# Shocking statisitcs re Hen Harriers!



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

65% of failure to raise young, due to red fox, what a surprise!



Let's see if the BBC release the *rogue* badger footage soon, to show what an effect predators have on ground nesting birds, predators have their place, but they shouldn't be allowed to wipe out other species. Particularly ironic that those who blame some people for the demise of some species, are so vehemently in defense of the same predators who are responsible for the predation in the first place.

It's about good conservationmanagement, not just letting one species wipe out another, and hoping it will all balance out over time, which has already been proven.


----------



## lennythecloud (Aug 5, 2011)

Guilty of a failure in logic again SL. If foxes are primarily responsible for hen harrier decline then how do you explain the fact that both species were widespread in this country for hundreds of years before gamekeepers wiped out the harrier? And how are hen harriers still widespread across the rest of their home range where foxes are prevalent? 

If foxes primarily responsible for the fact we have no hen harriers the best place for their recovery would be a place where foxes are heavily controlled eg a grouse moor. Where are hen harriers NOT recovering? Grouse moors.


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

I thought Hen Harriers weren't recovering in the uk at all, on Grouse moors or anywhere else?


----------



## Goblin (Jun 21, 2011)

rona said:


> I thought Hen Harriers weren't recovering in the uk at all, on Grouse moors or anywhere else?


What like the Orkney Islands were numbers have dropped by around 70% since the 1970's... Interestingly one of the reasonings there is a "considerable reduction in polygynous breeding". It's suggested that this is due to food supply, not simply predation. It's not as though nature is a complex system, constantly changing


----------



## LinznMilly (Jun 24, 2011)

lennythecloud said:


> Guilty of a failure in logic again SL. If foxes are primarily responsible for hen harrier decline then how do you explain the fact that both species were widespread in this country for hundreds of years before gamekeepers wiped out the harrier? And how are hen harriers still widespread across the rest of their home range where foxes are prevalent?
> 
> If foxes primarily responsible for the fact we have no hen harriers the best place for their recovery would be a place where foxes are heavily controlled eg a grouse moor. Where are hen harriers NOT recovering? Grouse moors.


TBF, I know I said this on the other thread, but the chances are, the decline of the Harriers, here and elsewhere is most likely caused by many factors, of which predation is one. I'd like to believe SL is simply clutching at straws, but truth is, she may have a point. You can't just point the finger at one culprit whilst ignoring the others.

(scroll down to Mortality and Competition
Hen harrier - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

However, it still doesn't explain this:
BirdTrends 2013 - BTO - British Trust for Ornithology

And even the Wiki site cites persecution as one of the Harriers main problems here in the UK.

Sorry SL, but I think, overall, you're fighting a losing battle. If you're determined enough, you'll always find some documentation that you can use as proof that you're right. From someone who recently found me a link about BHT and BHA, this straw clutching is rather disappointing.


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

rona said:


> I thought Hen Harriers weren't recovering in the uk at all, on Grouse moors or anywhere else?


In areas which are mostly free from grouse shooting HH numbers are stable or rising. These areas are: Wales, Northern Ireland, Isle of Man, Western Isles, Orkney and the northwest Highlands of Scotland. In those areas where grouse shooting predominates, northern England, south and west Scotland, east Scotland, HH numbers have declined.

The Hen Harrier - some biology | Mark Avery



Goblin said:


> What like the Orkney Islands were numbers have dropped by around 70% since the 1970's... Interestingly one of the reasonings there is a "considerable reduction in polygynous breeding". It's suggested that this is due to food supply, not simply predation. It's not as though nature is a complex system, constantly changing.


Eh? On Orkney the Hen Harrier is their most common bird of prey & the stronghold for the species in the UK.

Orkney Birds

_ Hen-harrier: this is Orkney's most common bird of prey, with currently some 80 breeding females. The females outnumber males by about 3:1 and so they have a polygamous breeding system with each male having a harem of several females. While males are a pale grey colour, females and immatures are brown with a white rump and a long, barred tail which give them the name 'ringtail'. They fly with wings held in a shallow 'V', gliding low in search of food.

*Elsewhere in Britain, hen harriers are illegally persecuted by gamekeeping interests who claim that they take too many grouse. *

*In Orkney we are fortunate that there is no driven grouse shooting and our hen harriers are left to breed in peace. * _

Harrier success on Orkney | News | Birdwatch Magazine

*There is no grouse shooting on Orkney and, consequently, no incidents of persecution.
*

.


----------



## Goblin (Jun 21, 2011)

noushka05 said:


> Harrier success on Orkney | News | Birdwatch Magazine
> 
> *There is no grouse shooting on Orkney and, consequently, no incidents of persecution.
> *
> ...


Really, so there was no reason for Determining the cause of the hen harrier decline on the Orkney
Islands: an experimental test of two hypotheses in 2002. There was no reason to look at how to manage the population as nature left on it's own would be fine...

We'll ignore information in your own links..


> the males range widely outside these areas while hunting, leaving them vulnerable to grazing regimes and habitat destruction


Only grouse shooting is to blame.


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

Goblin said:


> Really, so there was no reason for Determining the cause of the hen harrier decline on the Orkney
> Islands: an experimental test of two hypotheses in 2002. There was no reason to look at how to manage the population as nature left on it's own would be fine...


Genuine conservation organisations intervene when numbers of a species drop so low that the population can no longer cope with natural predation. Predation is a natural factor, the hen harrier,fox,corvids have coexisted since time immemorial, predation is not the 'cause' of the hen harriers demise!

On grouse moors, predator control is ruthless, all the more reason hen harrier ought to be thriving there!

.


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

Studies
Determining the cause of hen harrier decline on the Orkney Islands: an experimental test of two hypothesis - Conservation Evidence
concluded it was food availability

Orkney Ringing Group
possibly conclusion, over grazing by sheep reducing food

RSPB Scotland praised for harrier work | News | Birdwatch Magazine
Over grazing and sheep, lack of food

http://www.gamekeeperstrust.org.uk/.../gct-rspb-hen-harriers-joint-raptor-study.pdf
Lack of food

Creation and management of grassland for hen harriers
This seems to indicate that habitat management is the key for the Hen Harrier

http://www.eastrenfrewshire.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=986&p=0
This indicates that agricultural support to enhance environmental habitat should be considered.
http://www.snh.org.uk/pdfs/NatCare/A127916.pdf
Implemented

This little chap seems to be the reason they are flourishing 
Orkney vole videos, photos and facts - Microtus arvalis orcadensis | ARKive


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

A study conducted in Ireland actually found that Hen harriers there preferred nesting in forested areas rather than Moorland. I wonder if this has any implications on Hen Harrier survival.
http://www.npws.ie/publications/irishwildlifemanuals/IWM59.pdf

Maybe they've had difficulty adapting to the deforestation that's taken place in Scotland 

Scotland compares its deforestation to that of Brazil | Horticulture Week

"If Brazil had been deforested to the same extent as much of Scotland in the early 1900s, you'd be able to walk the length of the Amazon and hardly see a single tree."

In 1905 there was only 4.5% of forested area, in 2000 it had risen to 17% Lets hope it helps


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> It's about good conservationmanagement, not just letting one species wipe out another, and hoping it will all balance out over time





lennythecloud said:


> Guilty of a failure in logic again SL. If foxes are primarily responsible for hen harrier decline then how do you explain the fact that both species were widespread in this country for hundreds of years before gamekeepers wiped out the harrier? And how are hen harriers still widespread across the rest of their home range where foxes are prevalent?
> 
> If foxes primarily responsible for the fact we have no hen harriers the best place for their recovery would be a place where foxes are heavily controlled eg a grouse moor. Where are hen harriers NOT recovering? Grouse moors.


Well said Lenny. Unfortunately, logic doesn't play a part when you are desperately clutching at straws in order to justify your penchant for killing animals as "sport".


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

Lets also not forget the rise of the agri chemical
DDT
Before about 1940, most of the insecticides used in agriculture were inorganic compounds made from arsenic, sulphur and various fluorides.

DDT has no appreciable effect at concentrations below those seen in fish, but by the time it gets to the birds, particularly the falcons, the concentrations are now so high that even the relatively safe DDT molecule becomes toxic. This leads to serious health problems or even death.

Organophosphates
Despite their positive effects on agricultural productivity, many believe organophosphates have negative effects on the environment and human and animal health.

http://training.fws.gov/resources/c.../Biomarkers/ID Pesticide Incidents Part I.pdf

Though it's obvious that there are some rogue land owners and gamekeepers out there I find it very odd that the fast dwindling numbers of Game Keepers over the period from the late 1800s are forever being blamed when there are so obviously many many other factors to take into consideration, particularly in that same time frame.
Thank goodness some aren't just hung up on the persecution tack and are also looking at and acting on the other factors or our Raptors may have gone forever.

I hadn't even got to the ruddy wind farms either!!!


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

rona said:


> Studies
> Determining the cause of hen harrier decline on the Orkney Islands: an experimental test of two hypothesis - Conservation Evidence
> concluded it was food availability
> 
> ...





rona said:


> A study conducted in Ireland actually found that Hen harriers there preferred nesting in forested areas rather than Moorland. I wonder if this has any implications on Hen Harrier survival.
> http://www.npws.ie/publications/irishwildlifemanuals/IWM59.pdf
> 
> Maybe they've had difficulty adapting to the deforestation that's taken place in Scotland
> ...


So which is it? is land management the key? or reforest our uplands (its not just Scottish uplands that are deforested - and guess which set keeps them barren & degraded? That's right grouse moors )

Hen Harrier are good colonists of new areas - moorland, forest - its because of persecution by grouse moors they are unable to colonise anywhere! You must have missed the link to this >>>>

_A study by the RSPB showed that nesting success per attempting female was much lower on grouse moors than other moors, and that (through wing-tagging) female survival was much lower on grouse moors than other moors. The HH population of grouse moors would decline steeply without immigration from other areas (forestry plantations and other (non-grouse-shooting) moors). One way of describing this is that grouse moors are a sink and depend on other areas providing a source of recruiting birds. Etheridge et al (1997). The effects of illegal killing and destruction of nests by humans on the population dynamics of the hen harrier in Scotland. Journal Applied Ecology 34: 1081-1105.

In a published RSPB study the conclusion was: Even a generous assessment of the magnitude of a supposed beneficial effect of the control of foxes and other predators by moorland gamekeepers on hen harrier nest success indicated that its effect on the population trend of hen harriers would be small relative to the large negative effect of persecution of harriers on grouse moors. Green and Etheridge (1999) JAppl Ecol 36:472  483.

 *How they move around:* HH move quite a distance from where they hatch to where they settle to breed. They, unlike eagles and buzzards, are good colonists of new areas. This is what you would expect from a bird of early successional stages  you have to be a good colonist. Its also how HH found and occupied all those young forestry plantations of the 1970s and 1980s -they evolved to do that sort of thing.

HH also move around in the winter  what a pity that NE are still keeping secret their study of HH movements!

I am now going to use the mashed potato and soup analogy. I first heard this in a talk given by a friend of mine, Kate Lessells, at an EGI student conference in the late 1970s or perhaps early 1980s. Kate wasnt talking about HH but the analogy works here.

If you imagine a bowl of soup, then if you dip your spoon in and take out some soup, the level of the soup goes down everywhere. Soup is a liquid, it flows into the hole you created. Whereas, you can scoop out a spoonful of mashed potato and you leave a hole in the mashed potato surface. Some birds have populations more like mashed potato, others like soup. Buzzards and House Sparrows are more like mashed potato  HH are much more like soup.

Because HHs move around a lot, their populations are more soup-like. They do move around  wing-tagging and radio-tracking, and now satellite tagging shows that. A bird hatched in Perth recruited to Langholm (in the Borders) in the Langholm study (thats from memory but Im pretty sure I am right).

So, if you have people killing HH on grouse moors, which you do, and reducing their nesting success, which you do, then thats why the grouse moors are a sink. New recruits keep turning up each spring, searching for a good place to nest having been hatched far away, and they get bumped off too. If persecution is strong enough the whole population goes down

In areas which are mostly free from grouse shooting HH numbers are stable or rising (they dont need to be cuddled by keepers). These areas are: Wales, Northern Ireland, Isle of Man, Western Isles, Orkney and the northwest Highlands of Scotland. in those areas where grouse shooting predominates, northern England, south and west Scotland, east Scotland, HH numbers have declined.

But this biology also explains why its so difficult to protect HH in areas where there is a lot of grouse shooting  the birds move around in the winter, and from where they are hatched to where they breed, they have to be lucky not to get bumped off somewhere. Rumour, although its a bit more than rumour, has it that a favoured form of HH-killing these days is to bump off the birds at winter roosts. I wonder what those satellite tagged HHs might show?

Have a look at Fielding, A., Haworth, P., Whitfield, P., McLeod, D. and Riley, H. (2011). A Conservation Framework for Hen Harriers in the United Kingdom. JNCC Report No.441, Peterborough.

Driven grouse shooting has been around for c150 years; Hen Harriers have owned our hills for rather longer.

The conflict between an economic activity of trivial value to the economy, which is also a sport, and a protected bird, protected in law for 60 years today, is a real conflict. Hen Harriers eat grouse that paying shooters want to kill.

Hen Harriers might spoil some peoples sport  grouse shooters are wiping out a protected species.

A wonderful bird or a bunch of armed criminals  whose side are you on?

