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

[Born Hunter 17,654]

 

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.

 

 

Lets be right, the examples you were giving were ridiculously simple. You were absolutely ignorant to the benefits of keepered land. It's easy to simplify an argument to the point it looks rediculous, any half wit can do that. Releasing pheasant and partridge does f**k all damage to native fauna! Half the shit examples you were banging out would do irrevesible damage!

 

And comparing culling birds of prey to burning down competition in the market place is absurd! Culling pests and culling human competition is worlds apart.

 

Comparing red squirrel breeding pairs to sea eagle breeding pairs is again a completely flawed example. GCSE biology will teach you enough to know that a prey species like squirrels will live in much higher densities than an apex predator like a sea eagle so such a small squirrel population would be catastrophic.

 

There's a place for sea eagles in British ecology perhaps but let's not protect the shit out of them like they are some harmless bloody Pelican

[baw 4,360]

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?

He wants the countryside to be sterile of everything that's a threat to the most dumbest bird on earth. I honestly don't think he sees the irony in his logic. Lets save the fauna but kill sea eagles HAW HAW HAW fkn classic

[Born Hunter 17,654]

 

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?

He wants the countryside to be sterile of everything that's a threat to the most dumbest bird on earth. I honestly don't think he sees the irony in his logic. Lets save the fauna but kill sea eagles HAW HAW HAW fkn classic

 

 

That's what I want is it? Funny because that's not what I've f***ing wrote ya daft twat......

 

 

Baw you're really not intelligent enough to see how shooting and conservation can go hand in hand! Have you ever killed a pest? I suspect you possibly have........... Balance is what's needed and a bit of sensible thinking, but no bollocks to any sense and logic, lets hate on those rich millionaire shooters.

Edited June 14, 2013 by Born Hunter

[baw 4,360]

 

 

 

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?

He wants the countryside to be sterile of everything that's a threat to the most dumbest bird on earth. I honestly don't think he sees the irony in his logic. Lets save the fauna but kill sea eagles HAW HAW HAW fkn classic

That's what I want is it? Funny because that's not what I've f*****g wrote ya daft twat......

 

 

Baw you're really not intelligent enough to see how shooting and conservation can go hand in hand! Have you ever killed a pest? I suspect you possibly have........... Balance is what's needed and a bit of sensible thinking, but no bollocks to any sense and logic, lets hate on those rich millionaire shooters.

ohhh the arrogance. 25 and spent his life with his nose in books. How do you know how intelligent I am? I'm self employed in the oil industry, probably make more a month than you do in a year with all your so called intelligence have you even ever been on a grouse moor or have you just read about it?

[Malt 379]

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?

Do you know that the 'countryside' as we see it isn't a natural environment? It's the way it is because of centuries of human management, we've been preserving it as it is for a very long time..

 

..and I suspect many members on here have been out persecuting the animals that live there many a time, I know I have have.. You could almost say they've been hunted...

[Ratreeper 441]

 

 

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.

 

 

Lets be right, the examples you were giving were ridiculously simple. You were absolutely ignorant to the benefits of keepered land. It's easy to simplify an argument to the point it looks rediculous, any half wit can do that. Releasing pheasant and partridge does f**k all damage to native fauna! Half the shit examples you were banging out would do irrevesible damage!

 

And comparing culling birds of prey to burning down competition in the market place is absurd! Culling pests and culling human competition is worlds apart.

 

Comparing red squirrel breeding pairs to sea eagle breeding pairs is again a completely flawed example. GCSE biology will teach you enough to know that a prey species like squirrels will live in much higher densities than an apex predator like a sea eagle so such a small squirrel population would be catastrophic.

 

There's a place for sea eagles in British ecology perhaps but let's not protect the shit out of them like they are some harmless bloody Pelican

 

 

How do you know how ignorant I am of anything? I have stated I can see the benefit of gameshoots, humans are selfish and without the land being of financial value as woodland it would be cut down for another fast food restaurant or for crops in a minute. But for the land to be of value, does not mean it has to be made to be the absolute highest possible financial value at the expense of everything else. You really don’t seem to see the irony of saying the shoot is good for protecting wildlife if you need to persecute the wildlife to have the shoot, you can’t have it both ways. If you want a balance then great, at the moment the scales are tipped massively towards pheasants so I assume you would like to help as many sea eagles as possible until they reach the level that prey can sustain? If you care about the countryside, shoot as many gray squirrels as you can, blast away at magpies and eradicate the mink but for fucks sake don’t start shooting the last few dregs of a species to add another couple of % gross margin to a landowners profits...Don’t try and lecture me on ecology, population or game theory.

