Packham Nicked

[j j m 6,618]

cant stand the bloke my self hes a right kn.b

[DogMan85 722]

 

 

 

Not to keen on the shooting of migratory song birds myself but when in Rome etc etc

I thought the practice was to net them but your right. None of our business. Certainly not packhams. Hope he gets what's been long over due.

Isn't that like saying seeing Tigers getting wiped out is none of our business?

Suppose your against over fishing. Whale and shark hunting. Bush meat. Etc etc.

There's a lot I don't agree with but fook all I can do about most of it. Certainly not from the top of my council estate hill and you from your caravan in Doncaster.

Point of the OP is pakham. Not if I adopt a cat in Nepal for £3 a month.

Whatever you say Jim Royle. ?

[beast 1,884]

I think you will find that the decline in arable land species like the turtle dove has very little to do with hunting in Malta but in fact is linked to modern farming practices

[Lenmcharristar 10,327]

I think you will find that the decline in arable land species like the turtle dove has very little to do with hunting in Malta but in fact is linked to modern farming practices

or the amount of raptors in the sky too, like raptor roulette for song birds in the skies of gb these days

[kanny 21,731]

I think you will find that the decline in arable land species like the turtle dove has very little to do with hunting in Malta but in fact is linked to modern farming practices

Definitely true but I think hunters should be the front line conservationists ..when a species declines by 96% in a few years like the turtle dove then it's down to hunters to say right there of the list for a bit ...I've hardly shot a rabbit on my main permission for the last 2 years because they have been all but wiped out by disease. I want them to recover to healthier numbers and shooting the few that are left probably the disease resistant ones ain't going to help its basic game management.

[mackem 29,695]

Packham is quoted as saying stop spending cash on cancer reasearch and plough it into wildlife conservation instead,delusional,he was arrested after two trappers made assault charges against him,he appears in court in gozo today,hope the judge got out of the wrong side of bed this morning.

[Qbgrey 4,366]

hes awrongun, hed ban fishing,all hunting,pest control etc,etc if he could.do gooding nosey anti.

[KES2 171]

Packham has made a 'stand' against the shooting of migratory turtle doves. Shooting in Malta is very tightly controlled in areas of shooting, species and numbers. Packham is a very strange animal himself and not above bending the truth or causing outrage.

He is a total nut, depressive and untruthful but sadly he uses his BBC publicity and personna to pursue his own agenda. I have written to the BBC about precisely this point - they are not remotely interested and say he is doing nothing wrong. The BBC are not the organisation they once were sadly.

 

However, we do need to be front-line conservationists. BASC or CA should be liasing with other international shooting groups and seeing what can be done to preserve species whilst accomodating some shooting. More importantly they should be publicising it, to counteract idiots like Packham. We need to be the front-line in the preservation of our sport and to do that we have to protect wildlife and their various habitats. Who could complain about a group which protects endangered wildfowl whilst allowing shooting of prolific species of wildfowl for example.

[tandors 888]

Thing is these animal rights luvvies never campaign against farming practices or the building of big housing estates on green belt animal habitat because that would mean there won't be enough houses for their precious new immigrants and no borders policy, they simply blame everything on hunters.

[Deadeye18 164]

Great news,the guys a jeb end.

[neil cooney 10,416]

If a documentary I seen last year made by hunters is to be believed Malta has really clamped down on illegal hunting and bag limits and licenses are strictly enforced. The Maltese have a very strong tradition of hunting in their blood and most would want to keep their guns and right to hunt.

So the last thing the authorities want over there is a Pom telling them what to do and hopefully they'll throw the book at him.

[Born Hunter 17,945]

Packham has made a 'stand' against the shooting of migratory turtle doves. Shooting in Malta is very tightly controlled in areas of shooting, species and numbers. Packham is a very strange animal himself and not above bending the truth or causing outrage.

He is a total nut, depressive and untruthful but sadly he uses his BBC publicity and personna to pursue his own agenda. I have written to the BBC about precisely this point - they are not remotely interested and say he is doing nothing wrong. The BBC are not the organisation they once were sadly.

