Sea Eagles Nest ... Was It You Lab ???

[unlacedgecko 1,466]

 

I agree with Lurcher1 and Baw. There should never be any lethal control of these re-introduced apex predators under any circumstances, certainly not to protect profits which are made off non-native species.

 

In fact, the introduction of apex predators should continue throughout the UK. I can see it now, wolf packs being introduced to England. They could control the numbers of deer, and would be really nice for people to see. It does not matter if they kill and fallow, sika, muntjac or chinese water deer, as these are all non-native species introduced for sporting purposes.

 

Sheep and cattle are not native to the UK, they are raised for farmers to make a profit on, what does it matter if re-introduced bear and lynx kill some? After all, the farmers were only going to kill them anyway.

 

There should be no human interference in wild animal populations. Nature will find a balance. As shown in the graph of wolf and moose populations from Royale Island, wild populations stay nice and stable and everybody is happy.

 

images.jpg

 

Why don't we all go and live in caves and throw our shit at each other?

Dumb c**t.

 

 

 

Hmm, sarcasm doesn't work very well over the internet...

 

The Royale Island Wolves and Moose populations have been free of human interference since the 1950s. Far from finding a balance, the populations have experienced several dramatic peaks and troughs. This is what happens to natural populations. There was a thread some time ago on the Stalking Directory (already mentioned) about a park in the Netherlands. There are no apex predators, and no culling. The populations of large herbivores (red deer, wild cattle and wild ponies) grow exponentially and then experience dramatic die off through starvation once there numbers outstrip their food supply.

 

The comment with non native deer is supposed to demonstrate the absurdity of the point of view that pheasants should be allowed to be destroyed by re-introduced predators because they are not native.

 

The comment about sheep and cattle is supposed to draw a parallel with the comments that some posters have put up regarding pheasants being non native. So what if they are non native, it is still somebodies livelihood.

 

There is a reason why these apex predators have been hunted to extinction in the UK. Their existence in the wild was judged to be detrimental to human interests. Human populations globally are increasing exponentially. Resources are not expanding at the same rate. That supposedly civilized countries would expend such a huge amount of resources in re-introducing a damaging organism into the ecosystem merely because of some very vocal minority pressure groups is obscene.

 

In the UK there is no such thing as a natural environment. The countryside has been managed for centuries. Humans have made the countryside what it is today, Active and aggressive management is required to maintain it, as shown by the RSPB grouse moor experiment.

[MIK 4,755]

 

 

I agree with Lurcher1 and Baw. There should never be any lethal control of these re-introduced apex predators under any circumstances, certainly not to protect profits which are made off non-native species.

 

In fact, the introduction of apex predators should continue throughout the UK. I can see it now, wolf packs being introduced to England. They could control the numbers of deer, and would be really nice for people to see. It does not matter if they kill and fallow, sika, muntjac or chinese water deer, as these are all non-native species introduced for sporting purposes.

 

Sheep and cattle are not native to the UK, they are raised for farmers to make a profit on, what does it matter if re-introduced bear and lynx kill some? After all, the farmers were only going to kill them anyway.

 

There should be no human interference in wild animal populations. Nature will find a balance. As shown in the graph of wolf and moose populations from Royale Island, wild populations stay nice and stable and everybody is happy.

 

images.jpg

 

Why don't we all go and live in caves and throw our shit at each other?

Dumb c**t.

 

 

 

Hmm, sarcasm doesn't work very well over the internet...

 

The Royale Island Wolves and Moose populations have been free of human interference since the 1950s. Far from finding a balance, the populations have experienced several dramatic peaks and troughs. This is what happens to natural populations. There was a thread some time ago on the Stalking Directory (already mentioned) about a park in the Netherlands. There are no apex predators, and no culling. The populations of large herbivores (red deer, wild cattle and wild ponies) grow exponentially and then experience dramatic die off through starvation once there numbers outstrip their food supply.

 

The comment with non native deer is supposed to demonstrate the absurdity of the point of view that pheasants should be allowed to be destroyed by re-introduced predators because they are not native.

 

The comment about sheep and cattle is supposed to draw a parallel with the comments that some posters have put up regarding pheasants being non native. So what if they are non native, it is still somebodies livelihood.