Please sign this e-petition to call for an end to driven grouse shooting.

 _



rona said:


> Lets also not forget the rise of the agri chemical
> DDT
> Before about 1940, most of the insecticides used in agriculture were inorganic compounds made from arsenic, sulphur and various fluorides.
> 
> ...


Are you on a wind up? so you've been scratting around for all this to support your confirmation bias while completely ignoring all the peer reviewed studies that have proved unequivocally the link between raptor persecution & grouse moors

This is not believing in science Rona, this is defending the indefensible:thumbdown:

Resolving the conflict between driven-grouse shooting and conservation of hen harriers - Thompson - 2009 - Journal of Applied Ecology - Wiley Online Library

Etheridge et al (1997). The effects of illegal killing and destruction of nests by humans on the population dynamics of the hen harrier in Scotland. Journal Applied Ecology 34: 1081-1105.

Stott (1998). Hen harrier breeding success on English grouse moors. British Birds 91: 107-108.

Green & Etheridge (1999). Breeding success of the hen harrier in relation to the distribution of grouse moors & the red fox. Journal Applied Ecology 36: 472-483.

Whitfield et al (2003). The association of grouse moors in Scotland with the illegal use of poisons to control predators. Biological Conservation 114: 157-163.

Hardey et al (2003). Variation in breeding success of inland peregrine falcon in three regions of Scotland 1991-2000. In Thompson et al [Eds] Birds of Prey in a Changing Environment. SNH.

Whitfield et al (2004). The effects of persecution on age of breeding and territory occupation in golden eagles in Scotland. Biological Conservation 118: 249-259.

Whitfield et al (2004). Modelling the effects of persecution on the population dynamics of golden eagles in Scotland. Biological Conservation 118: 319-333.

Whitfield et al (2007). Factors constraining the distribution of golden eagles in Scotland. Bird Study 54: 199-211.

Whitfield et al (2008). A Conservation Framework for Golden Eagles: Implications for their Conservation & Management in Scotland. SNH.

Summers et al (2010). Changes in hen harrier numbers in relation to grouse moor management. In Thompson et al [Eds] Birds of Prey in a Changing Environment. SNH.

Redpath et al (2010). People and nature in conflict: can we reconcile hen harrier conservation and game management? In Baxter & Galbraith [Eds] Species Management: Challenges and Solutions for the 21st Century. SNH.

Smart et al (2010). Illegal killing slows population recovery of a reintroduced raptor of high conservation concern  the red kite. Biological Conservation 143: 1278-1286.

McMillan (2011). Raptor persecution on a large Perthshire estate: a historical study. Scottish Birds 31: 195-205.

Amar et al (2012). Linking nest histories, remotely sensed land use data and wildlife crime records to explore the impact of grouse moor management on peregrine falcon populations. Biological Conservation 145: 86-94.

Watson (2013). Golden eagle colonisation of grouse moors in north-east Scotland during the Second World War. Scottish Birds 33: 31-33.

There are more!

.


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> 65% of failure to raise young, due to red fox, what a surprise!
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I assume you're referring the *rogue* badger on springwatch?, well fyi they did release it, why wouldnt they Springwatch is a natural history program, its shows nature red in tooth & claw. I guess its because you're use to getting all your info from sources that cherrypick bits to fit their agenda. It is well documented that badger will opportunistically eat eggs & nestlings they come across. Much like the NON NATIVE pheasant badger are opportunistic & omnivorerous. The diet of the badger has been extensively studied, and guess what?? its thought they have little or no impact on ground nesting bird populations!

Nope the primary cause of the in the decline of ground nesting birds is the intensification of agriculture, of course this fact doesn't fit your propaganda - you prefer to scapegoat & demonise native predators. I find that despicable.

How does the release of 35-50 million non native gamebirds, all munching on our native flora & fauna, fit in with this good conservation management ideology? how does maintaing grouse, again to be shot for sport, at unnaturally high densities, eradicating everything else that gets in the way fit it? This isn't conservation This isn't creating any sort of balance. You want to create an imbalance towards your shooting interests. Why not just be honest about it?

Doesn't the hen harrier deserve conserving???!

I am going to end with Mark Averys words >

_ "Driven grouse shooting has been around for c150 years; Hen Harriers have owned our hills for rather longer.

The conflict between an economic activity of trivial value to the economy, which is also a 'sport', and a protected bird, protected in law for 60 years today, is a real conflict. Hen Harriers eat grouse that paying shooters want to kill.

Hen Harriers might spoil some people's 'sport' - grouse shooters are wiping out a protected species.

*A wonderful bird or a bunch of armed criminals - whose side are you on?*
Please sign this e-petition to call for an end to driven grouse shooting"

Ban driven grouse shooting - e-petitions

_


----------



## Goblin (Jun 21, 2011)

noushka05 said:


> Hen Harriers might spoil some people's 'sport' - grouse shooters are wiping out a protected species..


Never knew grouse shooters could cover 100% of land in the UK.

You still haven't explained the decline in other areas where you can't blame shooters.


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

Goblin said:


> Never knew grouse shooters could cover 100% of land in the UK.
> 
> Nor did I but see my reply to Rona on why grouse moors create a 'sink'.
> 
> You still haven't explained the decline in other areas where you can't blame shooters.


I don't have to explain, researchers have already done that.


----------



## Goblin (Jun 21, 2011)

noushka05 said:


> I don't have to explain, researchers have already done that.


No.. Funnily enough researchers performed studies which indicated that addition feeding on Hen Harriers could increase their numbers.. Hey presto.. numbers increase. Love the phrase "they dont need to be cuddled by keepers" as it doesn't mean a thing.

Numbers were in decline.. movement the same.. Numbers rise.. movement the same. Gamekeepers and grouse shooters are the same.


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

Goblin said:


> No.. Funnily enough researchers performed studies which indicated that addition feeding on Hen Harriers could increase their numbers.. Hey presto.. numbers increase. Love the phrase "they dont need to be cuddled by keepers" as it doesn't mean a thing.
> 
> Numbers were in decline.. movement the same.. Numbers rise.. movement the same. Gamekeepers and grouse shooters are the same.


Are you on about the langholm experiment? can I have the link please?

.


----------



## LinznMilly (Jun 24, 2011)

rona said:


> Lets also not forget the rise of the agri chemical
> DDT
> Before about 1940, most of the insecticides used in agriculture were inorganic compounds made from arsenic, sulphur and various fluorides.
> 
> ...


DDT was banned as use as a pesticide in 1984. Now it's used as a way to control mosquitos etc. 
DDT - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And, if you're going to use _that _argument, explain how the Peregrine Falcon, which was badly affected by the use of DDT after the 2nd World War, could now be said to be thriving:

The RSPB: Peregrine



noushka05 said:


> Are you on about the langholm experiment? can I have the link please?
> .


Goblin posted a link on p1 to a similar experiment on Orkney which showed that supplementary feeding did increase the number of successful breeding attempts for the Harrier, and that more males successfully supported 2 or even 3 females in Fed areas.

However, here's a PDF to the Langholm experiment itself (I haven't read it yet ... feeling a bit drowsy from my antihistamine tablet )
http://www.snh.org.uk/pdfs/publications/commissioned_reports/f99ac419.pdf

On the other hand, Noushka, you do seem to be blinkered towards anything other than persecution as for the HH decline. You talk about good science - good science means looking at all the evidence, regardless of whether or not it fits in with your beliefs.


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

LinznMilly said:


> DDT was banned as use as a pesticide in 1984. Now it's used as a way to control mosquitos etc.
> DDT - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> And, if you're going to use _that _argument, explain how the Peregrine Falcon, which was badly affected by the use of DDT after the 2nd World War, could now be said to be thriving:
> ...




I don't dispute that hen harrier have other pressures contend with, surviving nature itself is a great challenge. Elephants say, are under pressure from habitat loss, drought, climate change & so on - but I'm sure you wouldn't dispute the greatest immediate threat to their survival is poaching? Hen Harriers are our Elephant, our Rhino ,our Tiger if we stop the poaching, stop the persecution by grouse moors these animals would have a chance - if we don't they will all go extinct.

.


----------



## LinznMilly (Jun 24, 2011)

> I've read a lot on langholm, thank you though


You asked for a link, I provided a link   I can't and don't vouch for the accuracy of the information, for reasons I've mentioned in my previous post.

I did find it rather strange that you of all people were asking for a link to the Langholm Experiment because I figured, as pro-conservation as you are, you'd have been enthralled


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

LinznMilly said:


> You asked for a link, I provided a link   I can't and don't vouch for the accuracy of the information, for reasons I've mentioned in my previous post.
> 
> I did find it rather strange that you of all people were asking for a link to the Langholm Experiment because I figured, as pro-conservation as you are, you'd have been enthralled


No I don't know what Goblin was referring to, I assumed langholm?, but wasn't sure , so asked them to provide a link - Its my muddled up unclear way of wording things, sorry about that


----------



## LinznMilly (Jun 24, 2011)

noushka05 said:


> No I don't know what Goblin was referring to, I assumed langholm?, but wasn't sure , so asked them to provide a link - Its my muddled up unclear way of wording things, sorry about that


I think it's about the HH in Orkney. There's a link of page 1 of this thread 

Of course, though, I could be wrong.


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

LinznMilly said:


> DDT was banned as use as a pesticide in 1984. Now it's used as a way to control mosquitos etc.
> DDT - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> And, if you're going to use _that _argument, explain how the Peregrine Falcon, which was badly affected by the use of DDT after the 2nd World War, could now be said to be thriving:
> ...


Peregrine primary foodstuff is pigeon/birds not vole. There has never been a shortage of pigeon
They also have a much wider use of different habitats and therefore may have adapted to change much more readily. You wouldn't normally see a HH nesting on the side of a building

I don't know your point on DDT?


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

rona said:


> Peregrine primary foodstuff is pigeon/birds not vole. There has never been a shortage of pigeon
> They also have a much wider use of different habitats and therefore may have adapted to change much more readily. You wouldn't normally see a HH nesting on the side of a building
> 
> I don't know your point on DDT?


You're missing the point again Rona, peregrine are doing ok everywhere EXCEPT on grouse moors >>>>

Wildlife Extra News - Peregrine persecution on grouse moors

It tends to be carbofuran theyre being poisoned with today- the gamekeepers choice

,


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

News from The Moorland Association

More importantly, it suggests numbers of breeding records have doubled on grouse moors in the last 20 years, according to MA chairman, Robert Benson.

He added: While the threatened species has done exceptionally well on land looked after by keepers, the beautiful birds are struggling in other upland areas, where breeding records have fallen by more than half in the same period.


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

rona said:


> News from The Moorland Association
> 
> More importantly, it suggests numbers of breeding records have doubled on grouse moors in the last 20 years, according to MA chairman, Robert Benson.
> 
> He added: While the threatened species has done exceptionally well on land looked after by keepers, the beautiful birds are struggling in other upland areas, where breeding records have fallen by more than half in the same period.


Moor than meets the eye? | natural eyes

Now Ive heard it all. The Moorland Association is putting itself forward as the champion of a bird of prey! This organisation is the representative body of grouse moor owners in England and Wales. It says, Britains smallest birds of prey are flying in to nest on English grouse moors which have helped stave off their downfall. A new report, commissioned by the Association themselves, states that numbers of Merlin have increased on moorland that is being intensively managed for grouse shooting (1). Many newspapers have picked this up and run the story, giving the Moorland Association a pat on the back in the process. The Merlin does indeed seem to be doing well on some grouse moors and seeing one of these beautiful little falcons on the moors enhances any upland walk. So thats great.

But, wait a minute, isnt there another question waiting to be asked here? What about all the other raptors on moorland in the north of England? Where are the Buzzards, the Peregrines, the Goshawks and the Hen Harriers? Also doing well? Im afraid not. Pretty much absent, in fact, even though theres plenty of available habitat. Its been estimated there are sufficient territories for around 300 pairs of Hen Harriers to live in Englands uplands. How many successfully did so last year? None. Not a single chick was raised.

Now, why on earth could that be, given that the management of our moors is in such caring, raptor-loving hands? Relentless, illegal persecution year after year is cited in numerous scientific reports as a major reason for their absence. The same is happening in central and eastern Scotland where there are also eagles to be exterminated. The Golden Eagle, that Scottish icon, would be soaring over many more Scottish uplands if they were allowed to do so (2). So many of these incidents occur on or near managed grouse moors. (3) Coincidence? Hardly. Nothing stops those with a vested interest in grouse production. Not even the law. Poisoning, trapping, shooting  you name it  of anything that might possibly threaten a grouse chick. They must all be destroyed. Its illegal killing that is cited again and again. Its no coincidence that the Merlin happens to be our smallest raptor and not considered a threat by the moorland managers.

For the Moorland Association to be making capital out of  and seeking credit for  not killing Merlins is rich indeed. Theres no protection of raptors on managed grouse moors. As far as birds of prey are concerned, the word doesnt seem to exist in the moorland managers dictionary, which goes straight from persecution to public relations. The bottom line, and theres no getting away from it, is that grouse shooting depends on widespread criminality. And those responsible are simply stealing our nature. Over and over again

.


----------



## LinznMilly (Jun 24, 2011)

rona said:


> Peregrine primary foodstuff is pigeon/birds not vole. There has never been a shortage of pigeon
> They also have a much wider use of different habitats and therefore may have adapted to change much more readily. You wouldn't normally see a HH nesting on the side of a building
> 
> I don't know your point on DDT?


