Shooting and conservation

[RoyW]

Originally Posted by captaincarot

how dare you tell me to go somewhere else particularly as this is a site dedicated to wild life NOT SHOOTING

Yes, this website is dedicated to wildlife - which is what Mossies original post was about. Similar threads might (in theory) be started by people impressed by the wildlife on land reserved for other usage, and they might also give brief details of the management practices (eg: "The wildlife on my local Golf Course is amazing, the greens are obviously kept cut short, and are treated with chemicals, but there are large areas of rough which are completely untouched").
I don't believe that Mossies intention was to suggest that all land should be managed in a similar way, or to argue about the rights and wrongs of shooting, but just to point out that in this specific case his (her?) personal opinion is that wildlife is benefiting. Hence the part of the post that wasn't quoted:

Originally Posted by Mossie

And Captain Carrot, my post was merely an observation not a post to try and win over people to the views of the shooting fraternity

So why not allow the benefit of doubt and leave this thread for discussion about the wildlife present, leaving any argument about hunting for elsewhere (which is what I think Mossie was suggesting). If the thread was about wildlife on a golf course, farm, or area with any other type of land use you may also disagree with some of the management - in all cases though you have to accept that the way to help wildlife to benefit is to encourage an interest from the people that use the particular area of land, attacking them and their pastimes/livelihood does nothing except alienate them against your cause.

Originally Posted by rossy

im right behind you captaincarot on this one, this forums isnt for the cowboys and their toys, go and find another site, i dont want to read your posts, as stated its mainly birds on here and wildlife. rossy.

If you don't want to read posts that mention shooting then don't.
When it's clearly mentioned in the thread title it's very easy to avoid.




There are lots of activities that legally take place in the countryside that wildlife can either live alongside or be driven out because of. In some cases it is possible to benefit wildlife by campaigning against these (especially when new developments/changes in land use are planned), but when these activities are already established, and remain legal, the only way forward is to work with the people managing the land - and whether you personally like it or not this includes those managing the land for shooting.

Management that will benefit wildlife is possible on land where there is a shooting interest, but it won't happen if every time someone with an interest in shooting approaches those with an interest in wildlife they get attacked.
It is usually those who are most vehement about a cause that prevent beneficial 'middle ground' from being found.

[stigofthedump]

Spot on RoyW. It is that middle ground that we should all be striving for.

Dialogue is the key, ' them and us' or 'us and them' solves nowt!

Good luck with your Shoot manager Mossie. Hope he (she) agrees to your proposal.


Vince

[Sledge]

I work in agriculture and last year went on a farm visit. The manager of a large arable estate was asked by a neighbour to farm his land for him. Manager asked neighbour what he wanted him to crop. Neighbour said 'I want five things-
(i) to shoot, (ii) to shoot, (iii) to shoot, (iv) to shoot, and (v) to shoot.'

OK he was a keen shootist, but his farm is now mainly spring cropped with large areas of overwintered stubbles, managed hedgerows and freshly planted coppices, exactly what RSPB, BTO and the EU have been asking farmers to do for decades (and which nearly all now do to a lesser or greater extent).

I went on a rough shoot many ears ago, as a beater, and whilst I didn't think much of the sport it was obvious that much of the beautiful countryside I walked that winter's day wouldn't look like it did without a shoot on the farm.

[Mossie]

Thanks for the replies....and I mean all of them !

I really didn't mean this post to turn into a pro/anti shooting debate, but since it's started here's my last 4 penny worth on the subject.

If the farmer wasn't also a shooter, he certainly wouldn't leave a strip around his fields to help the partridge, which also benefits the bumble bees, tree sparrows, linnets etc etc....the list goes on.
His farm manager is always on to him to get some of the hedgerows removed, but he doesn't because it provides good cover for the ground nesters.
Of the pheasants we put down, we consistently get very close to only about 30% back. All of which are taken and eaten by us. That means 70% of the birds are either providing food for predators, living to fly another day or moving elsewhere.

[The Woodman]

I agree with you, Mossie, as a member of a shooting syndicate too.

I personally don't discuss shooting on here out of respect for the majority who may not feel the same way as me. However, it's no different in my opinion than talking about photography - cameras, lenses, binoculars, etc. There are dedicated forums for photography, but, both are legitimate pursuits and can contribute not only to this site but to conservation in general.

[Adam Cheeseman]

I can completely back up what Mossie says here. I am a professional conservationist and during my time working in the Surrey North Downs I was asked if I would like to go beating on the local pheasant shoot on the private Evelyn Estate. To cut a long story short I did take part and was amazed at how much more bird, deer and badger activity there was on the shoot area than on the surrounding hills. Some may argue the rights and wrongs of it, but had this site not been managed for a pheasant shoot, the diverse mix of habitats present, semi-natural ancient woodland, mixed woodland, scrub, wet woodland and ponds, hedgerows, calcareous grasslands and scrub would have been long ploughed up as the rest of the farm site had been for arable crops.
I'm not advocating turning our countryside into one big pheasant shoot, but where these sites are managed for such they do have a benefit for the associated wildlife of the area.

Cheers,

Adam

[earthdragon64]

The biggest problem I have with the local hunting/shooting estates is how they moan about losing large numbers of Pheasants to Raptors, whilst at the same time they feed young Pheasants at the side of the road. There are some roads locally during late spring/early summer that seem to be literally tarmacced with Pheasant corpses as a result.

These are the same estates that want permission to cull raptors such as Buzzards. IMNSHO, they should sort out their management practices before even considering other options.

Regards, Audrey.

[angelika611]

I have to say im anti shooting and trapping as well everyone is entitled to there opinion.

[Kayleigh]

captaincarot
Re: Shooting and conservation
well done sherlock you've worked out that if you persecute all of the predators out of existance you get an increase in prey species.

right up to the point where some contagious disease is introduced, then as there are no controls to remove the sick and weak from the environment disease runs through it like wildfire, yet you celebrate your massively degraded environment as some form of thriumph and the benefits of conservation.
usual dross from the shooting lobby

PMSL at this reply..
I agree with earthdragon64 she is spot on and feeding the pheasants will bring birds in, as other things like disturbances from the public as well as the predators you have eliminated but I dont agree with hunting, shooting but eat meat so its a constant battle I cant begrudge anyone who partakes in this.
Each to their own I say and have eaten pheasant not that I liked it as its too gamey and rich for my taste.
Good luck with your quest..

[King Edward]

Originally Posted by Mossie

Of the pheasants we put down, we consistently get very close to only about 30% back. All of which are taken and eaten by us. That means 70% of the birds are either providing food for predators, living to fly another day or moving elsewhere.

While I wouldn't dispute the habitat benefits of management for shooting, the large number of surplus pheasants is much more of a downside for wildlife than a benefit. Reptiles especially are thought to suffer from pheasant predation in many places, especially when they're released/fed in/near good reptile habitat.

There's also the possibility that the availability of large amounts of easy food from pheasant meat harm e.g. ground-nesting birds by boosting predator numbers. To a certain extent this might be mitigated by predator control, but not not necessarily since the species concerned are clearly thriving in large numbers (buzzards, corvids, foxes etc.)