My examples are not miles apart, swap bakery for gameshoot and tesco’s for an area with a few pairs of eagles. It is competition, whether you go to that competition or it comes to you doesn’t matter, if both you and a predator want to kill the pheasant either for survival or money and it beats you to it, I will shed a little tear when it’s survival as a species costs you a bit of margin..my heart really will bleed and I will gratefully inform my future children that everyone sat by and let yet another species get wiped out by humanity, so we could enjoy shooting birds we imported for the wealthy to blast out of the sky without needing any field craft at all, with the worst survival instinct since the panda.

 

(I don't mean the wealthy part, not generalising but many shoots are well outside the means of a normal working man/woman)

[Ratreeper 441]

 

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?

Do you know that the 'countryside' as we see it isn't a natural environment? It's the way it is because of centuries of human management, we've been preserving it as it is for a very long time..

 

..and I suspect many members on here have been out persecuting the animals that live there many a time, I know I have have.. You could almost say they've been hunted...

 

 

Yes we have to manage it because we have already f****d it up, how is that or hunting relevant to persecuting endangered species?

[STRANGER 948]

 

 

 

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?

Do you know that the 'countryside' as we see it isn't a natural environment? It's the way it is because of centuries of human management, we've been preserving it as it is for a very long time..

..and I suspect many members on here have been out persecuting the animals that live there many a time, I know I have have.. You could almost say they've been hunted...

 

 

Yes we have to manage it because we have already f****d it up, how is that or hunting relevant to persecuting endangered species?

 

So what do you suggest we do?

[STRANGER 948]

 

 

 

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.

 

 

Lets be right, the examples you were giving were ridiculously simple. You were absolutely ignorant to the benefits of keepered land. It's easy to simplify an argument to the point it looks rediculous, any half wit can do that. Releasing pheasant and partridge does f**k all damage to native fauna! Half the shit examples you were banging out would do irrevesible damage!

 

And comparing culling birds of prey to burning down competition in the market place is absurd! Culling pests and culling human competition is worlds apart.

 

Comparing red squirrel breeding pairs to sea eagle breeding pairs is again a completely flawed example. GCSE biology will teach you enough to know that a prey species like squirrels will live in much higher densities than an apex predator like a sea eagle so such a small squirrel population would be catastrophic.

 

There's a place for sea eagles in British ecology perhaps but let's not protect the shit out of them like they are some harmless bloody Pelican

 

 

How do you know how ignorant I am of anything? I have stated I can see the benefit of gameshoots, humans are selfish and without the land being of financial value as woodland it would be cut down for another fast food restaurant or for crops in a minute. But for the land to be of value, does not mean it has to be made to be the absolute highest possible financial value at the expense of everything else. You really don’t seem to see the irony of saying the shoot is good for protecting wildlife if you need to persecute the wildlife to have the shoot, you can’t have it both ways. If you want a balance then great, at the moment the scales are tipped massively towards pheasants so I assume you would like to help as many sea eagles as possible until they reach the level that prey can sustain? If you care about the countryside, shoot as many gray squirrels as you can, blast away at magpies and eradicate the mink but for fucks sake don’t start shooting the last few dregs of a species to add another couple of % gross margin to a landowners profits...Don’t try and lecture me on ecology, population or game theory.

My examples are not miles apart, swap bakery for gameshoot and tesco’s for an area with a few pairs of eagles. It is competition, whether you go to that competition or it comes to you doesn’t matter, if both you and a predator want to kill the pheasant either for survival or money and it beats you to it, I will shed a little tear when it’s survival as a species costs you a bit of margin..my heart really will bleed and I will gratefully inform my future children that everyone sat by and let yet another species get wiped out by humanity, so we could enjoy shooting birds we imported for the wealthy to blast out of the sky without needing any field craft at all, with the worst survival instinct since the panda.

 

(I don't mean the wealthy part, not generalising but many shoots are well outside the means of a normal working man/woman)

 

 

Where did the whole pheasant argument come in?