You try to use DDT to explain one of the reasons why HH are in decline, and when I point out that peregrines (heavily affected by DDT in the 50s and 60s) are thriving and that DDT was banned as a pesticide in 1984(?) you fail to see my point. :huh:

Don't you think if peregrines (which were dying out because of DDT use accumulating throughout the food chain until it reached lethal levels when ingested by peregrine falcons and other predatory birds) are now thriving after the ban on DDT - then, if DDT had been affecting HH, they should be showing a similar recovery. Except, they're not. Ergo, DDT is not responsible for the decline in HH.

Oh - and peregrines _will _take voles and small mammals, they're just not a big part of their diet:
Peregrine falcon - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The RSPB: Peregrine: Habitat and food



> Feral pigeons are favourite prey wherever they are freely available, though a wide range of birds are taken, ranging in size from goldcrest to grey heron. The larger females take larger prey than males. This generalist diet allows peregrines to exist wherever there are good mixed bird populations. *They sometimes take mammals, and there are records of occasional amphibians, lizards and large insects*.]


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

LinznMilly said:


> You try to use DDT to explain one of the reasons why HH are in decline, and when I point out that peregrines (heavily affected by DDT in the 50s and 60s) are thriving and that DDT was banned as a pesticide in 1984(?) you fail to see my point. :huh:
> 
> Don't you think if peregrines (which were dying out because of DDT use accumulating throughout the food chain until it reached lethal levels when ingested by peregrine falcons and other predatory birds) are now thriving after the ban on DDT - then, if DDT had been affecting HH, they should be showing a similar recovery. Except, they're not. Ergo, DDT is not responsible for the decline in HH.
> 
> ...


No because as I said they have a different set of foodstuffs and are much more adaptable.

According to the The Moorland Association, all other Raptors are on the increase over grouse moors. Doesn't that say something?

I didn't give DDT as a reason they are in decline but one of the reasons they were in decline along with other birds of prey rather than just the much maligned gamekeeper who was actually in decline himself in that period. 
The food and adaptability issue is just one reason why some have recovered while others have continued to struggle. There are obviously many issues but to hang on to just the gamekeeper tack is very risky. Habitat as I have shown in my links is one very major issue with the HH


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

rona said:


> No because as I said they have a different set of foodstuffs and are much more adaptable.
> 
> According to the The Moorland Association, all other Raptors are on the increase over grouse moors.
> 
> Doesn't that say something?


and of course, despite all evidence to the contrary - you believe them 

Says a lot to me > the MA are duplicitous liars.

.

.


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

rona said:


> No because as I said they have a different set of foodstuffs and are much more adaptable.
> 
> According to the The Moorland Association, all other Raptors are on the increase over grouse moors. Doesn't that say something?
> 
> ...


Much maligned gamekeeper? Wow, you even seek to dispute history. Its only a pity these 'much maligned (brutally cruel & ignorant) gamekeepers' didn't go the way of the dodo.

There is enough suitable habitat on Englands uplands to support 300 pairs of hen harrier

.


----------



## cinnamontoast (Oct 24, 2010)

Loving all the Wiki links.  A Year 11 I used to teach took one of the daffodil wikis and changed it to say his friend's name every time instead of daffodil. Brilliant how it can be edited! It's something we ban the students from using.


----------



## porps (Jun 23, 2011)

not at all difficult to read between the lines in this thread. we get it, you like killing wild animals and will happily spread any old crap in the hope that people will tell you that your bloodlust is justified... some probably will... But it still isnt. :mad2:

Nature doesnt need our help to balance the scales, it just needs time without us meddling.


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

cinnamontoast said:


> Loving all the Wiki links.  A Year 11 I used to teach took one of the daffodil wikis and changed it to say his friend's name every time instead of daffodil. Brilliant how it can be edited! It's something we ban the students from using.


Did you also see all those links to the peer reviewed studies? all of which have shown a direct link between driven grouse moor management and raptor persecution. 

.


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

Spellweaver said:


> Well said Lenny. Unfortunately, logic doesn't play a part when you are desperately clutching at straws in order to justify your penchant for killing animals as "sport".





porps said:


> not at all difficult to read between the lines in this thread. we get it, you like killing wild animals and will happily spread any old crap in the hope that people will tell you that your bloodlust is justified... some probably will... But it still isnt. :mad2:
> 
> Nature doesnt need our help to balance the scales, it just needs time without us meddling.


Yep its glaring obvious whats going on here. Apologists for a cruel & selfish industry. Shameful.

_. There's no 'protection' of raptors on managed grouse moors. As far as birds of prey are concerned, the word doesn't seem to exist in the moorland managers' dictionary, which goes straight from 'persecution' to 'public relations'. The bottom line, and there's no getting away from it, is that grouse shooting depends on widespread criminality. And those responsible are simply stealing our nature. Over and over again _

.

.

.


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

rona said:


> *Though it's obvious that there are some rogue land owners and gamekeepers out there* I find it very odd that the fast dwindling numbers of Game Keepers over the period from the late 1800s are forever being blamed when there are so obviously many many other factors to take into consideration, particularly in that same time frame.


^^^^^^ ...............post 12


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

porps said:


> not at all difficult to read between the lines in this thread. we get it, you like killing wild animals and will happily spread any old crap in the hope that people will tell you that your bloodlust is justified... some probably will... But it still isnt. :mad2:
> 
> Nature doesnt need our help to balance the scales, it just needs time without us meddling.


I have never killed a healthy creature in my life and can't see how anyone gets pleasure from it
Makes me feel sick dealing with a myxy rabbit

Never been fox hunting and never shot a gun


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

rona said:


> I have never killed a healthy creature in my life and can't see how anyone gets pleasure from it


It doesn't stop you being an apologist for the industry. I have never yet seen you condemn the shooting industry? only justify it.

.

.


----------



## Jesthar (May 16, 2011)

noushka05 said:


> It doesn't stop you being an apologist for the industry. I have never yet seen you condemn the shooting industry? only justify it.
> 
> .
> 
> .


Or, perhaps we can all play like adults, agree that no _one_ factor is uniquely and wholly responsible for the decline of any raptor, and discuss the issues _rationally_ even when we don't necessarily agree with the others viewpoint? It would certainly make a change from the usual wild extrapolations and character aspersions ... :mad2:

I know people get passionate about these things, but misdirected passion is far more damaging than apathy can ever be.


----------



## LinznMilly (Jun 24, 2011)

cinnamontoast said:


> Loving all the Wiki links.  A Year 11 I used to teach took one of the daffodil wikis and changed it to say his friend's name every time instead of daffodil. Brilliant how it can be edited! It's something we ban the students from using.


What? As opposed to the blog entries from gamekeepers? coz we all know that if someone says they didn't do something, then they simply MUST be telling the truth. 

I know how fallible Wiki is, and how open to editting, that's why I've made the point of posting at least one more link that isn't open to editting. Where possible, I disregard Wiki entirely but fact remains that when kids aren't abusing the site, it does actually contain some factual content.

I'd sooner believe a wiki article than a web blog.


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

LinznMilly said:


> What? As opposed to the blog entries from gamekeepers? coz we all know that if someone says theyy didn't do something, then they simply MUST be telling the truth.
> 
> I know how fallible Wiki is, and how open to editting, that's why I've made the point of posting at least one more link that isn't open to editting. Where possible, I disregard Wiki entirely but fact remains that when kids aren't abusing the site, it does actually contain some factual content.
> 
> I'd sooner believe a wiki article than a web blog.


You haven't looked at any of the links I put on then?


----------



## LinznMilly (Jun 24, 2011)

rona said:


> You haven't looked at any of the links I put on then?


Some of them I have, others I haven't, some I will read later, others I have no intention of opening because it became obvious to me that you'll post any link that "proves" gamekeepers "innocent".

I have said, time and time again, that I don't believe gamekeepers are solely responsible for the HH decline and that other factors need to be considered. I've made a point of looking at this from both sides as well as doing my own research but if you're going to flood the thread with links then yeah, I'm going to stop taking notice and/or opening them.

And when I said I'd believe a wiki article over a blog entry, I include blog entries pointing the finger at gamekeepers too because they're not what I would call reliable sources either.


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

LinznMilly said:


> Some of them I have, others I haven't, some I will read later, others I have no intention of opening because it became obvious to me that you'll post any link that "proves" gamekeepers "innocent".
> 
> I have said, time and time again, that I don't believe gamekeepers are solely responsible for the HH decline and that other factors need to be considered. I've made a point of looking at this from both sides as well as doing my own research but if you're going to flood the thread with links then yeah, I'm going to stop taking notice and/or opening them.
> 
> And when I said I'd believe a wiki article over a blog entry, I include blog entries pointing the finger at gamekeepers too because they're not what I would call reliable sources either.


Most don't even mention gamekeepers and those that do, most say that gamekeepers are part of the problem  

People really don't read what I write do they


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Jesthar said:


> Or, perhaps we can all play like adults, agree that no _one_ factor is uniquely and wholly responsible for the decline of any raptor, and discuss the issues _rationally_ even when we don't necessarily agree with the others viewpoint? It would certainly make a change from the usual wild extrapolations and character aspersions ... :mad2:
> .


It would indeed be lovely if people behaved like adults and discussed the salient issues rationally.

However, you are asking for the impossible when some of the main proponents on this forum of blood sports and its associated artificial management of natural areas have those who disagree with them on "ignore".

There's nothing wrong with ingoring those who speak against your opinion if you want to live in la-la-land and fool yourself into believing that everyone agrees with your viewpoint. However, this sort of childish behaviour does not make for scintillating adult debate, because all you do is post your opinion and think no-one disagrees with you, and don't even see - let alone reply to - anyone who doesn't. (nb - generic "you" not "you personally")


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

Call to boycott grouse. Well done Ethical Consumer. Save the Hen Harrier

*Rob Harrison outlines some new Ethical Consumer research around hen harriers, greed and biodiversity on England's grouse shooting estates.*

Last year the RSPB announced that the hen harrier, a bird of prey once common on Britain's uplands, had failed to raise a single chick across the whole of England. This story of near extinction runs counter to a general trend of good news stories around biodiversity in the UK. For example, another bird of prey - the red kite - has been successfully re-introduced across many of its former areas, and regulation has seen fish and other species return to rivers once barren from years of pollution.

*The decline of the hen harrier is also particularly curious because it has continued despite a raft of regulations, laws and initiatives designed to protect it. The hen harrier's misfortune, it would appear, is that its natural habitat is heather moorlands which are increasingly being managed by landowners as grouse shooting estates. A recent report by Ethical Consumer confirms that illegal persecution by gamekeepers is a key element, but paints a more complex picture of intensification, greed and ignorance on some of our few remaining wild spaces*.

With regulation proving ineffective, Ethical Consumer are calling for a popular campaign of ostracism against the grouse shooting industry until hen harriers have been allowed to return. We also argue that 'perverse' government subsidies of the industry - such as management grants and the gun licence subsidy recently highlighted in the press - should also be suspended.

*Decline in wild areas*

People in Britain know about palm-oil plantations and threats to the orang-utan in Asia, and of cattle ranching and threats to the Amazon rainforest in Brazil. Yet the same intensification of the wilderness areas at the edges of our 'civilisation', threatening our own iconic 'apex' species, is going on right under our noses in our upland moors. It is high time for a popular campaign to say "Enough. This is where we draw the line."

It would be ideal if biodiversity could be protected through effective government regulation, but around grouse moors there appears to be long-standing and intractable problems. Boycotts and ostracism are blunt instruments but exasperation at the disappearance of a once common species means they are increasingly being discussed as a means of exerting pressure in this area. They have, after all, proven effective in other areas where government regulation appears to be failing.

Ethical Consumer's in-depth report, published in June, interviewed conservationists, campaigners and wildlife experts across the country. It has also begun to compile lists of businesses linked to grouse shooting. It is calling on supporters to consider avoiding visiting, or supporting, businesses linked to grouse-shooting estates to register their protest. More detailed campaign asks appear at the end of this article. Above all, we want to create a conversation about biodiversity, greed and intensification on some of England's few remaining wild spaces. Join in, and let us know what you think.

*How intensive management works*

There are four key areas which campaigners have identified as being characteristic of an intensively managed grouse estate.

*(a) Burning heather*

The preference of managers of grouse moorland is to regularly burn to create a mosaic of the young, more nutritious heather which grouse like to feed on, and older, longer heather for them to nest in and hide in. This reduces the amount of taller plants preferred by the ground nesting hen harrier

*(b) Controlling 'pests'*

In order to sustain grouse in artificially high numbers, their natural predators must be removed. Various birds and animals are "controlled as vermin" to prevent them feeding on grouse eggs and chicks. Stoats, weasels, crows and foxes can be legally shot, poisoned or trapped, but birds of prey ('raptors'), another potentially significant group of predators, cannot be. Nevertheless, significant levels of illegal persecution are taking place.

*(c) Use of drainage ditches*

Though not directly affecting raptors, draining is undertaken to create more dry soil for heather which then enters the burning regime. Campaigners such as Ban the Burn at Walshaw Moor have focussed on trying to stop this practice which can lead to flooding in nearby towns.

*(d) Use of chemicals*

High density of grouse have meant the some infections (such as Strongyle worm) have become rampant, and these have been treated by 'medicated grit'.

