STRANGER 948 Posted June 14, 2013 Report Share Posted June 14, 2013 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? Lab's favourite past time that Aye he loves a bit of 'chimping'. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
baw 4,360 Posted June 14, 2013 Report Share Posted June 14, 2013 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. I'm not supporting rangers for no c**t 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Cliff Ray 185 Posted June 14, 2013 Report Share Posted June 14, 2013 While we are releasing wolves and bear into England, spare a thought for poor old smallpox; what right did we have to wipe that out ????? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Born Hunter 17,910 Posted June 14, 2013 Report Share Posted June 14, 2013 Aye fish and people http://www.thecourier.co.uk/news/local/perth-kinross/perthshire-minister-suffers-cuts-in-bizarre-sea-eagle-attack-1.46508 Imagine if that'd have been a young child.............. Protected or not, the f***ing thing would've been rat fodder if that happened in my back yard. They may be protected by law, but a mans family are protected by him! Quote Link to post Share on other sites
MIK 4,763 Posted June 14, 2013 Report Share Posted June 14, 2013 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 Thanks for agreeing with me mate but got to distance myself from the rest of your post we have enough problems in this country with semi tamed foxes biting babies etc cos of folk feeding them. Imagine what it would be like with semi tame wolves!!!! what a pair o priks Quote Link to post Share on other sites
baw 4,360 Posted June 14, 2013 Report Share Posted June 14, 2013 new name mik? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Ratreeper 441 Posted June 14, 2013 Report Share Posted June 14, 2013 What do you think about red squirrels? They don't make anyone money or really do anything so why give a shit if the gray ones wipe them out? Or if the sport of vole shooting took off, should be wipe out the barn owls? Because barns don't make anyone money either. Or what if you fancies a bit of ferret hunting? Can you released millions of ferrets into the countryside and if the native species have to suffer, who cares as long as enough people pay to shoot them again? That is no different to shooting native species to save the phessies. I do feel bad if your livelihood is at risk, but get some fecking perspective some of these arguments are ridiculous. There are less than about a couple hundred sea eagles as far as I know, not many goshawks either because of people wanting to shoot birds without having to go for a walk wiped them out and they are trying to make a comeback. I don't mind pheasant shoots, but why should they be treated than any other business? If you can't make it viable then don't do it, simple as that. If you owned a bakery and a tescos opens next door and puts you out of business then that's life, you can't burn down all the Tescos. Or for a better example, it's like moving next door to a Tesco's then burning it down so your own business works. 3 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
stewie 3,387 Posted June 14, 2013 Report Share Posted June 14, 2013 found this on my old phone of an sea eagle i saw in stockholm.........yes i no there speaking french lol its who i worked with at the time!!! shame i couldnt get more footage as it was circling for ages but by the time i got my phone it f****d off........... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eZD5zSbxutc&feature=youtu.be Quote Link to post Share on other sites
baw 4,360 Posted June 14, 2013 Report Share Posted June 14, 2013 What do you think about red squirrels? They don't make anyone money or really do anything so why give a shit if the gray ones wipe them out? Or if the sport of vole shooting took off, should be wipe out the barn owls? Because barns don't make anyone money either. Or what if you fancies a bit of ferret hunting? Can you released millions of ferrets into the countryside and if the native species have to suffer, who cares as long as enough people pay to shoot them again? That is no different to shooting native species to save the phessies. I do feel bad if your livelihood is at risk, but get some fecking perspective some of these arguments are ridiculous. There are less than about a couple hundred sea eagles as far as I know, not many goshawks either because of people wanting to shoot birds without having to go for a walk wiped them out and they are trying to make a comeback. I don't mind pheasant shoots, but why should they be treated than any other business? If you can't make it viable then don't do it, simple as that. If you owned a bakery and a tescos opens next door and puts you out of business then that's life, you can't burn down all the Tescos. Or for a better example, it's like moving next door to a Tesco's then burning it down so your own business works. :notworthy: Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Born Hunter 17,910 Posted June 14, 2013 Report Share Posted June 14, 2013 (edited) Ratreeper stop being so f*****g ignorant! The examples you gave are miles away from releasing pheasants! Just because people want the right to control birds of prey doesn't mean the populations are gonna suffer in anyway. The game shooting industry does more for british fauna than you bitching twitchers do. And the industry IS NO DIFFERENT to other bussiness! The government gives certain freedoms to all other industry where it can to support them. FFS should the right to control foxes rabbits and pigeons be taken away from farmers too? Ya know because if they can't manage to make the bussiness work why the f**k are they setting up shop in the countryside where it's full of virmin eh? Edited June 14, 2013 by Born Hunter 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