The land this happened on is not a pheasant shoot, in fact the wood is not shot at all, it just happens to be on an estate.

And as far as I'm aware no eagle was shot.

A tree was cut down that happened to have a nest in it, I'm sure it happens all the time.

Edited June 14, 2013 by STRANGER

[baw 4,360]

Because its good for an argument I've got brains errr I mean born hunter writing a thesis on my every post

[Malt 379]

 

 

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?

 

Do you know that the 'countryside' as we see it isn't a natural environment? It's the way it is because of centuries of human management, we've been preserving it as it is for a very long time..

..and I suspect many members on here have been out persecuting the animals that live there many a time, I know I have have.. You could almost say they've been hunted...

Yes we have to manage it because we have already f****d it up, how is that or hunting relevant to persecuting endangered species?

What would you suggest we do, retreat to the caves, let the forests retake all the farmland and have the place repopulated by wolves, bears and elephants like some deluded f****r was on about on radio 2 the other day?

 

We are as much a part of nature as any other animal.. Countless other species will manipulate the environment around them to make it more suitable for them to survive and thrive, it's just we do it on a far greater scale..

[Born Hunter 17,654]

 

 

 

 

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?

He wants the countryside to be sterile of everything that's a threat to the most dumbest bird on earth. I honestly don't think he sees the irony in his logic. Lets save the fauna but kill sea eagles HAW HAW HAW fkn classic

That's what I want is it? Funny because that's not what I've f*****g wrote ya daft twat......

 

 

Baw you're really not intelligent enough to see how shooting and conservation can go hand in hand! Have you ever killed a pest? I suspect you possibly have........... Balance is what's needed and a bit of sensible thinking, but no bollocks to any sense and logic, lets hate on those rich millionaire shooters.

ohhh the arrogance. 25 and spent his life with his nose in books. How do you know how intelligent I am? I'm self employed in the oil industry, probably make more a month than you do in a year with all your so called intelligence have you even ever been on a grouse moor or have you just read about it?

 

 

So can you see how shooting and conservation go hand in hand or not, because if you can't I know you're not intelligent enough to see that fact, as I stated. How's that for simple logic..... Every oportunity you get to knock shooting you take it, it's pathetically ignorant.

 

Well done, you're self employed in the oil industry. I work for one of the largest oil service companys in the world if you want a pissing contest?

[RubyTex 1,957]

Anyone involved in a shoot will never see eye to eye with a BOP lover really. We all have our own opinions, don't get me wrong i love seeing them but IMO if i was looking after a shoot i wouldn't be best pleased if someone released f***ing Sea Eagles in the vicinity. Mainly because i've seen the shite 'normal' BOP's can cause nevermind them beasts!!

 

It's all well and good championing for the hook beaks, i would say get yourselves to your local game farm or shoot and see the real damage done in terms of dead poults, which ultimately means loss of earnings and more often than not additional chew from the owner/syndicate/customers

[STRANGER 948]

 

 

 

 

 

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?

He wants the countryside to be sterile of everything that's a threat to the most dumbest bird on earth. I honestly don't think he sees the irony in his logic. Lets save the fauna but kill sea eagles HAW HAW HAW fkn classic

That's what I want is it? Funny because that's not what I've f*****g wrote ya daft twat......

 

 

Baw you're really not intelligent enough to see how shooting and conservation can go hand in hand! Have you ever killed a pest? I suspect you possibly have........... Balance is what's needed and a bit of sensible thinking, but no bollocks to any sense and logic, lets hate on those rich millionaire shooters.

ohhh the arrogance. 25 and spent his life with his nose in books. How do you know how intelligent I am? I'm self employed in the oil industry, probably make more a month than you do in a year with all your so called intelligence have you even ever been on a grouse moor or have you just read about it?

 

 

So can you see how shooting and conservation go hand in hand or not, because if you can't I know you're not intelligent enough to see that fact, as I stated. How's that for simple logic..... Every oportunity you get to knock shooting you take it, it's pathetically ignorant.

 

Well done, you're self employed in the oil industry. I work for one of the largest oil service companys in the world if you want a pissing contest?

 

 

If I give you my PayPal can one of you rich c**ts send me some money?

Eating fooking road kill here.

[stewie 3,387]

from a eagle nest to whos got the best job in the oil industry......classic THL lol