As we will see below, the RSPB are keen to point out that this intensification and persecution affects other species - such as peregrine, red kite, merlin, golden eagle, goshawk, short-eared owl and kestrel. Our report also notes how studies have shown that intensive management also has negative impacts on climate change and water pollution.

*Why is it happening?*

Ethical Consumer's report looked in some depth at the reasons for hen harrier decline. In many cases, where illegal persecution was taking place, it was traditionally understood as old-school game keeping 'vermin' control practice - handed down from generation to generation - failing to keep up with modern ideas on biodiversity. While this is one element, it doesn't explain the worsening situation now. There is, particularly around the most intensively managed estates, the idea that land is increasingly being used as an investment. Some campaigners point out that - with a brace of grouse commonly valued in four figures - pushing the numbers up pushes up the capital value of a shooting estate. Some commentators argue that this can give a better return than the stock market.

"Because the value of grouse moors is based on the number of birds they yield, injecting cash into intelligent management increases their value in the long term,"

says William Duckworth-Chad, of Savills.

*Why is the law not working?*

It is no secret that grouse shooting is, by and large, a pastime for the very wealthy. Bankers, aristocrats and business leaders are all involved, and the Ethical Consumer report notes how estate owners have, and continue to hold, positions of influence within DEFRA (the Department for Environment. Food and Rural Affairs), the NFU (National Farmers' Union) and Natural England.

The failure of regulation is therefore commonly ascribed to the arrogance of people who feel they are somehow above the law. While this is likely to be an element, there is more to it since the same people routinely obey other laws. Some of it is down to the difficulty of enforcing laws across thousands of acres of misty hillside. But we also concluded that much of it was down to the mixed messages that the law is giving.

Campaigners that Ethical Consumer spoke to suggested that, for reasons not unconnected to the political clout of the shooting establishment, at least two types of subsidy could be going to shooting estates which break the law, because providing evidence that no persecution is taking place has not been a precondition of receiving these subsidies.

In addition, there have been recent revelations about a split in the coalition over reducing the current annual 'subsidy' of £150 for every UK gun licence issued. The idea that these subsidies are going to fund "sports" which must be involved in illegal persecution has not yet really entered the debate. George Monbiot's comparison of the gun-licence subsidy with a new proposal to make people buy their own crutches to save the NHS money, is illuminating of the quite astonishing thinking inside the current administration.

*Arguments in favour of intensive estate management*

The Moorland Association claims criticism of grouse estates is wrong for two main reasons: jobs and the other species which thrive on more intensively managed estates. Although the estates do provide "jobs in rural areas which are relatively marginal for farming", with only around 150 grouse moors in England and an industry generating a relatively tiny £67 million annually, such jobs will be few - especially when compared to tourism locally.

It should be noted that most campaigners are not seeking to ban grouse shooting, they are simply arguing that it needs to reduce its focus on numbers killed per shoot ('bag size') at all costs.

The Moorland Association is also quick to point to other species that do well on intensively managed uplands (e.g. some waders) and that hen harriers breed successfully elsewhere ('500 pairs in Scotland'). By and large, the argument that an endangered species is doing well somewhere else and therefore its decline can be ignored in one area, is controversial in biodiversity management circles. Growth in populations of less-threatened species is also not an obviously strong argument. Nevertheless there may be some who choose not to support a campaign of ostracism because of these claims.

*Why greed lies at the core of this conflict*

Grouse moor owners commonly maintain that permitting hen harriers and other predators on their estates would mean the death of the shooting industry. And whilst there is evidence that it could significantly reduce 'bag size', this does not mean that all shooting would be threatened. Indeed, on both sides of the debate are people who can see a return to a less intensive, more leisurely, pastime.

A former shooting-estate employee is quoted in the Report as follows:

"Working on an average 200 [bird a] day shoot [a low total by modern standards]...I never once heard anyone complain that they wished they had shot more birds....I believe times and attitudes have changed for the worse on Grouse moors, that greed has taken over, you only have to read Savills brochures, The Field or Shooting Times to see estates boasting that they recorded record bags"

The fact that a less intensive management system is possible but not chosen is likely to be caused by a number of factors. Some of it will be ignorance. some of it will be fear of change, but it is most likely that greed lies at its core.

When land becomes just another commercial investment - as it also has in the case of palm-oil plantations elsewhere - it is possible to create higher returns by maximising your 'crop'. This is entirely consistent with the picture we are currently seeing with grouse estates. To chose intensive management over other less profitable - but more sustainable - options just looks like greed

*A boycott call*

As we have mentioned above, with regulatory routes failing, supporters of biodiversity in the UK are left with few other options than a general campaign of ostricisation. It is a choice of last resort - an act of desperation and frustration.

While some shooting estates are clearly more intensively managed than others, evidence in this area was often anecdotal. In any case, the absence of any successful hen harrier breeding attempts showed that the problem was endemic to all driven grouse shooting estates. As the Report explains "Although there is a lot of indignation around raptor conservationists 'tarring everyone with the same brush', landowners/estate managers who genuinely wished to bring about raptor-friendly grouse moors would need to be a lot more vocal in condemning the current re-emergence of historical malpractice."

There are some financial companies we have found with ownership connections to grouse estates. Prudential and M&G both have consumer-facing products. Property firms including Savills and Knight Franks are involved in selling grouse estates.

Ostricism can also work on a smaller, more local, scale. In Appendix I of the Ethical Consumer report we have begun to list some businesses linked to grouse moor owners. If you want to support this call to action and live around or visit these upland regions, check out this list and maybe add some ideas of your own.

*Given that grouse shooting is a sport of a tiny minority, and that protection of endangered species generally and of birds particularly is a widespread concern, we are optimistic that a popular campaign will play an important role in contributing to the aggregate pressure for change*

.


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

Just odd that Gamekeepers were also blamed for the decline and struggles of the Peregrine (which as we know eats more birds) but now that bird is flourishing despite the fact that gamekeepers still exist.

How does that work then?


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

rona said:


> Just odd that Gamekeepers were also blamed for the decline and struggles of the Peregrine (which as we know eats more birds) but now that bird is flourishing despite the fact that gamekeepers still exist.
> 
> How does that work then?


Its flourishing everywhere EXCEPT on grouse moors.

Why do you think that is?

.


----------



## Jesthar (May 16, 2011)

noushka05 said:


> Its flourishing everywhere EXCEPT on grouse moors.
> 
> Why do you think that is?
> 
> .


I think the point rona was trying to make is that peregrines are flourishing elsewhere and in general, but hen harriers are not, which indicates that whilst gamekeepers can be a problem (and a significant one in some grouse/pheasant areas) it is exceedingly likely they have wider problems than _just_ gamekeepers.


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

Jesthar said:


> I think the point rona was trying to make is that peregrines are flourishing elsewhere and in general, but hen harriers are not, which indicates that whilst gamekeepers can be a problem (and a significant one in some grouse/pheasant areas) it is exceedingly likely they have wider problems than _just_ gamekeepers.


I have already explained why grouse moors are a 'sink' for that particular species.

The Hen Harrier  some biology | Mark Avery

'


----------



## LinznMilly (Jun 24, 2011)

rona said:


> *Most don't even mention gamekeepers and those* that do, most say that gamekeepers are part of the problem
> 
> People really don't read what I write do they


That's my point. Of course most of your links aren't going to mention gamekeepers because you're looking for other reasons to explain the HH decline. If others do actually point the blame finger at gamekeepers* as well as* other factors, and I've missed them, then I apologise, but if I see post after post of links with a single description line for each, then yeah, I'm going to switch off, regardless who's posting it.

Re your Moorland Association link, that's frankly laughable. So England's smallest BOP (too small to take red grouse) is thriving amongst grouse moors. Really? :huh:

Let's look at how they compare:

Red Grouse:
| The Wildlife Trusts

Merlin:
| The Wildlife Trusts


----------



## porps (Jun 23, 2011)

rona said:


> Just odd that Gamekeepers were also blamed for the decline and struggles of the Peregrine (which as we know eats more birds) but now that bird is flourishing despite the fact that gamekeepers still exist.
> 
> How does that work then?


when a species manages to adapt and recover _despite_ human interference it shows just how resilient nature can be- i'm not really sure how that is an argument in favour of human interference, in fact it seems to be quite the opposite to me.


----------



## Jesthar (May 16, 2011)

Spellweaver said:


> It would indeed be lovely if people behaved like adults and discussed the salient issues rationally.
> 
> However, you are asking for the impossible when some of the main proponents on this forum of blood sports and its associated artificial management of natural areas have those who disagree with them on "ignore".
> 
> There's nothing wrong with ingoring those who speak against your opinion if you want to live in la-la-land and fool yourself into believing that everyone agrees with your viewpoint. However, this sort of childish behaviour does not make for scintillating adult debate, because all you do is post your opinion and think no-one disagrees with you, and don't even see - let alone reply to - anyone who doesn't. (nb - generic "you" not "you personally")


It cuts both ways - it also doesn't make for grown up debate when a relatively common reaction to anyone who dares ask 'but what about xyz' is " You must be pro-hunt/a blood sports fanatic/anti-wildlife/a climate change denier/Conservative fat cat/intellectually challenged/<insert appropriately themed barb here>."

And yes, I am also using the general 'you.' 

I don't post on half the wildlife threads I'd like to because I'd like to ask questions, but prefer not to be insulted if I do.



noushka05 said:


> I have already explained why grouse moors are a 'sink' for that particular species.
> 
> The Hen Harrier  some biology | Mark Avery
> 
> '


Sorry, noush, hadn't spotted that link before. Please don't take this the wrong way, but you post such a volume of copy and paste stuff I normally skim speed-read it, and so many links I don't follow them unless they look particularly interesting - not enough hours in the day, otherwise!


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

LinznMilly said:


> That's my point. Of course most of your links aren't going to mention gamekeepers because you're looking for other reasons to explain the HH decline. If others do actually point the blame finger at gamekeepers* as well as* other factors, and I've missed them, then I apologise, but if I see post after post of links with a single description line for each, then yeah, I'm going to switch off, regardless who's posting it.
> 
> Re your Moorland Association link, that's frankly laughable. So England's smallest BOP (too small to take red grouse) is thriving amongst grouse moors. Really? :huh:
> 
> ...


Most of them do. The Orkney ones came about because of someone elses post on here and I thought they were quite interesting. 
The Merlin one was to show that keepered ground can be of benefit to some species. 
Not once on this thread have I said that there is no problem with some land owners and Keepers. Just trying to point out that it's not the whole picture. If peregrines can flourish............There are keepers over most of the country not just grouse moors


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

Jesthar said:


> I think the point rona was trying to make is that peregrines are flourishing elsewhere and in general, but hen harriers are not, which indicates that whilst gamekeepers can be a problem (and a significant one in some grouse/pheasant areas) it is exceedingly likely they have wider problems than _just_ gamekeepers.


Precisely :thumbup:


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

porps said:


> when a species manages to adapt and recover _despite_ human interference it shows just how resilient nature can be- i'm not really sure how that is an argument in favour of human interference, in fact it seems to be quite the opposite to me.


 
Did I say anything about human interference?


----------



## porps (Jun 23, 2011)

rona said:


> Did I say anything about human interference?


what do you think gamekeeping is? the natural order of things?


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

The BTO seem to think that moorland management is the main issue. Which goes with what I've been saying about habitat 
BTO BirdFacts | Hen Harrier

That's done by landowners for grouse


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

porps said:


> what do you think gamekeeping is? the natural order of things?


But I haven't been talking about Gamekeepers per say everyone else is!!!

Deforestation is also "interfering"


----------



## porps (Jun 23, 2011)

rona said:


> But I haven't been talking about Gamekeepers per say everyone else is!!!
> 
> Deforestation is also "interfering"


you definately mentioned gamekeepers in the post i quoted. and yes, deforestation is obviously interference too. For the record, my first post in this thread was aimed at the original post, not you.


----------



## LinznMilly (Jun 24, 2011)

rona said:


> Most of them do.


That's not what you said in the post before. You said most of them DON'T mention gamekeepers and of those that do, most say they do play a part. Which if I've missed them, is what I'm apologising for,



> The Orkney ones came about because of someone elses post on here and I thought they were quite interesting.


Yup, noticed that one. Read Goblin's link, couldn't see the point in reading another which arrives at the same conclusion. 

Also read your RSPB one on the first page.

Haven't yet got round to reading the link about the deforestation in Scotland, but I will at some point.

Hen Harriers nesting in Young Forests/trees is nothing new to me (I believe, from my own research, that they prefer trees between 9 and 12 years old?), so haven't read that link.

Just finished reading the link about organophasphates - interesting read.

Haven't got time to read the one about pesticide poisoning yet as I'm exercising my right to a [rare] real life away from work and the interweb and am going to the flicks tonight :001_tt2: and I've got the dogs to walk and feed before then.



> The Merlin one was to show that keepered ground can be of benefit to some species.


Never once said they were useless/of no benefit to other species, but we're discussing the HH, not Merlin.



> Not once on this thread have I said that there is no problem with some land owners and Keepers. *Just trying to point out that it's not the whole picture*. If peregrines can flourish............There are keepers over most of the country not just grouse moors


No need to convince me of that, and I believe even Noushka says that there are other threats to the Harriers as well as gamekeepers, but there's no doubt at the Moorland Association link is patting itself on the back about the apparent success of one predatory bird, while there's controversy as to why another moorland visitor - the Harrier - is in decline. Harrier's big enough to take grouse, the Merlin isn't.