 

There is a reason why these apex predators have been hunted to extinction in the UK. Their existence in the wild was judged to be detrimental to human interests. Human populations globally are increasing exponentially. Resources are not expanding at the same rate. That supposedly civilized countries would expend such a huge amount of resources in re-introducing a damaging organism into the ecosystem merely because of some very vocal minority pressure groups is obscene.

 

In the UK there is no such thing as a natural environment. The countryside has been managed for centuries. Humans have made the countryside what it is today, Active and aggressive management is required to maintain it, as shown by the RSPB grouse moor experiment.

enlighten us about this

 

[unlacedgecko 1,466]

 

Active and aggressive management is required to maintain it, as shown by the RSPB grouse moor experiment.

enlighten us about this

 

 

http://www.langholmproject.com/index.html

 

Read through that at your leisure.

[cammy12 176]

ive read a fair bit of this, and this is my opinion, there has been very little consultation on the re intro of all bop that were once on this island and the dangers that they could pose to public and the environment. these eagles are ridiculously big and will take anything up to the size of a large fox.

if the shoe was on the other foot and we wanted a cull of eagles how many thousands of pounds would have to be spent on consultations and research to prove there a pest but when releasing them they just crack on and nobody knows until its done.

the moor in Dumfries is evidence hen harriers will destroy a profitable moor with predation on grouse and other ground nesting birds, a balance needs to be struck too many predators and prey species suffer simples reely.

[cammy12 176]

 

 

Active and aggressive management is required to maintain it, as shown by the RSPB grouse moor experiment.

enlighten us about this

 

 

http://www.langholmproject.com/index.html

 

Read through that at your leisure.

 

my next step was to go and find that link

[baw 4,360]

 

 

You still haven't answered if you have been on a grouse moor or your the fanny with the name calling and belittling me sonny boy and ill shoot down shooters all I want. I have personal real life experiences that give me reason to. You remind me of a guy I had the misfortune of having to share company with at college. This guy knew everything about cars, torque, bhp of a lot of cars etc but he openly admitted to not having done anything with a car, not even filled one with petrol

Yeah, a couple of times following fell hounds. But ratreeper was talking about releasing pheasants, which is the post I took exception to. So why the f**k you're on about moors I don't know?

 

You make a lot of assumptions baw, probably due to your preconceptions of people. I help run a non profit game shoot, week in week out I'm working on it. At the same time as getting educated and eventually to the point now where I'm working a full time job. So do I meet your preconceptions?

If you read back boringhunter you will find you were the first with the preconceptions about me. You started with the childish insults then said I wasn't intelligent. But none of that surprised me. I'm sure if the subject was about whiskey tasting you'd inform us of the bootleg disterlley you run on a Friday night I love the way folk mention shoots as if to impress...... Buying 2 dozen pheasants and a couple of mates shooting them is classed as a shoot

[baw 4,360]

So the biggest argument towards pheasant shooting is that if it disappeared the countryside as we know it would diminish. Scary thought. So far in this thread we discovered from a REAL working gamekeeper that 90% of the countries keepers have packed up leaving only 5000. That's 45,000 keepers not there. Have you noticed much difference to the countryside with there absence? I haven't. Again someone else said that a shoot he knows puts down 3500 birds and 1000 of them get taken by BOP. that's almost a third of them. A large amount I'm sure you'll agree. And yet they survive with this enormous loss. So a 'shoot' can effectively afford to lose a third of its birds and still survive..... Leave the magnificent and majestic birds alone, there's plenty of fat useless birds for everyone.

[baw 4,360]

Fek it , lets all get baw , the JR Ewing of the hunting life .

if only mate. Sounds better than it is I only said I Prob made more money than him cos I thought he was a student

[Lab 10,979]

So the biggest argument towards pheasant shooting is that if it disappeared the countryside as we know it would diminish. Scary thought. So far in this thread we discovered from a REAL working gamekeeper that 90% of the countries keepers have packed up leaving only 5000. That's 45,000 keepers not there. Have you noticed much difference to the countryside with there absence? I haven't. Again someone else said that a shoot he knows puts down 3500 birds and 1000 of them get taken by BOP. that's almost a third of them. A large amount I'm sure you'll agree. And yet they survive with this enormous loss. So a 'shoot' can effectively afford to lose a third of its birds and still survive..... Leave the magnificent and majestic birds alone, there's plenty of fat useless birds for everyone.

Right thats it......next hare i see is getting shot and you'll only have yourself to blame.....

