hunters as all being upper class because that is bollocks, but there is so much money in the sport that they can evade the laws the rest of us get stumped with and I resent that".

 

What a load of balls

 

We differ on what we think is important about the countryside, that doesn't make me a moron. I just don't think maximising the number of pheasants is more important than maintaining our wildlife. If for whatever reason pheasants couldn't nest because of..skylarks or something I would be singing the same tune that the skylarks are more important. If this is a load of balls then tell me why and I might not be so ignorant. I don't think I am wrong that there are exceptions in the law specifically to cover game birds, if I am wrong then again please tell me why.

[PoshPikey 560]

What percentage of the countryside do you think is managed by humans?

[Malt 379]

which experts reckon there are too many buzzards in the UK, damaging the ecosystem? I thought it was about saving moor frickin game birds, so they can make even more money and keep paying taxes whilst shutting down the countryside to everyone else. I have no problem with game keeping but it really pisses me off with the double standards

 

What double standards? They aren't hiding the fact that the research is for the 'game industry'. So what is your point?

 

Well one example would be that apparently we can't hunt foxes with dogs anymore because it is considered cruel...unless you are protecting game birds. I consider that to be completely mental, why isn't it OK to hunt a fox for killing chickens or lambs or for sport? Then this example, no-one has raised any issues suggesting buzzards are too common and are in any way damaging the ecosystem and have been a protected species for years, with fines dealt for people killing them when they see them as a threat to pigeons etc. Yet to suggest it is OK for people to kill a protected bird because they might kill young game birds is a double standard again. It should not be one rule for those who are rich enough to release and shoot pheasants and another for those who don't own land. I don't want to stereotype pheasant hunters as all being upper class because that is bollocks, but there is so much money in the sport that they can evade the laws the rest of us get stumped with and I resent that. I would rather every single non-indigenous animal was wiped out of the UK than a single native have to die, I don't understand why a pheasant is important to the countyside.

 

Do you know how little game / wildlife there would be if you removed all non-indigenous animals???

 

And as a counter to your last question - how come a bird of prey is so important to the countryside, as to be offered total protection and immunity, same goes for badgers. Why is it ok to kill a deer, fox, rabbit etc, but not a BOP or stripey?

 

I think if we still had the species that we have wiped out then there would be far more balance with what's left, but like I said that can't happen anymore because there is nowhere wolves etc can live. I don't think it is wrong to kill a badger or likewise, I am saying I think it is wrong that you can only do so to protect gamebirds and the law should be for everyone.

It has to be said, you display a real lack of understanding about the way the countryside works.. We have totally changed the landscape of this country over the course of a few thousand years. Take away the game shooting side of things and you still have the farms. Even if we had every single speicies we have removed over the centuries, it still wouldn't keep everything in balance without manipulation by humans. 90% or so of the countryside you see today is as much a man made environment as any of our cities, and not the environment that our native animals evolved to live in. Unless you propose to totally wipe out farming, let the forests reclaim the land, totally wipe out all non native flora and fauna, reintroduce apex predators like the wolf and evacuate 99% of the human population there will always be a need for control. The conditions as they are suit some animals more than others, so there is a real need to constantly evaluate and reevaluate methods of control of all species to maintain a healthy balance..

[Guest cookiemonsterandmerlin]

Ratreeper. Out of intrest whats a quick background of your life history and connection to countryside egto give us all a idear why you reaching your conclusions .

ATB Cookie

[Born Hunter 17,960]

Maybe I am just wrong, I am wrong all the time and can learn from mistakes. But I am basing this on my own experience from hunting with birds of prey, as buzzards are generally very lazy scavengers and don't have the speed, agility or foot size to regularly take adult phessies. So the issue here is the taking of poults, I don't see the best and easiest way of dealing with this is to kill indigenous species. The goshawk is a great example, as they can certainly take a lot of game all year round and were completely wiped out by gamekeepers, and are only breeding again now because falconers have lost birds over the years. So the only way to stop goshawks is to wipe them out again and I am saying I think that is wrong. For the damage that buzzards can feasibly do I also think it is wrong to kill them, because it doesn't solve the problem unless they are wiped out, or if only adult birds were released then there wouldn't be an issue there anyway.

So I know this is making me very unpopular on a hunting website where many people's livelyhood revolves around shoots, but I am not saying I am in any way against shoots just that some losses are common sense and there are more practical ways of protecting birds than shooting native predators. If there is a situation where removing a 'problem bird' would solve the problem like with foxes, then I have no problem with that but it would take regular 'thinning out' to make any impact. To me it is like a trout farmer killing ospreys because it cuts into his profits, I think it should be a risk that is factored in to a business plan. It is not the same as thinning out unnaturally high populations that damage the ecosystem or non-indigenous pests nor vermin, it is a separate issue which has big impications.

 

I know if I was a game keeper I would be singing a different tune, or if I didn't have a soft spot for birds of prey but I will base my opinion on the evidence when I see it, no-one can provide any yet.

 

For starters in the past keepers had very little tollerance of any predators and probably would have wiped out all of them if they could. These days things are different and the majority would just like to be able to manage predator numbers. Predators don't just 'cut into profits' they can end a shoot all together! Controlling them is a huge part of running a shoot successfully never mind making one a successfull bussiness. Birds of prey ARE having a detrimental impact on game shoots and currently buzzards are the number one culprit due to there population density. As with any other predator, all keepers ask is for an open season for an anual cull. There will be those that want to kill every one they see but that is the same with any pest, there's always someone that want's to kill em all! If you want evidence then do the rounds with a keeper every day on ground that suffers from Bird of prey predation and you will see it. Also it is worth noting that the damage is not always directly from predation but often from the stress on the poults of constantly being harassed by the buzzards.