It's like a parent-child conversation where the child's been caught doing something naughty:
"We're not the bad guys! Honest! Look - we saved the Merlin"
"But what about the Harrier?"
"Errrrrrr......" :001_unsure:


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

LinznMilly said:


> That's not what you said in the post before. You said most of them DON'T mention gamekeepers and of those that do, most say they do play a part. Which if I've missed them, is what I'm apologising for,
> 
> Yup, noticed that one. Read Goblin's link, couldn't see the point in reading another which arrives at the same conclusion.
> 
> ...


Ok most do apart from the Orkney ones :001_tt2:

As several are a specific study of a subject, there's no reason to mention gamekeepers anyway. They aren't there to justify or vilify the Gamekeeper


----------



## LinznMilly (Jun 24, 2011)

rona said:


> Ok most do apart from the Orkney ones :001_tt2:
> 
> As several are a specific study of a subject, there's no reason to mention gamekeepers anyway. They aren't there to justify or vilify the Gamekeeper


Busy editing. Sorry. 

Didn't even realise that the quoted post was live


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

They didn't save the Merlin what are you on about?


----------



## LinznMilly (Jun 24, 2011)

rona said:


> They didn't save the Merlin what are you on about?


Just trying to inject some humour into this conversation to keep it light. Probably in bad taste, but that's what I thought of when I read the MA link.


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

How about this for a theory 

A lot of our upland ground nesting birds, the Hen Harrier being one such, are in decline
Upland Birds Action Plan

Could this be due to the decline in the gamekeeper and therefore predator control :laugh:

They do predator control at Langholm Moor 

Also, if you look at the bit about Merlins on that link, it says that they are starting to nest in trees. Could this be the reason that they are now doing ok?


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

Jesthar said:


> It cuts both ways - it also doesn't make for grown up debate when a relatively common reaction to anyone who dares ask 'but what about xyz' is " You must be pro-hunt/a blood sports fanatic/anti-wildlife/a climate change denier/Conservative fat cat/intellectually challenged/<insert appropriately themed barb here>."
> 
> And yes, I am also using the general 'you.'
> 
> ...


Of course I wont take it the wrong way you are quite right I do c&p quite a lot of stuff & I'm terrible for scanning long posts myself, I will try not to be so lazy in the future lol



rona said:


> Most of them do. The Orkney ones came about because of someone elses post on here and I thought they were quite interesting.
> The Merlin one was to show that keepered ground can be of benefit to some species.
> Not once on this thread have I said that there is no problem with some land owners and Keepers. Just trying to point out that it's not the whole picture. If peregrines can flourish............There are keepers over most of the country not just grouse moors


But its on driven grouse moors that raptor persecution is rife Rona.



rona said:


> Precisely :thumbup:


Guess you overlooked the link Jesthar quoted as to why persecution by grouse moors creates a sink so preventing the hen harrier colonising other habitat.



rona said:


> The BTO seem to think that moorland management is the main issue. Which goes with what I've been saying about habitat
> BTO BirdFacts | Hen Harrier
> 
> That's done by landowners for grouse


BTO: _The relationship between harrier and grouse and their keepers is a complex and contentious one, but harriers feed mainly on voles and pipits, which prefer grassland, good moor management for heather will exclude both the harrier and its prey. _

Moorland management: another reason driven grouse moors must be banned.



rona said:


> But I haven't been talking about Gamekeepers per say everyone else is!!!
> 
> Deforestation is also "interfering"


Correct me if I'm wrong, but on another of my threads weren't you defending grouse moors for 'deforesting our uplands?

Deforestation: Yet another reason to ban driven grouse moors.



rona said:


> How about this for a theory
> 
> A lot of our upland ground nesting birds, the Hen Harrier being one such, are in decline
> Upland Birds Action Plan
> ...


Oh look! Heres what your link says must be done to increase hen harrier population! _To eliminate persecution by gamekeepers, and improve habitat management._

and final reason driven grouse shooting must be banned. PERSECUTION.

The industry has proved in cannot regulate itself, it rejects licensing (on another of my threads, didn't you also reject the idea of licensing Rona? ) - now if it genuinely wanted to get rid of 'a few rogue keepers', why would it do that!?? They have had years to get their house in order & failed. They are killing Hen Harrier & other raptors with impunity, if the beautiful hen harrier is to have any chance of surviving, driven grouse shoots must be banned! Do you agree Rona?

.


----------



## LinznMilly (Jun 24, 2011)

rona said:


> How about this for a theory
> 
> A lot of our upland ground nesting birds, the Hen Harrier being one such, are in decline
> Upland Birds Action Plan
> ...


That link states time and again that persecution from gamekeepers is a reason behind the decline - certainly in predatory birds and _especially _the harrier.

Harriers have been known to nest in trees too, so if Merlin's success was due to tree nesting, why are the Harriers still in decline in the same area?

I'm not overly familiar with Langholm, or the Langholm trial so can't really comment on that. I know more about the Orkney trials.

It does give food for thought though. If the ground nesting predators are starting to nest in trees, is there something going on with the ground nest sites that's unfavourable to them and wasn't there before. :idea:

Worth looking into more.


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

LinznMilly said:


> That link states time and again that persecution from gamekeepers is a reason behind the decline - certainly in predatory birds and _especially _the harrier.
> 
> Harriers have been known to nest in trees too, so if Merlin's success was due to tree nesting, why are the Harriers still in decline in the same area?
> 
> ...


Yes a good percentage of the links I give go on about persecution, and although it mentioned grouse it didn't mention gamekeepers under HH as the persecutors  there are several other sections of society that would see certain birds of prey killed. Then there's been the egg collectors, lets not forget that when I was a child, this was a very popular hobby

Langholm has gamekeepers and this year have 11 breeding pairs so far

Bowland, the RSPB site has 2 though I think they do a little predator control, it can't be to the same level.

It will be interesting to see how they all get on.


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

rona said:


> Yes a good percentage of the links I give go on about persecution, and although it mentioned grouse it didn't mention gamekeepers under HH as the persecutors  there are several other sections of society that would see certain birds of prey killed. Then there's been the egg collectors, lets not forget that when I was a child, this was a very popular hobby
> 
> Langholm has gamekeepers and this year have 11 breeding pairs so far
> 
> ...


Well it cant possibly be gamekeepers then Other groups must be hiking up to the grouse moors to bump them off.

Taken from your BTO link>>>> _To eliminate *persecution by gamekeepers*, and improve habitat management.
_

,

.


----------



## LinznMilly (Jun 24, 2011)

rona said:


> Yes a good percentage of the links I give go on about persecution, and although it mentioned grouse it didn't mention gamekeepers under HH as the persecutors  there are several other sections of society that would see certain birds of prey killed. Then there's been the egg collectors, lets not forget that when I was a child, this was a very popular hobby
> 
> Langholm has gamekeepers and this year have 11 breeding pairs so far
> 
> ...


From your link:


> Hen Harrier is the most* intensively persecuted *of the UKs birds of prey. Once predating free-range fowl, earning its present name,* its effect on the number of grouse available to shoot is the cause of modern conflict* and threatens its survival in some parts of the UK.





> Peregrine breeding strongholds in the UK are the uplands of the north and west and rocky seacoasts. *Peregrines have suffered persecution from gamekeepers and landowners*, and been a target for egg collectors, but better legal protection and control of pesticides (which indirectly poisoned birds) have helped the population to recover considerably from a low in the 1960s. Some birds, particularly females and juveniles, move away from the uplands in autumn.


So if peregrines have been persecuted by gamekeepers and landowners, and the HH are suffering heavily from persecution, not really that much of an imagination stretch that the same gamekeepers and landowners killing the falcons are probably responsible for the harriers too, is it? Peregrines nest up high. Harriers presumably offer an easier target.


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

LinznMilly said:


> From your link:
> 
> So if peregrines have been persecuted by gamekeepers and landowners, and the HH are suffering heavily from persecution, not really that much of an imagination stretch that the same gamekeepers and landowners killing the falcons are probably responsible for the harriers too, is it? Peregrines nest up high. Harriers presumably offer an easier target.


I was being a little" facetious" 

Doesn't come across in print does it?


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

Scottish Gamekeepers Association News: GAMEKEEPER SPEAKS OF SUFFERING AFTER CASE BROUGHT BY CHARITY

Grouse moor licensing

A couple of interesting articles, one from the perspective of a gamekeeper, doing absolutely nothing wrong, and another about the view of licensing grouse moors. It's amazing how people assume these *wild* places are just there, they're not, they are managed, and if they are well managed, that includes a healthy level of all species.


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> Scottish Gamekeepers Association News: GAMEKEEPER SPEAKS OF SUFFERING AFTER CASE BROUGHT BY CHARITY
> 
> My heart bleeds. Put into perspective, the suffering he'll have experienced pales into insignificance when compared to the suffering he'll have inflicted on wild animals.
> 
> ...


I certainly don't assume anything about grouse moors! There is absolutely NOTHING *wild* about them - intensively managed to the point of degradation is what they are. No, there isnt a healthy level of 'all species' at all  The ONLY species that thrive on those moors are species which don't interfere with the grouse! The rest are indiscriminately persecuted as well you know.

.

,


----------



## cinnamontoast (Oct 24, 2010)

Jesthar said:


> It cuts both ways - it also doesn't make for grown up debate when a relatively common reaction to anyone who dares ask 'but what about xyz' is " You must be pro-hunt/a blood sports fanatic/anti-wildlife/a climate change denier/Conservative fat cat/intellectually challenged/<insert appropriately themed barb here>."
> 
> And yes, I am also using the general 'you.'


Same, must be pro-hunt because you argued for removing one particular animal from a particular situation. Debate seems not to be allowed sometimes if you don't slavishly follow and swallow what is said. I just give up on the threads that go like this. Neither side will ever switch sides (good, good, convictions and all that) but they do like to provoke-both sides are guilty!


----------



## Rafa (Jun 18, 2012)

I know nothing about Gamekeepers or grouse moors.

I do, however, through a friend, know a Gamekeeper and he told me that they set traps every year to catch magpies and crows and wring their necks.


----------



## cinnamontoast (Oct 24, 2010)

It seems to me, having lived somewhere for eleven years, that the numbers of particularly crows have dramatically increased. I'm now getting them on the waterfall which normally is the preserve of blackbirds, starlings, robins and other smaller birds. I have also noticed more thrushes than in recent years, a welcome return.


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

Sweety said:


> I know nothing about Gamekeepers or grouse moors.
> 
> I do, however, through a friend, know a Gamekeeper and he told me that they set traps every year to catch magpies and crows and wring their necks.


They are called Larsen Traps and I believe the RSPB use them occassionally to protect certain species from predation


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

cinnamontoast said:


> Same, must be pro-hunt because you argued for removing one particular animal from a particular situation. Debate seems not to be allowed sometimes if you don't slavishly follow and swallow what is said. I just give up on the threads that go like this. Neither side will ever switch sides (good, good, convictions and all that) but they do like to provoke-both sides are guilty!


One 'side' has peer reviewed research to support their case + people with empathy for wild animals. I see by your 'likes' you are on the 'other side' lol :arf:

.

.


----------



## Rafa (Jun 18, 2012)

rona said:


> They are called Larsen Traps and I believe the RSPB use them occassionally to protect certain species from predation


This is a Gamekeeper using them though, the case I was told about.

Apparently, the crows and magpies don't realise they can't take the young or eggs of the Gamebirds that somebody has deliberately put where they live.

They're needed, so that somebody can blow their heads off when they're all grown up.


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

Sweety said:


> I know nothing about Gamekeepers or grouse moors.
> 
> I do, however, through a friend, know a Gamekeeper and he told me that they set traps every year to catch magpies and crows and wring their necks.


Larsen traps are vile, I smash them open when I come across one. They are so inhumane they are banned across Europe.

Just take a look at this Sweety > Larsen Traps - A Cage Bird Box of Death! | Against Corvid Traps

.


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

Sweety said:


> This is a Gamekeeper using them though, the case I was told about.
> 
> Apparently, the crows and magpies don't realise they can't take the young or eggs of the Gamebirds that somebody has deliberately put where they live.
> 
> They're needed, so that somebody can blow their heads off when they're all grown up.


The link to the news article is about a defunct larsen trap, and a gamekeeper was prosecuted, he kept evidence over a number of years about the vandelism from tresspassers, who made it their sole aim to make sure they couldn't do his job.

Larsen traps are live capture for those wondering, which is what many anti's prescribe to.

It's not just crows and magpies that take gamebirds, it's foxes and badgers, although only rogue badgers if you subscribe to countryfile's propaganda.

And the next time you go walking in the countryside, and enjoy it, ask who pays for it? Many farmers allow shoots on their land, because they not only pay for it, but they maintain a good diversification of wildlife, and don't let one species thrive at the expense of another.


----------



## Rafa (Jun 18, 2012)

noushka05 said:


> Larsen traps are vile, I smash them open when I come across one. They are so inhumane they are banned across Europe.
> 
> Just take a look at this Sweety > Larsen Traps - A Cage Bird Box of Death! | Against Corvid Traps
> 
> .


That's just horrible, inexcusable.

People put the Gamebirds in their environment. Humans see potential sport, the crows see food for their young. Who is really to blame here? It isn't the birds who do what their instincts tell them to survive and feed their young.