 

However, we do need to be front-line conservationists. BASC or CA should be liasing with other international shooting groups and seeing what can be done to preserve species whilst accomodating some shooting. More importantly they should be publicising it, to counteract idiots like Packham. We need to be the front-line in the preservation of our sport and to do that we have to protect wildlife and their various habitats. Who could complain about a group which protects endangered wildfowl whilst allowing shooting of prolific species of wildfowl for example.

 

I don't disagree with any of that but those that oppose us and the majority of those that are fairly passive in their opposition do not care about science. I'll sit quoting case studies and GWCT papers to them all day, even to hunting folk that have a bone to pick with another hunting faction but it gets you nowhere. They're all ignorant bigots.

 

The fieldsports community already does a shit ton of conservation and research, but nobody cares about it.

 

The only question that needs to be asked regarding hunting and conservation is this "Does the legal hunting of this animal contribute negatively to conservation?". Even if the animal is critically endangered and not even currently hunted legally, this question should be asked, because simply taking the view that "the species is in trouble, it must be at least partially hunting's fault" is naive.

 

Stopping legal hunting of a species that is of conservation concern when the evidence doesn't support hunting being a contributing cause of that is nothing more than political.

[Accip74 7,112]

 

Packham has made a 'stand' against the shooting of migratory turtle doves. Shooting in Malta is very tightly controlled in areas of shooting, species and numbers. Packham is a very strange animal himself and not above bending the truth or causing outrage.

He is a total nut, depressive and untruthful but sadly he uses his BBC publicity and personna to pursue his own agenda. I have written to the BBC about precisely this point - they are not remotely interested and say he is doing nothing wrong. The BBC are not the organisation they once were sadly.

 

However, we do need to be front-line conservationists. BASC or CA should be liasing with other international shooting groups and seeing what can be done to preserve species whilst accomodating some shooting. More importantly they should be publicising it, to counteract idiots like Packham. We need to be the front-line in the preservation of our sport and to do that we have to protect wildlife and their various habitats. Who could complain about a group which protects endangered wildfowl whilst allowing shooting of prolific species of wildfowl for example.

 

I don't disagree with any of that but those that oppose us and the majority of those that are fairly passive in their opposition do not care about science. I'll sit quoting case studies and GWCT papers to them all day, even to hunting folk that have a bone to pick with another hunting faction but it gets you nowhere. They're all ignorant bigots.

 

The fieldsports community already does a shit ton of conservation and research, but nobody cares about it.

 

The only question that needs to be asked regarding hunting and conservation is this "Does the legal hunting of this animal contribute negatively to conservation?". Even if the animal is critically endangered and not even currently hunted legally, this question should be asked, because simply taking the view that "the species is in trouble, it must be at least partially hunting's fault" is naive.

 

Stopping legal hunting of a species that is of conservation concern when the evidence doesn't support hunting being a contributing cause of that is nothing more than political.

But surely if you have a species that is of conservation concern, but then to say....."well you can't prove we've caused this problem, so well will just crack on killing it" is a bit ignorant & shirking responsibility, is it not?

You do except that over hunting can have negative affects?

[Born Hunter 17,945]

 

 

Packham has made a 'stand' against the shooting of migratory turtle doves. Shooting in Malta is very tightly controlled in areas of shooting, species and numbers. Packham is a very strange animal himself and not above bending the truth or causing outrage.

He is a total nut, depressive and untruthful but sadly he uses his BBC publicity and personna to pursue his own agenda. I have written to the BBC about precisely this point - they are not remotely interested and say he is doing nothing wrong. The BBC are not the organisation they once were sadly.

 

However, we do need to be front-line conservationists. BASC or CA should be liasing with other international shooting groups and seeing what can be done to preserve species whilst accomodating some shooting. More importantly they should be publicising it, to counteract idiots like Packham. We need to be the front-line in the preservation of our sport and to do that we have to protect wildlife and their various habitats. Who could complain about a group which protects endangered wildfowl whilst allowing shooting of prolific species of wildfowl for example.

I don't disagree with any of that but those that oppose us and the majority of those that are fairly passive in their opposition do not care about science. I'll sit quoting case studies and GWCT papers to them all day, even to hunting folk that have a bone to pick with another hunting faction but it gets you nowhere. They're all ignorant bigots.

 

The fieldsports community already does a shit ton of conservation and research, but nobody cares about it.

