What sort of thinking is this?

[John]

I came across this article in the Shooting Times in another forum. It has listed some of our most endangered birds that they class as pests to their industry of shooting.

Thankfully they have been condemned by all the wildlife bodies but even if they retract this story (which by the way I think they have now after pressure by the RSPB) I think that the damage has already been done.

I just hope that the likes of the magnificent Golden Eagle, Hen Harrier etc do not suffer because of this article.

Have a read and put your comments to this thread.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/newspap...026939,00.html

John

[Jonny]

Animals that rely on game to survive are being blacklisted by people who only want to shoot the game anyway. I think these people should be at the top of there own list. I have nothing against these people, but to openly say things against the wildlife that depend on their sport species for survival makes me cross.
Why are Badgers on their list anyway, what harm do they do................Jon (cross now)

[wildone]

Come to that I thought Red Kite were scavengers. Surely they used to keep the streets of London and other big cities clean when there were open sewers. Maybe we have become too clean ourselves which leaves little for scavengers to find so that they have to resort to killing.

[Helen]

Red Kites are scavengers, but like most raptors, are opportunistic.

If an injured or juvenile bird/mammal is a sitting target, the kite will take it.

Kites can not take large prey, they have no strength in their talons.

[nightshade]

Wow they should lose their shotgun certificates for that one fancy shooting themselves in the foot like that they are not safe to be out
They obviously have not noticed that the vast majority of people are pro- wildlife!

[StuartDH]

It's a great shame as I know quite a few people who shoot and they're far more responsible and would also be appalled by the list. They're also well aware that there are a minority who would consider this list from a respected publisher as a green light to start hunting these species.

[John]

Originally Posted by StuartDH

It's a great shame as I know quite a few people who shoot and they're far more responsible and would also be appalled by the list. They're also well aware that there are a minority who would consider this list from a respected publisher as a green light to start hunting these species.

Spot on and that is the fear of what might happen. As I said earlier the retraction will do no good if those that are hell bent on killing anything that they think can cause problems to their sport have already seen this list.

Anyway, it beggars belief on who came up with this list and supplied it to the paper. The paper didn't make up this list so it sure as heck is still in existence amongst those that would use it as a licence to kill.

John

[pheonix]

not that i agree with them but to be fair that is their way of making a living, they just shouldnt provide such an easy meal that most animals couldnt resist...

[Kayleigh]

The shooting times should have edited the list out and never sent it to press. The animal rights extremists just love this kind of thing. The shooting and fishing industrys should leave the wildlife alone or they will end up being banned like hunting. The shooting fraternity has now been damaged if their lot are going round printing this kind of rubbish on thier heads be it.

[Imaginos]

To be fair to the shooting 'industry' they've had these views for a long time-since before protection legislation came in for a lot of these creatures-I remember reading a Shooting Times from the early '80's that was outlining ways to trap & destroy Hen Harriers & another whole issue that was devoted to railing against bird protection laws. It must be remembered that by definition hunters like killing things, if it's something that's been bred for the purpose then so be it, but, as the Vice President of the USA proved, once the bloodlust decends nothing is safe.
The one comment that worries me greatly (other than the general undercurrent of worry & disgust usually generated in me by the ST) is this: "Goshawks, at No 17, cause “consternation among keepers. Particularly lethal to black grouse, and indeed any gamebird, it can make a severe dent on stock numbers. Eats Red Squirrels, too.”" Does this mean that the severely endangered black grouse is still available for hunting?
Let's face it the Shooting Times is a reactionary body that's only published this for some publicity & to increase its sales among the morally corrupt who are attracted by the idea of killing rare things. I'd suggest boycotting it, but I doubt there's many on this site that would consider buying it in the first place.

[matt_xyz]

I agree entirely with both the sentiment, and the concern, expressed in Imaginos' post. Those who subscribe to the 'it's a nice day let's go out and kill something' viewpoint never cease to amaze me.

Matt

[Wild-Woman]

It breaks my heart to think of any creature being shot,culled, chased down and ripped up. I can't believe that any 'human' would find pleasure in it.

[nightshade]

Never lose sight in these comfortable times that the hunter originally fed the tribe Not the greengrocer! hunting covers a wide range of topics and most are the conservationists that we owe our remaining tracts of unspoilt land to

[John]

Originally Posted by nightshade

Never lose sight in these comfortable times that the hunter originally fed the tribe Not the greengrocer! hunting covers a wide range of topics and most are the conservationists that we owe our remaining tracts of unspoilt land to

I can't disagree with that statement. In fact current day shoots that are managed properly are a godsend to a fair number of our birds that would be in even greater danger of survival without them.

John

[pheonix]

dont forget that we 'humans' are animals too at the end of the day...

[Kayleigh]

I eat meat and enjoy eating meat. If people want to hunt and shoot it is up to them, they should not be told not to by minorities that don't eat meat or don't like the fact that animals get eaten. All animals that are bred for food would not be here if we were all vegeterian.

But they should not go around shooting endangered birds or other animals and anyone seen shooting anything that is not game should have their licence removed for life.

[matt_xyz]

I think this forum should avoid getting into a debate on hunting. The arguments for and against have been aired elsewhere at length and neither side will convince the other of their case. You either believe hunting for sport is morally wrong or your don't. Hunting is the one issue which will divide the members of this site (as it always divides those with an interest in wildlife) and I think it prudent to avoid getting into an acrimonious debate.

Matt

[Kayleigh]

Originally Posted by matt_xyz

I think this forum should avoid getting into a debate on hunting. The arguments for and against have been aired elsewhere at length and neither side will convince the other of their case. You either believe hunting for sport is morally wrong or your don't. Hunting is the one issue which will divide the members of this site (as it always divides those with an interest in wildlife) and I think it prudent to avoid getting into an acrimonious debate.