When will the superior race, (Us ..... yes REALLY), learn to leave nature alone?

Nobody will ever justify to me trapping birds and killing them because that's what suits their ends.

All in the name of 'sport'. Disgusting, in my opinion.


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

Sweety said:


> This is a Gamekeeper using them though, the case I was told about.
> 
> Apparently, the crows and magpies don't realise they can't take the young or eggs of the Gamebirds that somebody has deliberately put where they live.
> 
> They're needed, so that somebody can blow their heads off when they're all grown up.


Both species are seen as a threat to many other bird species not just those reared by gamekeepers. Many people set up Larsen traps in their gardens too

http://www.rspb.org.uk/Images/Predator Report_tcm9-177905.pdf


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

Sweety said:


> That's just horrible, inexcusable.
> 
> People put the Gamebirds in their environment. Humans see potential sport, the crows see food for their young. Who is really to blame here? It isn't the birds who do what their instincts tell them to survive and feed their young.
> 
> ...


I take it you don't eat chicken then, and don't condone anyone eating chicken? Or any bird?


----------



## cinnamontoast (Oct 24, 2010)

noushka05 said:


> One 'side' has peer reviewed research to support their case + people with empathy for wild animals. I see by your 'likes' you are on the 'other side' lol :arf:


Another one of your charming assumptions. Think what you like, I couldn't care less because you know zero about me or what I do or don't do to help or hinder nature. Yes, yes, nasty horse owner must regularly pound across the countryside killing everything in sight OMG, I also have gun dogs, god help the wildlife round my way!


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

The RSPB: Magpie: Legal control methods


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

cinnamontoast said:


> Another one of your charming assumptions. Think what you like, I couldn't care less because you know zero about me or what I do or don't do to help or hinder nature. Yes, yes, nasty horse owner must regularly pound across the countryside killing everything in sight OMG, I also have gun dogs, god help the wildlife round my way!


Nah, one side has the back up of a has been drummer, who couldn't understand wildlife management if it were explained in simple jungle drum terms. I wouldn't waste your time, stick them on ignore!


----------



## Rafa (Jun 18, 2012)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> The link to the news article is about a defunct larsen trap, and a gamekeeper was prosecuted, he kept evidence over a number of years about the vandelism from tresspassers, who made it their sole aim to make sure they couldn't do his job.
> 
> Larsen traps are live capture for those wondering, which is what many anti's prescribe to.
> 
> ...


Who puts the Gamebirds there?


----------



## Rafa (Jun 18, 2012)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> I take it you don't eat chicken then, and don't condone anyone eating chicken? Or any bird?


No, I don't eat chicken or any other bird.

I have no control over what others eat.


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

rona said:


> Both species are seen as a threat to many other bird species not just those reared by gamekeepers. Many people set up Larsen traps in their gardens too
> 
> http://www.rspb.org.uk/Images/Predator Report_tcm9-177905.pdf


Don't forget gamekeepers kill predators to protect vested interests & kill them on an industrial scale and ,unlike conservation NGO's, killing is 1st choice not a last resort when humane alternatives have failed.

Don't care who uses them, Larsen traps are vile & should be banned - nation of animal lover we are not!

,

.


----------



## Rafa (Jun 18, 2012)

rona said:


> Both species are seen as a threat to many other bird species not just those reared by gamekeepers. Many people set up Larsen traps in their gardens too
> 
> http://www.rspb.org.uk/Images/Predator Report_tcm9-177905.pdf


Who are these "many" people who set up Larsen traps in their gardens?


----------



## cinnamontoast (Oct 24, 2010)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> Nah, one side has the back up of a has been drummer, who couldn't understand wildlife management if it were explained in simple jungle drum terms. I wouldn't waste your time, stick them on ignore!


No, I can't! Horse and Hound is down and I'm home alone, plus I'm enjoying the links. The Larsen one reads like a Daily Fail article, lots of exclamation marks and sensationalist language. We're doing a project on literacy at work and the theme, appropriately enough, is entrapment, the darker the better. Handy.


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

Sweety said:


> Who puts the Gamebirds there?


Depends how the shoot is run as to who actually puts them there. Some have wild bird shoots and put none down at all. Those would be the ones that need really good predator control


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

Sweety said:


> Who are these "many" people who set up Larsen traps in their gardens?


Well I've known several. Usually older people who love to see their garden birds, so they protect them


----------



## Rafa (Jun 18, 2012)

rona said:


> Depends how the shoot is run as to who actually puts them there. Some have wild bird shoots and put none down at all. Those would be the ones that need really good predator control


So who decides which birds take priority over the others?

The Gamebirds are protected and their predators are killed?

Oh yes, that's nature at her very best.


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

Sweety said:


> Who are these "many" people who set up Larsen traps in their gardens?


I know loads of people who use them round here.

So, do you shoot your own chicken, or do you rely on others to cull it?


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> I take it you don't eat chicken then, and don't condone anyone eating chicken? Or any bird?


I know how you pride yourself on being an ethical consumer SL - you'd better have a read of this > http://www.ethicalconsumer.org/portals/0/downloads/turn your back on grouse report v2.pdf

Turn your back on Grouse.

.


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

Sweety said:


> So who decides which birds take priority over the others?
> 
> The Gamebirds are protected and their predators are killed?
> 
> Oh yes, that's nature at her very best.


Um, no, gamebird numbers are monitored, and the better gamekeepers these days, divert feeding, they do put out meat for raptors.

I mean, it can't be any worse than the RSPB who put out dead white rats in an attempt to minimise their absolute disastrous attempts at running a grouse moor!

I live next to several shoots, and see a variety of raptors and predators, in healthy numbers, I see loads of wildlife, if any proof were needed that actually, good conservation and wildlife management is already happening, well then come and have a cuppa!


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

rona said:


> Well I've known several. Usually older people who love to see their garden birds, so they protect them


Perhaps you could show these people the robust BTO study on avian predators & grey squirrels which concluded>>

This is a high quality study based on unique long-term and large-scale datasets. Despite the limitations noted below (notes to editors) this robust study found that, for the majority of the songbird species examined, there is no evidence that increases in common avian predators and grey squirrels are associated with large-scale depression of prey abundance or population declines. It is also clear that, for the majority of declining species with unfavourable conservation status population, declines appear to be due to factors other than predation.

Other studies have suggested that over the period of this study, songbird population changes have been influenced by a range of other factors, most notably changes in farmland and woodland management.


----------



## Rafa (Jun 18, 2012)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> I know loads of people who use them round here.
> 
> So, do you shoot your own chicken, or do you rely on others to cull it?


Well, once again, I don't eat chicken, so why would I shoot one?

I find it a little baffling that I have read all of your posts, where you will speak at length about all the health tests which are mandatory, in your opinion, for anyone thinking of breeding, so that any resulting pups are born with the very best chance of being healthy. I agree with you on that.

I have also read your posts where you have said you really see nothing wrong in a fox being torn apart by hounds, (after all, that fox could be run over by a car, so that makes it right), and now I see you supporting the random killing of birds to protect Gamebirds, so that someone can kill them several weeks down the line.

Why does the life of any animal take precedence over the life of another animal in your opinion? I really would like to know.

You're obviously pro hunting. Why is a dog more valuable than a fox?


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

Sweety said:


> So who decides which birds take priority over the others?
> 
> The Gamebirds are protected and their predators are killed?
> 
> Oh yes, that's nature at her very best.


I can't read minds so I can't answer that.

Who decides that a raptor is more important than a fox? 

I don't suppose you can answer that either!


----------



## lennythecloud (Aug 5, 2011)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> Larsen traps are live capture for those wondering, which is what many anti's prescribe to.


I think most 'anti's' who care about welfare do not. With what we now know about the exceptional intelligence and awareness of corvids their continued use is absolutely barbaric.

Unfortunately those that promote heavy 'control' of predatory species seem to view nature like a Disney film with bad guys and good guys. Nature is red in tooth and claw and that's NORMAL. Badgers, foxes, magpies etc predating on other species does not bother me one bit - it's what they do and have been doing for thousands of years. Although some management may be needed in the modern world, I would say much of the predator control in the countryside occurs purely because their villainous face is not wanted or to prop up an unhealthy ecosystem - not because of any sound ecological reason.


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

Sweety said:


> Well, once again, I don't eat chicken, so why would I shoot one?
> 
> I find it a little baffling that I have read all of your posts, where you will speak at length about all the health tests which are mandatory, in your opinion, for anyone thinking of breeding, so that any resulting pups are born with the very best chance of being healthy. I agree with you on that.
> 
> ...


Because a dog has a job, simple really.

You obviously have negative carbon impact, I doubt if you even drive anywhere.

Um, you seem to be a bit out of date, and I ain't even gonna try to educate you as I feel it will be a waste of my time, but the shooting season differs, because being fair people, we wouldn't want to shoot game too young. After all, all those who buy their chickens at supermarkets would hate to realise those birds had never seen the light of day and were maybe 8 weeks old at best before being killed.


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

lennythecloud said:


> I think most 'anti's' who care about welfare do not. With what we now know about the exceptional intelligence and awareness of corvids their continued use is absolutely barbaric.
> 
> Unfortunately those that promote heavy 'control' of predatory species seem to view nature like a Disney film with bad guys and good guys. Nature is red in tooth and claw and that's NORMAL. Badgers, foxes, magpies etc predating on other species does not bother me one bit - it's what they do and have been doing for thousands of years. Although some management may be needed in the modern world, I would say much of the predator control in the countryside occurs purely because their villainous face is not wanted or to prop up an unhealthy ecosystem - not because of any sound ecological reason.


I love my crows. They fly down to greet Alfie and myself every single day and share his biscuits


----------



## Rafa (Jun 18, 2012)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> Because a dog has a job, simple really.
> 
> You obviously have negative carbon impact, I doubt if you even drive anywhere.
> 
> Um, you seem to be a bit out of date, and I ain't even gonna try to educate you as I feel it will be a waste of my time, but the shooting season differs, because being fair people, we wouldn't want to shoot game too young. After all, all those who buy their chickens at supermarkets would hate to realise those birds had never seen the light of day and were maybe 8 weeks old at best before being killed.


A dog has a job? You mean what it was bred to do naturally? Nature?

Why do you think crows and magpies do what they do?

I'm not out of date. I care a lot about the horrors being inflicted on wildlife by those who have an agenda of their own.

Thank goodness you don't want to shoot game too young, because you're fair.

Thank goodness for kindhearted people like you .......... whatever would wildlife do without you?

I don't need you to educate me and I don't believe anyone will ever educate you. You have such double standards, they border on the incredible.


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

Sweety said:


> A dog has a job? You mean what it was bred to do naturally? Nature?
> 
> Why do you think crows and magpies do what they do?
> 
> ...


So if crows and magpies are so succesful, they outgrow their natural successive rate, who do you think controls them?

Now go eat your soya, most likely come from a third world country where the wildlife has been decimated so you can enjoy your tea, have a good 'un!


----------



## Rafa (Jun 18, 2012)

rona said:


> I can't read minds so I can't answer that.
> 
> Who decides that a raptor is more important than a fox?
> 
> I don't suppose you can answer that either!


What raptor will kill a fox?


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

Sweety said:


> What raptor will kill a fox?


WHAT????


----------



## Rafa (Jun 18, 2012)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> So if crows and magpies are so succesful, they outgrow their natural successive rate, who do you think controls them?
> 
> Now go eat your soya, most likely come from a third world country where the wildlife has been decimated so you can enjoy your tea, have a good 'un!


Who grants themselves the right to 'control them'? People like you.

By the way, I would never eat soya.

You could actually come 'out of the closet' and admit that you're pro blood sports, hold the right to decide what lives and what dies, and will muck about with whatever you choose to fashion the Countryside into what you would like to see, but you won't.

Enjoy your 'tea' too.

I have no respect for you, either as someone who really cares, or as a breeder.

Your pups, which you may or may not breed, because you can only produce the very, very best, have far, far more value over anything which God or nature may have produced.


----------



## lennythecloud (Aug 5, 2011)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> Um, you seem to be a bit out of date, and I ain't even gonna try to educate you as I feel it will be a waste of my time, but the shooting season differs, because being fair people, we wouldn't want to shoot game too young. After all, all those who buy their chickens at supermarkets would hate to realise those birds had never seen the light of day and were maybe 8 weeks old at best before being killed.


I don't get it. Why are you trying to be self righteous when you know full well that most of the birds that you so very fairly shoot for sport (though I'm pretty sure if 8 week old game birds could fly well they'd be gunned down too) come from farms like this:

[youtube_browser]8eHEVcOQsSk[/youtube_browser]



Sleeping_Lion said:


> So if crows and magpies are so succesful, they outgrow their natural successive rate, who do you think controls them?


Erm food availability, predation, territory, adverse weather, disease etc Y'know all the things that have always controlled them. The skies were not black with crows before the human population exploded....



Sleeping_Lion said:


> Now go eat your soya, most likely come from a third world country where the wildlife has been decimated so you can enjoy your tea, have a good 'un!


You have a short memory. Remember the multiple threads where I pointed out to you that 85% of soy grown goes to feed farmed animals (including pheasants)? No? Lets not go through it again....


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> So if crows and magpies are so succesful, they outgrow their natural successive rate, who do you think controls them?
> 
> Now go eat your soya, most likely come from a third world country where the wildlife has been decimated so you can enjoy your tea, have a good 'un!