baw 4,360 Posted June 14, 2013 Report Share Posted June 14, 2013 Ratreeper stop being so f*****g ignorant! The examples you gave are miles away from releasing pheasants! Just because people want the right to control birds of prey doesn't mean the populations are gonna suffer in anyway. The game shooting industry does more for british fauna than you bitching twitchers do. We don't need to shoot birds to burn heather. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Ratreeper 441 Posted June 14, 2013 Report Share Posted June 14, 2013 Ratreeper stop being so f*****g ignorant! The examples you gave are miles away from releasing pheasants! Just because people want the right to control birds of prey doesn't mean the populations are gonna suffer in anyway. The game shooting industry does more for british fauna than you bitching twitchers do. Why are they miles away? If you want an example of a suffering population, I looked it up and as of August last year there were 67 breeding pairs of sea eagles which means if one pair is wiped out, meaning it could just be one bird killed that couldn't find a partner that equals about 1.5% of the entire UK population. In terms of genetic diversity that is catastrophic, what would you think is the right number to be given permission by pheasant shooters to exist? There are also 140,000 red squirrels left in the UK, so should be wait until there are less than 67 pairs before wondering they might need a bit of help? But like I said in another thread, there are a dickload of buzzards and if they need thinning out a bit then fair enough, but some losses need to be factored in for predation just like ones killed by cars, poached or wander off. To advocate making a species extinct to boost profits is incredibly selfish, which is really what you are saying if you condone the killing of sea eagles or goshawks which are on the edge. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Born Hunter 17,910 Posted June 14, 2013 Report Share Posted June 14, 2013 Ratreeper stop being so f*****g ignorant! The examples you gave are miles away from releasing pheasants! Just because people want the right to control birds of prey doesn't mean the populations are gonna suffer in anyway. The game shooting industry does more for british fauna than you bitching twitchers do. We don't need to shoot birds to burn heather. No we don't, but the fact is the industry pays the wages of the people that do! % of British woodland is shot over, I wonder who manages all that? I wonder who controls the corvid numbers and what birds that benefits? I wonder who controls predators and what birds that benefits? I wonder who puts 100s of tons of feed out in these areas and what that benefits? I f***ing WONDER? 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Ratreeper 441 Posted June 14, 2013 Report Share Posted June 14, 2013 Also, yes without game shoots a lot of woodlands and countryside would be lost. But how can you argue on one hand it is a good thing to preserve the countryside but then advocate persecuting the animals that live there? or is it only good to preserve the countryside to let non-indigenous species get shot there? 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
mushroom 14,081 Posted June 14, 2013 Report Share Posted June 14, 2013 Just heard on the news that a tree holding a sea eagles nest has been cut down in Scotland ... Have you got a chainsaw lab ........... ....Not me but well done to who ever did it. I remember 2 seasons ago a pair turned up on the estate i pick up on...started taking poults and stuff. The keeper was interviewed about them and it was on tv about the damage they were causing, could have been countryfile. Anyway if one of these birds was to build a nest on the shoot then there would be an immediate exclusion zone on shooting which in turn would have been disasterous for the shoot. Cant believe the legalities that follow these introduced birds. Gon the axe men..... so generations of people should be denied the chance to see INDIGENOUS birds so you can shoot a few pheasants......... ....Not sure where i wrote that. So you think these moronic rules like no shooting anywhere near a f*****g nest is a good idea do you? Why should a bird re-introduced have all these special powers. What good are they doing for the place apart from folk getting to say "WOW, look at that big bird!!".... If your going to say tourists coming to see them then there will have to be a whore off a tourists to out do the money shooting brings into this country..... why should a NON-INDIGENOUS introduced bird that are reared in sheds all over the country by the f*****g billions come above a nest of endangered INDIGINOUS birds trying to make a small comeback........... To quote Spock... "the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few" Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.