Shooting and conservation

[RKB]

Originally Posted by wolfer

RKB does seem hell bent on arguing and nit picking, which is his right, and I've no complaint with that.

Nope, just trying to get a straight answer to the straight question that this thread is about. Here it is again (seeing as you're doing a Sinatra and will probably be back again!):

Do you believe that crows and squirrels are likely to be responsible for the differences in hole-nesting bird numbers reported in post 1 of this thread (assuming they're accurate). You previously suggested that I was ignorant for saying they couldn't, so do you stand by the claim that they very probably did?

Your evasiveness in clarifying this simple point is speaking volumes. As are the jibes you're making in order to attack the person asking the question, because you know that answering the question the way you want to wont make any sense.

[STYRBJORN]

This question was raised on a hunting forum to which I belong, albeit querying the role of squirrels and magpies, rather than crows, in song bird decline. The strong consensus was that while both take chicks and eggs they are not a major factor. Monoculture and pesticides were considered the real villains, as leading to loss of habitat and food. The OP's point that there are more songbirds on game shoots with zero tolerance of predators was taken as given. But - there's always a but - game shoots are not monoculture and don't use pesticides.

I find it intriguing that the view of people who, like myself, could be seen as having a vested interest in what might be termed "pest control for its own sake" was pretty close to the consensus on WAB.

Ric

[Gill Catton]

Originally Posted by STYRBJORN

This question was raised on a hunting forum to which I belong, albeit querying the role of squirrels and magpies, rather than crows, in song bird decline. The strong consensus was that while both take chicks and eggs they are not a major factor. Monoculture and pesticides were considered the real villains, as leading to loss of habitat and food. The OP's point that there are more songbirds on game shoots with zero tolerance of predators was taken as given. But - there's always a but - game shoots are not monoculture and don't use pesticides.

I find it intriguing that the view of people who, like myself, could be seen as having a vested interest in what might be termed "pest control for its own sake" was pretty close to the consensus on WAB.

Ric

I find that massively reassuring actually, I wrongly would have vaguely thought the opposite - and that's a lesson learned - of course I knew there'd be many with similar opinions to those on WAB but not that is would be the general consesus. Especially since the farming forum I visit sometimes has the polar opposite opinion of badgers and TB for example.

[Acipiter]

I still find it strange why people who take pleasure in killing birds and animals, would what to be on a site for "bird and animals lovers" in the first place.

[Gill Catton]

Originally Posted by Acipiter

I still find it strange why people who take pleasure in killing birds and animals, would what to be on a site for "bird and animals lovers" in the first place.

Why? I love chickens both as a pretty little feathered animal pecking around the garden and as a lovely roast with good gravy and roast potatoes. I love cows with their big docile eyes with a fringe of beautiful eyelashes - but I also love beefburgers etc... etc...

[Acipiter]

I should have said wild birds and animals, I know what you are getting at, but "I can see the difference".

[Gill Catton]

Originally Posted by Acipiter

I should have said wild birds and animals, I know what you are getting at, but "I can see the difference".

Pheasants and partridge are largely released birds not really wild in the true sense and they along with rabbits and deer and other quarry have a far more enjoyable life than most of the poor chickens and cows (even the organic free range ones) that end up on our plate.

[Acipiter]

I know but its the taking pleasure bit I can not get my head around.

[Gill Catton]

Originally Posted by Acipiter

I know but its the taking pleasure bit I can not get my head around.

Someone once argued with me that the pleasure gained from stalking and achieving a clean kill is not so different to the pleasure gained from eating it and that argument stuck with me.

After all both killing animals and eating meat is technically unecessary for human beings which are well able to survive on a vegetarian/ vegan diet.

Also those that kill their own meat tend to waste very little of their kill (perhaps because of the effort made in getting is as much as respect for the animal) I dread to think how much left-over/ spolied meat is chucked out by the general populace.

I don't think I'm biased either because I couldn't kill any animal that can look me in the eye!! I'm glad though that there are those that can because I like eating meat!

I don't believe in killing things for no real reason nor killing things that won't then be utilised in some way.

[Acipiter]

We are never going to agree are we Gill, Killing for no real reason as you put it, just about sums it up does it not.