You really are completely closed minded SL. As has been pointed out to you, must be a thousand times now lol, most of the soya produced goes to feed livestock.

.

.


----------



## porps (Jun 23, 2011)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> And the next time you go walking in the countryside, and enjoy it, ask who pays for it?


Good point. We all know that before the invention of money there was no countryside at all.



Sleeping_Lion said:


> I wouldn't waste your time, stick them on ignore!


If they dont agree with you, put your fingers in your ears, shout LALALALA as loud as you can and hope they go away...

You're like everything i hate about the human race all rolled up into one person. Sure hope you get to feel what it's like to be hunted one day.


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

porps said:


> Good point. We all know that before the invention of money there was no countryside at all.
> 
> If they dont agree with you, put your fingers in your ears, shout LALALALA as loud as you can and hope they go away...
> 
> You're like everything i hate about the human race all rolled up into one person. Sure hope you get to feel what it's like to be hunted one day.


People of that mindset are incapable of empathising with wild animals, they are incapable of imagining the terror and the pain of the hunted animal. Wild animals are just 'things' to them.

.


----------



## Jesthar (May 16, 2011)

*sigh* And once again, my inclination to bother with these threads takes a nosedive.


----------



## porps (Jun 23, 2011)

Jesthar said:


> *sigh* And once again, my inclination to bother with these threads takes a nosedive.


sorry, i just get so dissapointed with the human race when i read SLs posts. :mad2:


----------



## cinnamontoast (Oct 24, 2010)

porps said:


> Good point. We all know that before the invention of money there was no countryside at all.
> 
> If they dont agree with you, put your fingers in your ears, shout LALALALA as loud as you can and hope they go away...
> 
> You're like everything i hate about the human race all rolled up into one person. Sure hope you get to feel what it's like to be hunted one day.


Wow, which side are you talking about?! Or you could shout ever more loudly, post another fifty links, whether they're decent sources or not, and then get massively over the top and say outrageous statements as above. There's no need to be so personal and when people post such dramatic rubbish, I'm afraid they lose all respect. You must be a terrible person also to wish such a thing on someone, just as bad as those you despise. You deserve red rep, which I never ever give.


----------



## LinznMilly (Jun 24, 2011)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> Nah, one side has the back up of a has been drummer, who couldn't understand wildlife management if it were explained in simple jungle drum terms. *I wouldn't waste your time, stick them on ignore*!


How are you supposed to learn anything if you only listen to your own side? 

I have never in my life, learned anything from any man who agreed with me. (Dudley Field Malone).



rona said:


> Well I've known several. Usually older people who love to see their garden birds, so they protect them


Oh, so that makes it all right then? From what I've read (and I've read links on both sides) they're mainly used by gamekeepers. Their use in private gardens is controversial at best as there's no evidence that the corvids are affecting garden bird numbers. I also believe that they have to prove they've despatched/disposed of the caught birds humanely?



rona said:


> I can't read minds so I can't answer that.
> *
> Who decides that a raptor is more important than a fox*?
> 
> I don't suppose you can answer that either!


Anyone with any degree of sense would see that they both have their own parts in the natural population control of prey species and the killing of either species is abhorrent. Neither is more important than the other. Seen an urban fox only last night walking the mutts. Luckily they were on their lead and the fox was able to go about his business unmolested.



Sweety said:


> A dog has a job? You mean what it was bred to do naturally? Nature?
> 
> Why do you think crows and magpies do what they do?
> 
> ...


A tradition going on for hundreds - if not thousands - of years, and _we're _the ones out of date :lol: :lol: :lol:


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

cinnamontoast said:


> Wow, which side are you talking about?! Or you could shout ever more loudly, post another fifty links, whether they're decent sources or not, and then get massively over the top and say outrageous statements as above. There's no need to be so personal and when people post such dramatic rubbish, I'm afraid they lose all respect. You must be a terrible person also to wish such a thing on someone, just as bad as those you despise. You deserve red rep, which I never ever give.


Ah don't worry about it, some people like to remain ignorant of the facts, I mean, who actually pays for predator control so that they can enjoy seeing an abundance of various species? Even the RSPB kill *some* predators, they just don't publicise it, because the donating public would be horrified.


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

LinznMilly said:


> How are you supposed to learn anything if you only listen to your own side?
> 
> I have never in my life, learned anything from any man who agreed with me. (Dudley Field Malone).
> 
> ...


Because no matter how much you debate with some folk, it boils down to one thing, they don't like to see fluffy creatures die, then they pop off down the local supermarket and buy their two for a fiver chickens without a second thought. It starts in your own life, and quite frankly, I'm more than happy with how I live, where I source my food from, that I make sure I live as ethically as possible, and support ethical practices.

I live next to several grouse moors, we may not have hen harriers on there, yet, that I know of, but we do have great levels of raptor species around, only yesterday I was sat with a work colleague having a cuppa in the garden, after collecting my van from a service, and we saw a young buzzard wheeling overhead. I regularly see kestrels and sparrowhawks as well.

Like it or not, shooting estates provide a huge income and are an important part of general management of the land and wildlife, and they already contribute enough towards the economy without being further taxed. Last year there was a huge amount of work went on a local grouse moor to cut back and renew the heather, it's made a huge difference in wildlife this year, much higher numbers of ground nesting birds of all species. And yes, some of those will be grouse, that will end up being shot in just over a month, but many species like lapwings, curlews, oyster catchers and smaller species like meadow larks etc have all benefited. None of that would have happened without careful management including predator control.


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

porps said:


> sorry, i just get so dissapointed with the human race when i read SLs posts. :mad2:


Simple answer then, don't read my posts.


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

LinznMilly said:


> How are you supposed to learn anything if you only listen to your own side?
> 
> I have never in my life, learned anything from any man who agreed with me. (Dudley Field Malone).
> 
> ...


I'm giving information and personal experience not opinion. If others did the same and we may have decent conversation.


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

cinnamontoast said:


> Wow, which side are you talking about?! Or you could shout ever more loudly, post another fifty links, whether they're decent sources or not, and then get massively over the top and say outrageous statements as above. There's no need to be so personal and when people post such dramatic rubbish, I'm afraid they lose all respect. You must be a terrible person also to wish such a thing on someone, just as bad as those you despise. You deserve red rep, which I never ever give.


I'm sure Porps will correct me if im wronG, but I think you have misunderstood what they mean, they don't wish to see SL hunted down, just to 'feel' what its like to be hunted, so SL can know how the animals feel.



Sleeping_Lion said:


> Ah don't worry about it, some people like to remain ignorant of the facts, I mean, who actually pays for predator control so that they can enjoy seeing an abundance of various species? Even the RSPB kill *some* predators, they just don't publicise it, because the donating public would be horrified.


Landowners receive heavy subsidies from taxpayers! and I'm pretty sure the majority expect these landowners to care for nature on their land! But they are not, the State of Nature report proves they aren't!

The RSPB, kill a small number of common species to protect rare & vulnerable species ONLY after studies prove it necessary.

_ That the seriousness of the problem has been established;
That non-lethal measures have been assessed and found not to be practicable;
That killing is an effective way of addressing the problem;
That killing will not have an adverse impact on the conservation status of the target or other non-target species.
_

They do not go around INDESCRIMINATELY killing species on an industrial scale to protect vested interests.

.


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> Because no matter how much you debate with some folk, it boils down to one thing, they don't like to see fluffy creatures die, then they pop off down the local supermarket and buy their two for a fiver chickens without a second thought. It starts in your own life, and quite frankly, I'm more than happy with how I live, where I source my food from, that I make sure I live as ethically as possible, and support ethical practices.
> 
> If you support grouse shooting you most certainly do not 'make sure you live as ethically as possible' or support ethical practises!
> 
> ...


Any benefits grouse moors bring are vastly outweighed by the negatives SL - ban them!

Arguments to ban driven grouse shooting >> Banning driven grouse shooting - a summary of the issues | Mark Avery

◾the dramatic population-scale impacts that criminal activity associated with grouse shooting has on protected wildlife such as the Hen Harrier

◾the unpleasant scale of legal killing of foxes, stoats, mountain hares, crows etc associated with grouse shooting

◾the damage to blanket bogs from 'over-enthusiastic' burning

◾the amount of public money, your taxes, that prop up this land use

◾the landscape impacts of intensive heather-burning, building tracks, car parks and grouse butts for grouse shooters

◾the carbon impacts of intensive moorland management for grouse shooting

◾increased risk of flooding through intensive grouse moor management

◾increased discolouration of water, increasing water bills, through intensive grouse moor management

◾the human health impacts of medical residues and lead levels that may be found in grouse meat

◾restrictions of access to open moorland because of grouse shooting

◾killing wildlife is wrong

◾eating wildlife is wrong


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Jesthar said:


> Or, perhaps we can all play like adults, agree that no _one_ factor is uniquely and wholly responsible for the decline of any raptor, and discuss the issues _rationally_ even when we don't necessarily agree with the others viewpoint?





Spellweaver said:


> It would indeed be lovely if people behaved like adults and discussed the salient issues rationally.
> 
> However, you are asking for the impossible when some of the main proponents on this forum of blood sports and its associated artificial management of natural areas have those who disagree with them on "ignore".
> 
> There's nothing wrong with ingoring those who speak against your opinion if you want to live in la-la-land and fool yourself into believing that everyone agrees with your viewpoint. However, this sort of childish behaviour does not make for scintillating adult debate, because all you do is post your opinion and think no-one disagrees with you, and don't even see - let alone reply to - anyone who doesn't. (nb - generic "you" not "you personally")





Sleeping_Lion said:


> I wouldn't waste your time, stick them on ignore!


And there you have it, Jesthar. What a wonderful example of what I meant. Don't waste your time debating, put people on ignore instead. How can you have a rational and reasoned debate when one side of the debate is as childish as this?

Sad, really.


----------



## LinznMilly (Jun 24, 2011)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> Because no matter how much you debate with some folk, it boils down to one thing, they don't like to see fluffy creatures die, then they pop off down the local supermarket and buy their two for a fiver chickens without a second thought. It starts in your own life, and quite frankly, I'm more than happy with how I live, where I source my food from, that I make sure I live as ethically as possible, and support ethical practices.


Wouldn't exactly call the Hen Harrier fluffy :001_tt2: Unless it was an irony. It's like calling them and other raptors birdies. It just doesn't do them justice  



Sleeping_Lion said:


> I live next to several grouse moors, we may not have hen harriers on there, yet, that I know of, but we do have great levels of raptor species around, only yesterday I was sat with a work colleague having a cuppa in the garden, after collecting my van from a service, and we saw a young buzzard wheeling overhead. * I regularly see kestrels and sparrowhawks as well. *


So do I, and I don't live next to any grouse moors, thankfully. Neither of those species need grouse moors to survive so I fail to see your point there.

https://www.rspb.org.uk/wildlife/birdguide/name/k/kestrel/
https://www.rspb.org.uk/wildlife/birdguide/name/s/sparrowhawk/index.aspx

And, why am I not surprised that you see sparrow hawks and kestrels regularly? They're too small to take red grouse. Even a female sparrow hawk will take prey only as big as a pigeon (half the average weight of a red grouse):

| The Wildlife Trusts

Buzzards don't need grouse moors to survive, either, and, once again, they take small birds, mammals and carrion:
| The Wildlife Trusts
The RSPB: Buzzard

No threat to the grouse, so it's not surprising that you seen one.



Sleeping_Lion said:


> Like it or not, shooting estates provide a huge income and are an important part of general management of the land and wildlife, and they already contribute enough towards the economy without being further taxed. Last year there was a huge amount of work went on a local grouse moor to cut back and renew the heather, it's made a huge difference in wildlife this year, much higher numbers of ground nesting birds of all species. And yes, some of those will be grouse, that will end up being shot in just over a month, but many species like lapwings, curlews, oyster catchers and smaller species like meadow larks etc have all benefited. None of that would have happened without careful management including predator control.


So ... are you saying that gamekeepers _are _killing Hen Harriers?


----------



## LinznMilly (Jun 24, 2011)

rona said:


> I'm giving information and personal experience not opinion. If others did the same and we may have decent conversation.


Opinion's going to feature in any conversation.  Otherwise it would be nothing more than a list of facts and experiences. Opinions are the heart of debate.

Now if you were to say you're giving information and personal experience, not name-calling, point-scoring, one-upmanship etc then I'd agree.


----------



## cinnamontoast (Oct 24, 2010)

Texas cheerleader turned extreme hunting enthusiast taking heat for big game Facebook photos | In the Greenroom - Fox & Friends | Fox News

Now that, I will take a big stand against.


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

cinnamontoast said:


> Texas cheerleader turned extreme hunting enthusiast taking heat for big game Facebook photos | In the Greenroom - Fox & Friends | Fox News
> 
> Now that, I will take a big stand against.


I think she's sick and agree that she should be banned from killing wild animals and boasting about it online.

But to me, there is no difference in her shooting large animals and boasting about it online, and people shooting birds or hunting foxes in this country and being proud of it on here.

The metality is the same no matter what species of animal is killed for so-called "sport".

And oh, look - even their excuses are the same. This is how she justifies her shooting:

_'Controlling the male lion population is important within large fenced areas like these,' Jones writes. 'Funds from a hunt like this goes partially to the government for permits but also to the farm owner as an incentive to keep and raise lions on their property._
Texas cheerleader turned extreme hunting enthusiast taking heat for big game Facebook photos | In the Greenroom - Fox & Friends | Fox News

Now, how many times have I read that kind of spurious reasoning in order to justify a penchant for blood sports on here before?  There are several examples on this very thread.


----------



## LinznMilly (Jun 24, 2011)

cinnamontoast said:


> Texas cheerleader turned extreme hunting enthusiast taking heat for big game Facebook photos | In the Greenroom - Fox & Friends | Fox News
> 
> Now that, I will take a big stand against.


So ... what's the difference between her killing African "big game", and gamekeepers (etc) killing our predators here? She seems to be one girl, compared to the groups here who go on shoots.

They're both barbaric, they're both outdated "sports" and they both deserve to be banned.


----------



## lennythecloud (Aug 5, 2011)

cinnamontoast said:


> Texas cheerleader turned extreme hunting enthusiast taking heat for big game Facebook photos | In the Greenroom - Fox & Friends | Fox News
> 
> Now that, I will take a big stand against.


So what's the big difference between that and this? -

Having a pheasant break? Pippa poses with 50 dead birds on shooting trip in Scotland | Mail Online


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

LinznMilly said:


> Wouldn't exactly call the Hen Harrier fluffy :001_tt2: Unless it was an irony. It's like calling them and other raptors birdies. It just doesn't do them justice
> 
> So do I, and I don't live next to any grouse moors, thankfully. Neither of those species need grouse moors to survive so I fail to see your point there.
> 
> ...


Both kestrels and sparrow hawks are big enough to take grouse chicks, so having a healthy, even thriving population of raptors locally, shows there are gamekeepers here who aren't out to kill every predator that conflicts with their livelihood. And just for info, I did say I hadn't seen any hen harriers, and to be perfectly honest, if there are any on the moors locally, I would prefer not to know, any mention of rare birds and the place is over run with people with binoculars and large cameras. And actually, kestrels are in decline in some areas, so having a burgeoning population of them in the heart of shooting country pretty much shows the way the land is managed is providing the right sort of balance to allow all the wildlife to thrive, and that is the whole point of shooting, everyone assumes it's still how it was in the Victorian era and for the vast majority of shoots, it simply isn't like that at all.

We also have a good population of foxes and badgers locally, not so many badgers, which is a good thing, because of the abundance of ground nesting birds. It wouldn't do to have one of those rogue badgers teaching the rest how to eat chicks and eggs!


----------



## Goblin (Jun 21, 2011)

When humanity doesn't kill animals for food, encroach habitats for living space and lives in a completely nature friendly way I'd agree. Then again nobody I know does that and no civilized society has ever achieved "oneness with nature". How many people keep cats which kill native birds? How many gardeners disrupt the "natural order"? How many who are so determined to push their morals on others in this thread support other forms of cruelty by claiming "it's a minority"? All I see is double standards.

We all have to decide our own moral stance on things. Change happens by education, not dictating what others should do. I don't see much of that.


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

LinznMilly said:


> Opinion's going to feature in any conversation.  Otherwise it would be nothing more than a list of facts and experiences. Opinions are the heart of debate.
> 
> Now if you were to say you're giving information and personal experience, not name-calling, point-scoring, one-upmanship etc then I'd agree.


You can have a conversation without opinion 

I'm not arrogant enough to think anyone would be interested in my opinion, but when I see half truths and down right fabrication then I try and redress the balance. That's not necessarily saying I disagree with the sentiment just the way it's being delivered and the omittance of certain facts.

I know other peoples personal experiences of gamekeepers will be different from mine but I have known quite a few and apart from two brothers, who were also terrier men for the hunt, they have all been concerned about the wider diversification on the land they care for.

On the other hand, I have unfortunately had quite a few experiences of "farmers" who care little about anything other than money. Having said that, my experience is that the old moneyed farmer that passes his land down to the next generation, as a general rule in this area actually cares deeply about what they are passing on and the legacy they are leaving. They no longer have the constraints of worrying where the next penny is coming from and can put their minds to higher achievements like conservation 

There, that's a lot of writing without one opinion, a little supposition maybe but not opinion 

PS. I don't do name calling etc..................


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> Both kestrels and sparrow hawks are big enough to take grouse chicks, so having a healthy, even thriving population of raptors locally, shows there are gamekeepers here who aren't out to kill every predator that conflicts with their livelihood. And just for info, I did say I hadn't seen any hen harriers, and to be perfectly honest, if there are any on the moors locally, I would prefer not to know, any mention of rare birds and the place is over run with people with binoculars and large cameras. And actually, kestrels are in decline in some areas, so having a burgeoning population of them in the heart of shooting country pretty much shows the way the land is managed is providing the right sort of balance to allow all the wildlife to thrive, and that is the whole point of shooting, everyone assumes it's still how it was in the Victorian era and for the vast majority of shoots, it simply isn't like that at all.
> 
> We also have a good population of foxes and badgers locally, not so many badgers, which is a good thing, because of the abundance of ground nesting birds. It wouldn't do to have one of those rogue badgers teaching the rest how to eat chicks and eggs!


Kestrel pose little threat to grouse, which is why you like them and all the evidence proves most species of raptor are NOT thriving on grouse moors - this (along with the mountain range of peer reviewed research) shows that gamekeepers are EVEN killing the PROTECTED SPECIES that *conflict with their livelihood*

How appalling that badger will actually take chicks & eggs to survive Those nestlings must be protected from predators at all cost! until they are old enough to be used as living targets for individuals that takes great pleasure in killing and maiming animals! - I get it

.

.


----------



## LinznMilly (Jun 24, 2011)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> Both kestrels and sparrow hawks are big enough to take grouse chicks, so having a healthy, even thriving population of raptors locally, shows there are gamekeepers here who aren't out to kill every predator that conflicts with their livelihood. And just for info, I did say I hadn't seen any hen harriers, and to be perfectly honest, if there are any on the moors locally, I would prefer not to know, any mention of rare birds and the place is over run with people with binoculars and large cameras. And actually, kestrels are in decline in some areas, so having a burgeoning population of them in the heart of shooting country pretty much shows the way the land is managed is providing the right sort of balance to allow all the wildlife to thrive, and that is the whole point of shooting, everyone assumes it's still how it was in the Victorian era and for the vast majority of shoots, it simply isn't like that at all.


OK, so enlighten us: How is the shooting of today different from the shooting of the Victorian era?

I can see how the hunting style of the kestrel means it could take grouse chicks, but why would they when there'll be plenty of vole around?

| The Wildlife Trusts

Of course, if they see an opportunity, they'll take it, but unless there's a shortage of vole ...



> We also have a good population of foxes and badgers locally, not so many badgers, which is a good thing, because of the abundance of ground nesting birds. * It wouldn't do to have one of those rogue badgers teaching the rest how to eat chicks and eggs*!


Andddd .... _There _you go! You just have to get a dig in! You really do let yourself down at times, SL :nonod:



rona said:


> You can have a conversation without opinion
> 
> I'm not arrogant enough to think anyone would be interested in my opinion, but when I see half truths and down right fabrication then I try and redress the balance. That's not necessarily saying I disagree with the sentiment just the way it's being delivered and the omittance of certain facts.
> 
> ...


"Farmers" in quotation marks is a form of opinion. :001_tt2: Might not be said, but your _opinion _is implied. 

Never said you did call names.


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

LinznMilly said:


> "Farmers" in quotation marks is a form of opinion. :001_tt2: Might not be said, but your _opinion _is implied.
> 
> Never said you did call names.


Then you like others are putting your own slant on my posts rather than reading what I've actually said.


----------



## LinznMilly (Jun 24, 2011)

rona said:


> Then you like others are putting your own slant on my posts rather than reading what I've actually said.


No, I read what you wrote, but by using quotation marks, you are making your opinion of those farmers, blatantly obvious, even if you're not actually saying it. If you were stating fact, you'd say "I know farmers who are only in it for the money". That is factual. The quotation marks makes the difference.

Unless, of course, your opinion is that they're fantastic farmers and give the others a bad name ... but somehow, I doubt that.


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

LinznMilly said:


> No, I read what you wrote, but by using quotation marks, you are making your opinion of those farmers, blatantly obvious, even if you're not actually saying it. If you were stating fact, you'd say "I know farmers who are only in it for the money". That is factual. The quotation marks makes the difference.
> 
> Unless, of course, your opinion is that they're fantastic farmers and give the others a bad name ... but somehow, I doubt that.


I know many farmers and was one myself. Sorry if my quotation marks threw you. Long time since I was at school and haven't had much use for the written word since then :001_tt2:

I'm intrigued to know what it is you think I was inferring?


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

rona said:


> You can have a conversation without opinion
> 
> I'm not arrogant enough to think anyone would be interested in my opinion, but when I see half truths and down right fabrication then I try and redress the balance. That's not necessarily saying I disagree with the sentiment just the way it's being delivered and the omittance of certain facts.
> 
> ...


Besides SL's posts which are full of them, just where are these half truths & fabrications that you are redressing the balance of? Because whatever you have posted cannot possibly deflect from the FACT that driven grouse shoots are having a serious impact on hen harrier populations & other raptor species - it has been proven over & over & over again.

No you don't name call, you prefer to make up threads so you can have a dig at people or the content of their threads lol

.


----------



## porps (Jun 23, 2011)

cinnamontoast said:


> You deserve red rep, which I never ever give.


Whew thank goodness for that! i dont know how i would ever manage to cope if i received a red rep.



Sleeping_Lion said:


> Simple answer then, don't read my posts.


'just ignore them if they disagree' isnt my chosen method of conversation, debate or argument. Plus i would still ended up seeing your posts in other peoples quotes anyway if i was to put you on ignore so there doesnt seem much point.



cinnamontoast said:


> Texas cheerleader turned extreme hunting enthusiast taking heat for big game Facebook photos | In the Greenroom - Fox & Friends | Fox News
> 
> Now that, I will take a big stand against.


And you should, it's horrible.. but no different to hunting birds, or foxes, or anything else for "sport". Or if it is different, why is it? i honestly dont get it at all.


----------



## Margelli (Jun 23, 2014)

Oh no, I wonder how nature coped without our interference? 

Naturally (I.e before we came into existence and spread like mould on the cheese you left in the back of the fridge) we would lose one to five species a year (a natural 'background' extinction). 

Now, because of us, they think 30 to 50 percent of current plant/animal species threaten to go extinct by mid-century. (And by 'they', I mean the Center for Biological Diversity, give 'em a quick google and a look through, it's very interesting.)


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

Margelli said:


> Oh no, I wonder how nature coped without our interference?
> 
> Naturally (I.e before we came into existence and spread like mould on the cheese you left in the back of the fridge) we would lose one to five species a year (a natural 'background' extinction).
> 
> Now, because of us, they think 30 to 50 percent of current plant/animal species threaten to go extinct by mid-century. (And by 'they', I mean the Center for Biological Diversity, give 'em a quick google and a look through, it's very interesting.)


I tell you what, you move out of England first, I promise to follow


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> I tell you what, you move out of England first, I promise to follow


Easier still why not just stop persecuting wildlife

.

.


----------



## Margelli (Jun 23, 2014)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> I tell you what, you move out of England first, I promise to follow


So when are you going to pack your bags then? You assume that I live in England at all? 

Also, please look up the description of the word 'Troglodyte' in future.


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

Margelli said:


> So when are you going to pack your bags then? You assume that I live in England at all?
> 
> Also, please look up the description of the word 'Troglodyte' in future.


You assume I don't already know the meaning of the word Troglodyte?


----------



## Rafa (Jun 18, 2012)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> You assume I don't already know the meaning of the word Troglodyte?


Is a Troglodyte something you can shoot?


----------



## Margelli (Jun 23, 2014)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> You assume I don't already know the meaning of the word Troglodyte?


You seem to be displaying it quite clearly actually.

Is it comfortable sat there with your fingers shoved in your ears like that? :lol:


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

Sweety said:


> Is a Troglodyte something you can shoot?


I don't shoot, some might say I couldn't be trusted with a gun, I might be inclined to agree.


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

Sweety said:


> Is a Troglodyte something you can shoot?


I'm guessing its another name for a knuckle dragger lol


----------



## cinnamontoast (Oct 24, 2010)

This descended into mud slinging some time ago. I fail to see the point of continuing, but of course, each to his own. Nobody on this thread will convert to the other's point of view. Personal insults are not going to win arguments.


----------



## Rafa (Jun 18, 2012)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> I don't shoot, some might say I couldn't be trusted with a gun, I might be inclined to agree.


Yes. And maybe some would say "Know Your Audience".


----------



## Margelli (Jun 23, 2014)

I would go about asking this thread to be looked at or whatnot, but I have not a clue how to do that. 

There's nought else to do but mud sling it seems, when actual facts from either side has been presented it has been ignored. We'd probably suit being politicians quite well! :lol:


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

cinnamontoast said:


> This descended into mud slinging some time ago. I fail to see the point of continuing, but of course, each to his own. Nobody on this thread will convert to the other's point of view.
> Personal insults are not going to win arguments
> .


Neither is a wealth of sound scientific evidence so it seems. Ive come to conclusion nothing will ever change the mind of someone with a Countryside Alliance mentality.

.


----------



## lymorelynn (Oct 4, 2008)

closing for now


----------