Matt

Sorry, I thought I was commenting on the theme of this thred. Ie The shooting times printing a list of endangerd animals and birds for its members to go out and shoot. Im not getting into a debate on the rights and wrongs of hunting I believe shooting is hunting is it not. I was refering to hunting for food not Fox hunting.

[Helen]

Hi Matt

The role of moderators is to ensure threads are kept on track, and don't become too personal, or acrimonious. If they do, they are quickly sorted out. This very rarely happens on WAB, as the debate is kept relatively civilised. This would apply to a debate on hunting too.

Debate is healthy, don't forget some people haven't debated the issue of hunting in any form here.

However, if one applies the golden rule "Attack the post, and not the poster", things usually turn out fine.

For one thing, this is the wrong forum anyway to debate the issue (this is the bird section)

Perhaps we should be concentrating on topics that that bind us together on the forum rather than separating us. However, if someone wants to have their say, fair enough.

[nightshade]

Matt_xyz as Helen said we were Not talking about sport it easy to become emotive re-read my post

[MalcolmX]

i always shudder when i read articles like this as i know it does harm to the shooting fraternity and portrays them as ignorant bigots. i have been a shooter and raiser of pheasants for a period of about 20 years and i can say that not one of the birds listed or most of the mammals ever made any difference to the bag on my shoot . the worst killer of young birds was the weather thunderstorms often killed 10% of the birds ,foxes accounted for a significant number as well .i was always happy to see any other bird species on my shoot. i have given up shooting now as the cost is prohibitive and as i keep birds i would rather watch them than kill them .
keepers on grouse moors have a different problem as they cannot raise chicks as pheasant and partridge shots can ,however given the limited number of raptors and the large number of grouse pairs i cannot believe they need to eliminate birds of prey on the moors , i suspect that poor keepers use them as an excuse for bad management when bags are low

[John]

Originally Posted by MALCOLMX

i always shudder when i read articles like this as i know it does harm to the shooting fraternity and portrays them as ignorant bigots. i have been a shooter and raiser of pheasants for a period of about 20 years and i can say that not one of the birds listed or most of the mammals ever made any difference to the bag on my shoot . the worst killer of young birds was the weather thunderstorms often killed 10% of the birds ,foxes accounted for a significant number as well .i was always happy to see any other bird species on my shoot. i have given up shooting now as the cost is prohibitive and as i keep birds i would rather watch them than kill them .
keepers on grouse moors have a different problem as they cannot raise chicks as pheasant and partridge shots can ,however given the limited number of raptors and the large number of grouse pairs i cannot believe they need to eliminate birds of prey on the moors , i suspect that poor keepers use them as an excuse for bad management when bags are low

Thank you for the above Malcolm. How you see it is how the majority of Bird and Wildlife lovers see it.

I have to thank some of these Pheasant shoots in maintaining a sustained and healthily managed habitat that must have gone a huge way in saving a lot of our song bird numbers. If those managed shots weren't there I dread to think what would have happened to both the land and the living things that inhabited it.

John

[Brains]

Originally Posted by MALCOLMX

i always shudder when i read articles like this as i know it does harm to the shooting fraternity and portrays them as ignorant bigots. i have been a shooter and raiser of pheasants for a period of about 20 years and i can say that not one of the birds listed or most of the mammals ever made any difference to the bag on my shoot .... i cannot believe they need to eliminate birds of prey on the moors , i suspect that poor keepers use them as an excuse for bad management when bags are low

Hi MalcolmX

It's refreshing to hear such comments from someone who shoots ... or at least used to. In my opinion, raptors and predators generally have been used as scapegoats for declining bags for years and years, when the problems are really much more long-term (over-grazing of moorland, forrestry, simple economics). I like to think that there were many more shooters of your ilk rather than those who put together the article ... altough I have my doubts

Brains

[PhilBriggs]

Originally Posted by Brains

Hi MalcolmX

It's refreshing to hear such comments from someone who shoots ... or at least used to. In my opinion, raptors and predators generally have been used as scapegoats for declining bags for years and years, when the problems are really much more long-term (over-grazing of moorland, forrestry, simple economics). I like to think that there were many more shooters of your ilk rather than those who put together the article ... altough I have my doubts

Brains

Brains has hit the nail on the head. Although the gamekeepers do have a harder job these days and its there livelihood were talking about, they have to accept responsibility for previous miss management, over grazing and lack of control of the heather beetle. Most of the wildlife cases I deal with involve some form of bird of prey persecution. Some keepers and landowners constantly blame the birds for the lack of grouse rather than looking inwardly.
Allot of money each year is generated by these shoots, mainly for the landowners pocket. What also is not made common knowledge is that also millions of pounds is given in grant aid to these landowners for heather/species regeneration etc.
One of the estates in my area killed six pairs of hen harrier last year along with several buzzards poisoned and a short-eared owl shot. I’ve managed to take one keeper to trial whom was fined £500 pounds and his licence revoked for a short period which he now has back. The estate has another five keepers whom are all as bad, god knows how many other birds they have killed. We are working very with RSPB and local raptor study groups to help combat this problem but its very hard to cover such vast areas and gain enough evidence for court. It also doesn’t help that allot of these landowners are very powerful and influential people and seem to be able to pull allot of political strings. Why do you think the Fox-hunting bill both here and in England and Wales is such a waste of time and has changed nothing.

And black grouse still unfortunately can be classed as game.

Phil

[RobF]

Agreed Phil, persecution of raptors is the great stumbling block which effectively counteracts any good that grouse moor management does for conservation.

Just a couple of points:

Very few Black Grouse are shot annually, the healthiest populations of Black Grouse are on keepered estates.

I'm not sure how heather beetle can be controlled?

Rob