 

The only question that needs to be asked regarding hunting and conservation is this "Does the legal hunting of this animal contribute negatively to conservation?". Even if the animal is critically endangered and not even currently hunted legally, this question should be asked, because simply taking the view that "the species is in trouble, it must be at least partially hunting's fault" is naive.

 

Stopping legal hunting of a species that is of conservation concern when the evidence doesn't support hunting being a contributing cause of that is nothing more than political.

But surely if you have a species that is of conservation concern, but then to say....."well you can't prove we've caused this problem, so well will just crack on killing it" is a bit ignorant & shirking responsibility, is it not?

You do except that over hunting can have negative affects?

 

 

I assume in that situation there has been no study into the causes of the decline? In which case we have not answered the important question that I posed. In that situation there is insufficient evidence to make a conclusion and it MUST be answered!

 

If there has been a study and hunting was not found to have a negative impact then further questions need to be asked. Critically "Would banning hunting negatively contribute to conservation?"!

 

Frankly if there has been a conclusive study then I absolutely would take the attitude of "f**k you my conscience is clear!". Like I said, I'll not bow to this attitude of 'hunting is bad, you just want to kill everything', which is essentially what drives all of this. Not science.

Edited April 20, 2017 by Born Hunter

[Accip74 7,112]

 

 

 

Packham has made a 'stand' against the shooting of migratory turtle doves. Shooting in Malta is very tightly controlled in areas of shooting, species and numbers. Packham is a very strange animal himself and not above bending the truth or causing outrage.

He is a total nut, depressive and untruthful but sadly he uses his BBC publicity and personna to pursue his own agenda. I have written to the BBC about precisely this point - they are not remotely interested and say he is doing nothing wrong. The BBC are not the organisation they once were sadly.

 

However, we do need to be front-line conservationists. BASC or CA should be liasing with other international shooting groups and seeing what can be done to preserve species whilst accomodating some shooting. More importantly they should be publicising it, to counteract idiots like Packham. We need to be the front-line in the preservation of our sport and to do that we have to protect wildlife and their various habitats. Who could complain about a group which protects endangered wildfowl whilst allowing shooting of prolific species of wildfowl for example.

 

I don't disagree with any of that but those that oppose us and the majority of those that are fairly passive in their opposition do not care about science. I'll sit quoting case studies and GWCT papers to them all day, even to hunting folk that have a bone to pick with another hunting faction but it gets you nowhere. They're all ignorant bigots.

 

The fieldsports community already does a shit ton of conservation and research, but nobody cares about it.

 

The only question that needs to be asked regarding hunting and conservation is this "Does the legal hunting of this animal contribute negatively to conservation?". Even if the animal is critically endangered and not even currently hunted legally, this question should be asked, because simply taking the view that "the species is in trouble, it must be at least partially hunting's fault" is naive.

 

Stopping legal hunting of a species that is of conservation concern when the evidence doesn't support hunting being a contributing cause of that is nothing more than political.

But surely if you have a species that is of conservation concern, but then to say....."well you can't prove we've caused this problem, so well will just crack on killing it" is a bit ignorant & shirking responsibility, is it not?

You do except that over hunting can have negative affects?

I assume in that situation there has been no study into the causes of the decline? In which case you have not answered the important question I posed. In that situation you say there insufficient evidence to make a conclusion and it MUST be answered!

 

If there has been a study and hunting was not found to have a negative impact then further questions need to be asked. Critically "Would banning hunting negatively contribute to conservation?"!

 

Frankly if there has been a conclusive study then I absolutely would take the attitude of "f**k you my conscience is clear!". Like I said, I'll not bow to this attitude of 'hunting is bad, you just want to kill everything', which is essentially what drives all of this. Not science.

You haven't answered my question either though, do except hunting can have a negative effect? Or are you just too biased as a hunter to except that?

I honestly don't know much about this Packam case, but the chances that they over hunt in Malta is quite high. A good falconer friend was out there about 8 months ago, they have falconry there & I believe a club? But fcuk all to hunt. They actually buy pheasants at £15 a go to fly there falcons at. It's been over hunted there. Obviously I'm only to talking about game species, not migratory birds, but it adds up?

Of course I haven't got scientific papers for you born, I'm just taking a common sense approach.