Edited May 31, 2012 by Born Hunter

[PoshPikey 560]

Without pheasant shooting there would be a much smaller acreage of woodland cover in this country. Huge areas of woods have been planted since the victorian/ edwardian times to support pheasants - the thing is they also support MASSES of native species. Given that pheasants are thought to have been introduced by the romans i reckon they are more indigineous to the UK than most of the humans who live here. look at Stewardship schemes, set aside, environmental margins and beetle banks - they all support the fauna of countryside and are mostly planted by landowners adn famers with a vested interest in shooting and habitat creation.

[paulus 26]

if we were talking about crows nobody would bat an eyelid so why all the shit when it comes to buzzards they are as abundent if not more so that crows around here, the problem is the inability of the relevent authorities to remove something from the protected list once its been added.

[poacher3161 1,766]

Just tell the eastern europeans they taste nice.

[paulus 26]

Just tell the eastern europeans they taste nice.

go well with carp and a salad

[poacher3161 1,766]

Just tell the eastern europeans they taste nice.

go well with carp and a salad

Think i would prefer bbq buzzard to bbq slimy bream lol.

[kenny14 656]

which experts reckon there are too many buzzards in the UK, damaging the ecosystem? I thought it was about saving moor frickin game birds, so they can make even more money and keep paying taxes whilst shutting down the countryside to everyone else. I have no problem with game keeping but it really pisses me off with the double standards

 

What double standards? They aren't hiding the fact that the research is for the 'game industry'. So what is your point?

 

Well one example would be that apparently we can't hunt foxes with dogs anymore because it is considered cruel...unless you are protecting game birds. I consider that to be completely mental, why isn't it OK to hunt a fox for killing chickens or lambs or for sport? Then this example, no-one has raised any issues suggesting buzzards are too common and are in any way damaging the ecosystem and have been a protected species for years, with fines dealt for people killing them when they see them as a threat to pigeons etc. Yet to suggest it is OK for people to kill a protected bird because they might kill young game birds is a double standard again. It should not be one rule for those who are rich enough to release and shoot pheasants and another for those who don't own land. I don't want to stereotype pheasant hunters as all being upper class because that is bollocks, but there is so much money in the sport that they can evade the laws the rest of us get stumped with and I resent that. I would rather every single non-indigenous animal was wiped out of the UK than a single native have to die, I don't understand why a pheasant is important to the countyside.

 

Do you know how little game / wildlife there would be if you removed all non-indigenous animals???

 

And as a counter to your last question - how come a bird of prey is so important to the countryside, as to be offered total protection and immunity, same goes for badgers. Why is it ok to kill a deer, fox, rabbit etc, but not a BOP or stripey?

 

I think if we still had the species that we have wiped out then there would be far more balance with what's left, but like I said that can't happen anymore because there is nowhere wolves etc can live. I don't think it is wrong to kill a badger or likewise, I am saying I think it is wrong that you can only do so to protect gamebirds and the law should be for everyone.

It has to be said, you display a real lack of understanding about the way the countryside works.. We have totally changed the landscape of this country over the course of a few thousand years. Take away the game shooting side of things and you still have the farms. Even if we had every single speicies we have removed over the centuries, it still wouldn't keep everything in balance without manipulation by humans. 90% or so of the countryside you see today is as much a man made environment as any of our cities, and not the environment that our native animals evolved to live in. Unless you propose to totally wipe out farming, let the forests reclaim the land, totally wipe out all non native flora and fauna, reintroduce apex predators like the wolf and evacuate 99% of the human population there will always be a need for control. The conditions as they are suit some animals more than others, so there is a real need to constantly evaluate and reevaluate methods of control of all species to maintain a healthy balance..

That's exactly how it is Malt. I have this debate with certain people regularly as they just don't see how 'civilised' people would want or need to kill any animal. Some actually believe that every animal has evolved to the extent that they're able to control their own populations, and live happily side by side a la wind in the willows.

 

And your point on re evaluating is somethig I very strongly believe in. I'm always saying that a species' level of legal protection should be re evaluated every say 5 years.

Badgers and Buzzards are just two examples of where protection has worked too well. And it's not just peoples livelihoods that can be affected, an expanding population in an ever shrinking suitable habitat leads to more competition for food and space, increased disease, in breeding etc, etc.

[Malt 379]

Totally unrelated to the subject we're on, but here's some breaking news - yet another handbrake turn..

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-18278253

[Ratreeper 441]

People are quoting a bit out of context now, but I have had a good think about this and I think I have come on too strong and not really got my point across very well. To answer cookie, I grew up in a hamlet that revolved around shoots and hunting with hounds and started hunting myself from about 12 on my own, moved onto ferreting and falconry by 14 and carried on. It is because I love birds of prey so much that I think I am making an exception here, but the only thing I base this exception on is that I don't think controlling buzzards is effective without wiping them out or thinning out to the numbers they were decades ago. I don't believe the buzzard population has exceeded what it was before they were persecuted, so I don't see them as a pest. I have obviously had a fair few run ins with keepers and apart from on here they were all pretty tolerant of buzzards and didn't see them as much of a threat. Yes some would admit taking the odd one out, but none wanted to thin them out at random. I fully understand that a particular bird that harassess poults in a pen is a problem, but the discussion is about reducing the population not single birds.

 

But you are just putting words in my mouth saying I don't realise the countryside is managed, the woodland blah blah blah read what I said because I stated it myself.

[Millet 4,497]

On a good note about goverment U turn's..they have dropped the pasty tax..

[paulus 26]

if something is causing a problem be that buzzard,badger or whatever, where there not an endangered species then culling should be allowed, where endangered species are concerned they should be allowed to be trapped and relocated