[RubyTex 1,957]

Are we still going on about this!!

 

Someone cut a f***ing tree down, whoop de f***ing doo

[baw 4,360]

Could listen to this all day Born Hunter...your class at putting your point out there......bitch slapping Baw as you go, its been great reading.....

Now i said i would never bite to Baw again on the whole shooters thing but i have to comment as really he couldnt give a f**k about BOP's its solely because he thinks he is fighting some war with "fat millionaires shooters" and keepers because they have never liked him cause he chased hares years ago.....boo f*****g hoo....

Whats your point about being on a grouse moor Baw....ive never been on one!!. Are you telling me you know more about keepering then i do and the effects BOP's have on the running off a shoot cause av never kicked a grouse up the arse?...

you actually read all his drivel? I get bored after the first paragraph I know if I write a couple of sentences he'll respond with an essay and the best bit is, he's too up himself to click

[baw 4,360]

 

 

So the biggest argument towards pheasant shooting is that if it disappeared the countryside as we know it would diminish. Scary thought. So far in this thread we discovered from a REAL working gamekeeper that 90% of the countries keepers have packed up leaving only 5000. That's 45,000 keepers not there. Have you noticed much difference to the countryside with there absence? I haven't. Again someone else said that a shoot he knows puts down 3500 birds and 1000 of them get taken by BOP. that's almost a third of them. A large amount I'm sure you'll agree. And yet they survive with this enormous loss. So a 'shoot' can effectively afford to lose a third of its birds and still survive..... Leave the magnificent and majestic birds alone, there's plenty of fat useless birds for everyone.

Right thats it......next hare i see is getting shot and you'll only have yourself to blame.....

that's how most of them die now anyhow mate how's your mum lab, doing good I hope.

[Ideation 8,216]

So the biggest argument towards pheasant shooting is that if it disappeared the countryside as we know it would diminish. Scary thought. So far in this thread we discovered from a REAL working gamekeeper that 90% of the countries keepers have packed up leaving only 5000. That's 45,000 keepers not there. Have you noticed much difference to the countryside with there absence? I haven't. Again someone else said that a shoot he knows puts down 3500 birds and 1000 of them get taken by BOP. that's almost a third of them. A large amount I'm sure you'll agree. And yet they survive with this enormous loss. So a 'shoot' can effectively afford to lose a third of its birds and still survive..... Leave the magnificent and majestic birds alone, there's plenty of fat useless birds for everyone.

 

No it can't survive. . . . . that was the point

[Lab 10,979]

 

 

So the biggest argument towards pheasant shooting is that if it disappeared the countryside as we know it would diminish. Scary thought. So far in this thread we discovered from a REAL working gamekeeper that 90% of the countries keepers have packed up leaving only 5000. That's 45,000 keepers not there. Have you noticed much difference to the countryside with there absence? I haven't. Again someone else said that a shoot he knows puts down 3500 birds and 1000 of them get taken by BOP. that's almost a third of them. A large amount I'm sure you'll agree. And yet they survive with this enormous loss. So a 'shoot' can effectively afford to lose a third of its birds and still survive..... Leave the magnificent and majestic birds alone, there's plenty of fat useless birds for everyone.

Right thats it......next hare i see is getting shot and you'll only have yourself to blame.....

that's how most of them die now anyhow mate how's your mum lab, doing good I hope.

 

Aye she's fine bud.......she was out cutting a tree down the other day.......

[baw 4,360]

 

 

 

 

So the biggest argument towards pheasant shooting is that if it disappeared the countryside as we know it would diminish. Scary thought. So far in this thread we discovered from a REAL working gamekeeper that 90% of the countries keepers have packed up leaving only 5000. That's 45,000 keepers not there. Have you noticed much difference to the countryside with there absence? I haven't. Again someone else said that a shoot he knows puts down 3500 birds and 1000 of them get taken by BOP. that's almost a third of them. A large amount I'm sure you'll agree. And yet they survive with this enormous loss. So a 'shoot' can effectively afford to lose a third of its birds and still survive..... Leave the magnificent and majestic birds alone, there's plenty of fat useless birds for everyone.

Right thats it......next hare i see is getting shot and you'll only have yourself to blame.....

that's how most of them die now anyhow mate how's your mum lab, doing good I hope.

Aye she's fine bud.......she was out cutting a tree down the other day.......

:notworthy: