[Closed] Killng birds of prey

Well they have the right people at Number 10 to try and get something like this through.. or will "Call me Dave" try to appeal to the common man by rebuffing it..

They're allegedly killing lots of them illegally already.

For more depressing stupidity see this;

http://www.communicatescience.eu/2010/05/senseless-killing-of-birds-of-prey-must.html

Misguided Kerry farmers killing animals which could turn out to be a tourist attraction - given the amount of rural B&B's in the area it's madness

Killing birds of prey to protect game estates has always happened and is still happening illegally - as the article illustrates. Making a legal process that parallels that available to farmers seems a sensible one to at least open for discussion. Deploring it without exploring it is just a bit silly really.

So they are wanting to kill natural habitat predators for the sake of some f'in grouse!

They already do it for some f'in sheep too. Are you still appalled?

Instead of allowing it then why not making them protected and prosecute illegal killing. FFS once they are gone they are gone. Not like grouse or a sheep which can be replaced.

for the sake of some f'in grouse!

I don't think they intend doing the grouse any favours.

More a case of giving a helping hand to Vivian Smith-Smythe-Smith, Simon Zinc-Trumpet-Harris, Gervaise Brook-Hamster, and Oliver St. John-Mollusc.

[img] [/img]

Here we go.

You've got to hand it to the scientific community. Everyone just seems to accept that conservation and preservation are the default values that need to be given primacy. If anyone stops to think about this, they might realise that those values are just as likely to be used to dislocate people from the landscape as landowners are.

Instead of allowing it then why not making them protected and prosecute illegal killing.

Erm.......they are and they do. It is evidently not working. People kill them for reasons so something else needs to be done.

FFS once they are gone they are gone. Not like grouse or a sheep which can be replaced.

Erm.......yes - same as any animal / plant etc. Hence why some sort of management process is being proposed.

How would you propose the 'replacement' of grouse? Or how would you explain your stance to someone whose living depended upon those grouse or sheep?

Or how would you explain your stance to someone whose living depended upon those grouse or sheep?

Surely raptors taking grouse increases the need for the services of people whose livelihood depends on producing grouse ?

while grouse and pheasant are throughly free ranging (thats what makes shooting them fun for the people who like shooting them) they are bread quite intensively in protected enclosures. Go into any strip of woodland around my house and there are pens with fricking hundreds of them in there.

The countryside has been shaped, managed and developed for centuries to nurture and favour the existence of game birds, they have the upper hand over the preditors as the landscape has been shaped and planted to create food, shelter and especially - somewhere to hide from raptors. With that being the case raptors' diets consists of all sorts of stuff thats easier to catch - even though we have swarms of pheasant here - there can sometimes be 40 or 50 standing outside my front window - I've only seen raptors take pidgeons and rabbits.

They're reared in such large numbers that raptors could eat them all year til they are sick and still there would be more than enough for Finton and Josh to take pot shots at.

No matter how many birds the raptors might take - more will end up plastered across the front bumpers of cars. Should we legislate for landowners having a license to cull motorists?

while grouse and pheasant are throughly free ranging (thats what makes shooting them fun for the people who like shooting them) they are bread quite intensively in protected enclosures. Go into any strip of woodland around my house and there are pens with fricking hundreds of them in there.

The countryside has been shaped, managed and developed for centuries to nurture and favour the existence of game birds, they have the upper hand over the preditors as the landscape has been shaped and planted to create food, shelter and especially - somewhere to hide from raptors. With that being the case raptors' diets consists of all sorts of stuff thats easier to catch - even though we have swarms of pheasant here - there can sometimes be 40 or 50 standing outside my front window - I've only seen raptors take pidgeons and rabbits.

They're reared in such large numbers that raptors could eat them all year til they are sick and still there would be more than enough for Finton and Josh to take pot shots at.

No matter how many bird the raptors might take - more will end up plastered across the front bumpers of cars. Should we legislate for landowners having a license to cull motorists?

What he said ^

Once they get into the habit of killing chicks then they pick off loads. One of the local estates suffered huge pheasant chick losses from a group of buzzards systematically picking them off. From the buzzard's point of view once they've found an easy food source then they're not going to go looking elsewhere. I'm not making a case for killing them btw, just passing on the reasons. However, if you accept that people kill animals that they consider as pests, be it rats, deer squirrels etc then raptor's can't really be excluded just be cause we think they look good.

While what maccruiskeen says may be true for lowland game birds pheasant etc, it isn't true for grouse and grouse moors which usually rely on a wild population of birds.

No Justification at all for illegal persecution.

I think that a case could and should be made for licensed relocation of raptors from areas of high population density to areas of lower population density, based upon proven suppression of grouse breeding success.

interesting background here:

http://www.langholmproject.com/

[i]
The Langholm Moor Demonstration Project aims to demonstrate an effective means of resolving the raptor-grouse moor controversy by restoring grouse moor management to the Langholm Moor SPA/SSSI as a way of meeting the conservation objectives of the site. In particular we aim to :

demonstrate how to resolve conflicts between moorland management for raptors and red grouse
maintain the hen harrier population as viable component of the SPA
extend and improve the heather moorland habitat beyond its state in 2002
improve grouse production such that grouse shooting again becomes viable enough to support moorland management
This site would become a model for modern, sustainable grouse moor management... [/i]

Langholm shows clearly that raptors are no threat to grouse populations and indeed as is well known that a healthy population of predators means a healthy population of prey species.

No excuse at all for raptor persecution, I cannot believe someone suggested that as raptors are killed illegally then the law should be changed. This crime is being taken more seriously and landowners have lost their EU grants because of raptor persectution and some have gone to jail.

It should be prosecuted vigorously, there is no excuse for it, despite pro shooting propaganda raptor populations have no significant effect of game bird populations

Surely if they didnt kill the birds of prey, then the birds of prey would kill the grouse and they would have to bother getting people into kill the grouse.

sound much simpler to me

Langholm shows clearly that ..................

Science and conservation profesionals expect to dictate land usage.

The Langholm Moor trial is one of the few things to actually test this with a scientific basis, and as TJ said, has so far shown that birds of prey do not deplete grouse numbers on the moor. If you think that they should be allowed to persecute birds of prey in the name of game management, then were is the evidence that this is actually needed? Stories from gamekeepers are never the most reliable, and having the mentality of killing anything that isn't a grouse or pheasant may have been acceptable in the past but definitely isn't now.

Trailmonkey - try reading it.

what it shows is the two are not mutually exclusive. It is possible to manage a shooting estate in such a way as to improve both teh game bird population and that of raptors

I know you have a bee in your bonnet about conservation dictating land use but while it is true sometimes it is far from true all the time especially in Scotland

Or how would you explain your stance to someone whose living depended upon those grouse or sheep?

Trailmonkey - try reading it.

I got as far as reading the project details then saw who or rather what exactly was administrating the project - the usual cast of scientific and heritage management 'experts'- and gathered all the information that I deemed neccesary

I know you have a bee in your bonnet about conservation dictating land use

What a patronising way of dismissing a serious and relevant( to the mtb community )issue. An issue btw that is starting to gain some weight of credibility in both academic and heritage management circles.

especially in Scotland

Where i would hope there is a less deferential approach to the automatic acceptance of middle class, profesional values.

While what maccruiskeen says may be true for lowland game birds pheasant etc, it isn't true for grouse and grouse moors which usually rely on a wild population of birds.

Grouse moors themselves (as the name suggests) are a managed habitat for grouse - patches of dense cover for nesting and young, with cleared patches of ground for fresh growth and food. If they were left to nature they'd be a completely different habitat. And if grouse chicks aren't reared in captivity then those ones up an the hill near me must be hanging out in big net enclosures for a laugh 🙂

So without reading the langholm project stuff you dismiss it out of hand.

You do have a bee in your bonnet about this and see it everywhere - even when as in the case of the langholm project it simply is not there.

Don't be so closed minded.

So without reading the langholm project stuff you dismiss it out of ahand.

I told you, i read as much as i needed to know about it's aims and who was running the project. More than enough info.

Science is the new landowner. Keep tugging your forelock.

Trailmonkey - if you actually had read it and understood you would realise that you are wrong. That is the opposite of what langholm is about and what it shows.

Trailmonkey - if you actually had read it and understood you would realise that you are wrong. That is the opposite of what langholm is about and what it shows.

I'm not wrong at all. The landscape itself with its SSSI deisgnation and the project as a whole is riddled with the assumed primacy of scientific values.

You really don't get this AHD thing do you ? Greater intellectual minds than mine tried to open your eyes on the Cairngorms thread but they couldn't get through to you either.

Trailmonkey - I do understand this point. What I cannot get thru to you is it does not apply in every case and certainly does not at langholm. It is not

as a whole is riddled with the assumed primacy of scientific values.

Its a sporting estate managed for grouse shooting. Input from organisations such as the RSPB showed that without compromising its utility as a sporting estate biodiversity and especially raptor populations could be increased while actually having no detrimental effect on the shooting.

Its not one dimensional as yo seem to think. I

Its an SSSI !!

So? its a sporting estate of managed grouse moor managed for shooting.

How you can state it is an example of your hypothesis when yo have not read up on what happened is just ludicrous.

Hang on, you claim to understand the argument then say....

So?

... when its pointed out that its an SSSI ❓

And I have read it. I told you so. I know exactly what the place is, what the aims of the project are and who is behind it. More than enough info.

TBH anyone who understands this stuff need look no further than the first page of the project aims.

Thats right - you don't understand at all.

Its an SSSI, its also a sporting estate, its managed for shooting.

You see your hypothesis needs conservation to be the only value assigned to the land. However here as in many other places in Scotland it is not. Conservation and land usage for recreation and profit are not mutually exclusive. Its actually much finer nuanced and with far more shades of gray that you realise.

so you have not read up on the langhom project at all but you know you are right about it despite actully completely missing the key point

Its all bollocks, fair enough control predators if they're killing food stocks such as sheep etc, but Grouse!?

Killing a rare bird of prey to prevent it from killing a bird that is solely reared to be shot and killed by a middle class toff is beyond belief.

OK so whose values are being given primacy ?

We expect to employ a team of five game keepers to undertake this work, and [b]they will operate alongside[/b] shepherds and ecologists.

Ecological monitoring

[b]Progress will be assessed by a team of ecologists [/b]

Who is in charge ?

Susan Davies (Chairman) Scottish Natural Heritage
Des Thompson (Secretary) Scottish Natural Heritage
Mark Oddy Buccleuch Estates
Teresa Dent Game& Wildlife Conservation Trust
Duncan Orr-Ewing Royal Society for the Protection of Birds
Liz Newton Natural England

What is the landscape ?

Langholm Moor SPA/SSSI

AHD in action. Point proven without question.

Trailmonkey - open your mind and your eyes. Really it is not what you think at all.

still - there are none so blind as those who do not want to see.

Its a sporting estate managed for shooting. That is its primary usuage. The conservation comes secondary to that. What you list there is the maagement of the conservation work - not the management of the estate

You just see your favourite bogeyman everywhere - even when it is not present at all.

What are you talking about ? It's the Langholm Project that we're debating here.

As in the link

http://www.langholmproject.com/

Thats right - management of a shooting estate for grouse shooting.

One of the aims is to make it viable again for shooting.

* improve grouse production such that grouse shooting again becomes viable enough to support moorland management

This site would become a model for modern, sustainable grouse moor management. The duration of the project is up to ten years, subject to review every three years.

You see - your basic premise is wrong. Its not about conservation having primacy over the land usage One of the main aims is to produce enough grouse so that there is good shooting thus money is generated and it is in the landowners interest to manage the land in this way so they can profit from the shooting.

Teh whole premise of this project is to show that conservation and shooting are ot mutually exclusive but are mutually beneficial

The Langholm Moor Demonstration Project aims to demonstrate an effective means of resolving the raptor-grouse moor controversy by restoring grouse moor management to the Langholm Moor [b]SPA/SSSI as a way of meeting the conservation objectives[/b] of the site

A) Its an SSSI, which is going to determine what can and can't be done on the site - who decides this designation ?
B) The wording is quite clear. This project is merely a conduit for meeting conservation objectives. Whose objectives ?

Enough. I'm off to ride my bike through an apparently ' Internationally important' SSSI on Dartmoor. I'm sure people on the international level will be outraged.

Hen harriers are probably the most persecuted protected birds in the UK. Their numbers and range are severely limited by persistent persecution of adults, chicks and eggs. Before Langholm we in the RSPB were able to pooh pooh the idea that hen harriers affected grouse bags, after Langholm there was no doubt that they could.

The Langholm project was jointly funded by the RSPB with others and the essence of the study was to protect hen harriers (and other raptors) strictly on the site, see whether their numbers built up and then see whether they affected the numbers of red grouse available for shooting in the autumn.

Hen harrier numbers increased dramatically through the project and reached 20 females just after the project ended. Hen harriers eat a range of prey species, including voles, pipits and larks but also lots of red grouse, particularly chicks. And those hen harriers cut a swathe through the stock of red grouse available to be shot from the 'Glorious Twelth'. Autumn grouse numbers were so reduced that commercial driven grouse shooting became unviable on this site. The harriers were eating the shootable surplus of grouse on which grouse shooting depends.

So, following Langholm there weren't many grouse moor managers who felt less keen on killing hen harriers, despite the illegality of this, and probably quite a lot more who were even more disposed to do so.

Following Langholm, work was carried out on seeing whether artificial feeding of hen harriers at the nest would reduce their depredation of grouse chicks - the results looked very promising to us but certainly didn't inspire grouse moor managers. And then followed a period of stalemate.

Now there is a new Langholm project where a group of organisations are working towards trying to find a solution again. Will we succeed? - who knows, but the folk on the ground are working well together as I saw yesterday.

The new project aims to return viable driven grouse shooting to the moor - with a few hen harriers knocking around too! Do visit the project website, read the keeper's diary and see what we are all up to!

On leaving Langholm I felt encouraged. The guys on the ground are doing a great job - it may still be the case that Langholm is the place which provides a resolution to these conflicts. I hope it does.

Mark avery, former RSPB Chairman

http://www.rspb.org.uk/community/blogs/markavery/archive/2010/07/29/langholm.aspx

I'll leave it for everyone to decide whether to believe him.

The new project aims to return viable driven grouse shooting to the moor

Absolutly key. A grouse moor habitat will only exist if maintained. there needs to be a financial incentive for the land to be maintained as a grouse moor.

It can be done more sympathetically however and the aims of conservation and of utility are not mutually exclusive

Blinkin flip - me and TJ appear to agree on something!

Yes, this land is pretty much worthless for anything but Grouse or Sheep. I know which of the the two I prefer!

Interestingly, I had my daughters out on the high pennine moors over Easter, and my youngest asked why one side of the hill was green, and the other side was brown

[img] [/img]

Owning a grouse moor has been likened to standing in a shower, tearing up £50 notes - but what's for sure, is that the best scenario possible for wildlife remains tied to *well run* grouse shooting as a revenue source.

Thats assuming you want it to remain a grouse moor. Id prefer it to be at least in part be encouraged to revert to mixed woodland. Thats a whole other can of worms of course.

The land must have usage and purpose beyond conservation and recreation. Most of the UK is managed habitats and there needs to be a incentive to manage the land in the various ways it is or else it will change.

I take it thats sheep grazing in your pic Zulu? Where we have just been you see the same from deer grazing

Is AHD some sort of illness?

Never mind raptors, reintroduce terrabirds; that will soon deal with the deer population,and sheep population,and anybody who-can't-nav-population.I would be willing to bet that shooting raptors would make no difference to the numbers,all that would happen is that far fewer would be run over while sleeping on a road,as they seem to do just now. 🙁 Gits!

While what maccruiskeen says may be true for lowland game birds pheasant etc, it isn't true for grouse and grouse moors which usually rely on a wild population of birds.

maccruiskeen - Member
Grouse moors themselves (as the name suggests) are a managed habitat for grouse - patches of dense cover for nesting and young, with cleared patches of ground for fresh growth and food. If they were left to nature they'd be a completely different habitat. And if grouse chicks aren't reared in captivity then those ones up an the hill near me must be hanging out in big net enclosures for a laugh

[url= http://www.northyorkmoors.org.uk/uploads/publication/10262.pdf ]Unlike pheasants and partridges, grouse populations are not maintained or boosted by the release of birds which have been hatched and reared in captivity. Grouse cannot be bred in captivity. They are a wild, self-sustaining population supported by the management of suitable habitat...
[/url]

As an avid raptor watcher / photog'er I am appalled by the illegal killing of raptors esp harriers - it seems to me a middle ground needs to be reached. They are stunning birds to watch - something I want to keep seeing as long as I live.

Maybe an open discussion re this may lead to a compromise - I would rather see a managed cull of raprors in certain areas than the poisoning of them. I am not sure I know the answer.

I do know I feel overwhelmingly sad when I hear that harriers / ospreys have been shot for merely existing by taking grouse / fish which man has artificially put there... for money / via a blood sport....

Grouse shooting is a very, very expensive 'sport' - not what I would want to do - I like shooting clays etc but I wouldnt personally want to do grouse shooting but I do accept some people do and are willing to pay a lot to do so. Shooting estates are managed land and this can bring benefits to a few local people etc - however I think tourism / watching birds can also be important. Most of the money will stay with the estate owner anyways...

I would rather see a live / let live approach - breed MORE grouse to allow for raptor 'wastage' - feed them by alternate means / maybe scare the birds away ( if possible ) like they do wolves in yosemite or capture and relocate them to other areas. Arent the grouse kept under nets anyways? I do see a lot of escapees on the roads etc and I wonder arent more killed by motor vehicles / cat predation than raptors? Just doesnt add up in my mind.

A question needs to be asked - if theres less supply of grouse due to wastage - surely that makes the shoots ' more desirable ' and therefore they can charge ever more to shooters????

A difficult question.

my mistake - didnt realise grouse arent bred but rely on local populations - seems that there are other factors affecting their mortality - esp other predators and ticks ( another of my interests - hate ticks ) from sheep etc.

perhaps grouse estates should allow their grouse to repopulate to a more healthy population then start shooting again...

still not convinced that its worth killing birds of prey alone when other factors play a part. Perhaps another canon fodder bird could be used or even clays?

hey ho

paul

Breed more game birds (somehow) - more food for raptors, more targets for shooters.

a - captive breeding of grouse is difficult and as far as I know not viable
b - do you want to pollute the gene pool / behaviours of a viable wild population with captive bred birds?

Back in the day... Pheasant and partridge were wild bred in the lowlands too, with massive bags coming in from the top estates - there's little doubt that in those days the raptor persecution was massive, and peregrines were shot on sight throughout both wars due to the importance of carrier pigeons, but the real damage for the raptor populations is pretty much accepted as being the post war changes in agriculture and increased agrochemical use. big push at the moment to bring back wild partridge shoots, with massive sucesses in certain Sussex shoots. This is largely tied in with predator control and enhanced invertebrate supply (careful use of hedgerows, beetle banks, and not spraying field margins)

Regards Langholm - diversionary feeding is part of the current strategy as I understand it. From what I;ve gathered over the years, a *reasonable* raptor population can be supported on most moors, there is a problem in the fact that HH seem to cluster, so you can have one moor with a good grouse population and no HH, and another with a moderate grouse population that is getting absolutely hammered by the Harriers (hence my earlier comments about licensing of relocation).

The real damaging things for grouse populations are bad weather in the spring, which is also linked to Trichostrongylosis (worms) - Trich has been the *major* factor in annual grouse populations for over a hundred years, and tackling that is the key to a healthy grouse population (you'll see piles of medicated grit on most moors) - the problem with HH lies in that if the birds have a bad trich year, its often impossible for them to get their population off the ground under heavy HH pressure, which pushes them back to the point where the population is not big enough to maintain shooting (which pays for the heather burning, predatpr control etc. and, effectively, pays to keep the sheep off) no shooting, moor becomes economically unviable, management stops, heather becomes overgrown, grasses move in and predator control stops, grouse population crashes further, Hen harriers move on as no food left, and the cycle begins again on another moor...

Well they have the right people at Number 10 to try and get something like this through.. or will "Call me Dave" try to appeal to the common man by rebuffing it..

Yeah for sure. Most of them probably spend their holidays up in the Highlands blowing animals brains out in the name of 'sport' anyway.

I'm a dove on this issue, as opposed to a hawk.

That said, I imagine hawks are rather against this proposal too.

perhaps grouse estates should allow their grouse to repopulate to a more healthy population then start shooting again...

still not convinced that its worth killing birds of prey alone when other factors play a part. Perhaps another canon fodder bird could be used or even clays?

Who would you suggest pays for that? Quite hard to convince someone to miss a year of shooting or introduce an alien species into a fragile habitat.

Coincidentally this morning was following a car with a sticker in the rear windscreen published by the rpra.org accusing hawks of "picking off songbirds one by one" and obviously posing a threat to their beloved pigeons too. "protect our sport" they proclaim, with the implicit request to do so by culling raptors.

****monkeys.

Of course, pigeon fanciers aren't toffs so they should probably be excused.

Of course, pigeon fanciers aren't toffs so they should probably be excused.

😐 How dare you.

The rpra.org you refer to doesn't use the "Royal Pigeon Racing Association" name for nothing, Her Majesty [Gawd bless'er] is patron of the RPRA, and the Royal Loft at Sandringham contains 160 birds. Some of us pigeon fanciers are right proper posh, I'll let you know.

And one is most concerned when one's royal pigeon is eaten by a hawk whilst training in Malvern :

[url= http://www.femalefirst.co.uk/royal_family/Queen+Latifah-8762.html ]Royal News Queen's prize racing pigeons eaten by bird of prey[/url]

EDIT : And please do not refer to Her Majesty [Gawd bless'er] as a ****monkey, you reprobate.

Her maj wasn't that concerned. I never got a reply from the ungrateful feather-stroker.

Anyway I always assumed they let you join to give them an air of working-class authority

Is AHD some sort of illness?

[url=

merely a symptom of a more widespread malaise in society[/url]

However trailmonkeyz thesis which I know is true in some cases it simply is not true in all cases of conservation and indeed is not at langholm.

Trailmonkey - its not a black and white world. conservation especially in Scotland has moved on. Its about collaborative approaches, its about sustainable land use. Its not about preserving land in a particular state frozen in time for ever.

tj, i helpfully pointed you in the right direction on this yesterday, i'm really not going to waste another day explaining it to you.

just follow the link, argue with the professor.

Trailmonkey - why do you not accept you don't understand this in entirety? I do understand your point - it however does not represent what is happening on the ground (certainly in Scotland)

You do not know about projects such as langholm which disprove your thesis

Its not about preserving land in a particular state frozen in time for ever

Killing a rare bird of prey to prevent it from killing a bird that is solely reared to be shot and killed by a middle class toff is beyond belief.

I think that this pretty much sums things up for me.

I wouldn't get too wound up with this. The Scottish conservation agencies only have one thing on their agenda for the next 5 years and it aint exactly consistent with grouse moor management or raptor persecution.

[img] [/img]

Greedy people preventing nature to have something back ...

😡

Trailmonkey - why do you not accept you don't understand this in entirety? I do understand your point - it however does not represent what is happening on the ground (certainly in Scotland)

You do not know about projects such as langholm which disprove your thesis

No tj, it is you that does not understand - quite clearly, langholm thoroughly proves the existence of the AHD as I pointed out to you yesterday. However, seeing as you have not read the 300 odd page Uses of Heritage, i accept that you do not understand the concept and as a result, cannot see why it is prevalant at langholm.

As for this line you keep pushing regarding Scottish forward thinking in heritage management - its pure self delusion. Australia and North America are leading the way in alternative methods of heritage management. Nothing in the UK comes close.

Sorry Trailmonkey - you still miss my point in your dogmatic ignorance. You have decided this meme is everywhere and you will stick to that despite anything to the contrary.

Just try opening your mind. I understand the concept and I know it occurs some places. However it is not the black and white picture you present it as and you clearly have no understanding of how the discourse in Scotland has moved forward in recent years.

Langholm proves the opposite of your thesis as you would know if you understood what happened there.

Keep going gents; I will be picking up bits of this for my ML assessment in July. 😀

your dogmatic ignorance

oh teh ironing 😆

You have decided this meme is everywhere

It is

I understand the concept and I know it occurs some places. However it is not the black and white picture you present it as and you clearly have no understanding of how the discourse in Scotland has moved forward in recent years

Langholm proves the opposite of your thesis

Its not my thesis. It has been developed by far greater minds than mine. I suggest that you contact Dr Smith and inform her that the Peoples Republic of Scotland have destroyed the hegemony of white, middle class, professional values in heriatge management by replacing them with errr....white, middle class, professional values as is the case at langholm................................

Whose values are being given primacy ?

Progress will be assessed by a team of ecologists

Who is in charge ?

Susan Davies (Chairman) Scottish Natural Heritage
Des Thompson (Secretary) Scottish Natural Heritage
Mark Oddy Buccleuch Estates
Teresa Dent Game& Wildlife Conservation Trust
Duncan Orr-Ewing Royal Society for the Protection of Birds
Liz Newton Natural England

What is the landscape ?

Langholm Moor SPA/SSSI

I'm sure Dr Smith will be thrilled to be shown the light.

You see - you have not read or understood what happened at langholm at all or what the discourse is. You missed a crucial part of it which is

* improve grouse production such that grouse shooting again becomes viable enough to support moorland management

This site would become a model for modern, sustainable grouse moor management. The duration of the project is up to ten years, subject to review every three years.

the hegemony of white, middle class, professional values in heriatge management

The pardigm now is about sustainability especially sustainable useage for the land. Most folk now understand that there is a requirement for people to be able to us the land for recreation and commercial useage without the conservation lobby preventing this.

The discourse has moved on from the polarised and mutually exclusive view you see to a much more graduated nuanced position that sees conservation taking a role [u]alongside[/u] commercial and recreational interests

Quite simply You are looking at this with a polarised viewpoint. I am not denying that the situation you outline does exist in someplaces and has been extensive in the past but times are a changing and indeed have changed greatly

Its a far more nuanced position that you understand

You see - you have not read or understood what happened at langholm at all or what the discourse is

god this is painful.

yes i have read it. i told you so yesterday. whereas you have not read Uses of Heritage which is why you do not understand what is staring you in the face.

come back to me when you're educated on the subject. until then...........

bye.

Trailmonkey - I do understand the concepts behind "uses of heritage" - its a very clear and obvious point You fail to understand that it does not apply in all places and this is demonstrated at Langholm

You state

Whose values are being given primacy ?

the hegemony of white, middle class, professional values in heritage management

I understood the need to move away from

the hegemony of white, middle class, professional values in heriatge management

I understood the need to move away from

the hegemony of white, middle class, professional values in heriatge management

a long time ago and the paridigm has moved away from this

Moved so far away that the langholm project is managed by...............

Susan Davies (Chairman) Scottish Natural Heritage
Des Thompson (Secretary) Scottish Natural Heritage
Mark Oddy Buccleuch Estates
Teresa Dent Game& Wildlife Conservation Trust
Duncan Orr-Ewing Royal Society for the Protection of Birds
Liz Newton Natural England

that's some dramatic shift 😆

god this is painful.

Surely even you must agree with that TJ ???? 🙄

You confuse the management of the conservation project with the management of the land.

You clearly have no idea of what actually has been happening there or indeed in Scotland in general with land management and conservation. Langholm has shown [u]the failure of[/u]

the hegemony of white, middle class, professional values in heritage management

You have found and interesting and valid concept but in your enthusiasm see it everywhere even when it is not present.

i have seen teh change in the paradigm and how this affects the land over many decades.

Indeed woody

You confuse the management of the conservation project

As was pointed out yesterday, it's the langholm project that's being debated.

little point carrying on if you're just going to try moving the goalposts(again) when you've run out of argument.

bye.

I am not moving the goalposts. I have run out of ways to try to show you where you have failed to understand however.

Yu really need to listen a little. I have followed the conservation debate for many decades and have a good understaning of what is happening now. Teh paradigm has changed greatly from

the hegemony of white, middle class, professional values in heritage management

sorry - I don't think you can really lay in against Buccleugh estates and the Game & Wildlife Conservation Trust as "heritage management" in the format of the national trust and the "conservation industry"

GWT (formerly game conservancy) has spent decades run purely as an organisation promoting shooting and traditional land uses (hunting, shooting and fishing) and Buccleuch remains a traditional sporting estate thats diversified into tourism, but the heart of it is still the HSF work.

I think what you've missed, is the fact that even the most red blooded of landowners and organisations, still has to couch up their work with sustainability and conservation buzzwords to get funding, when essentially they are the most grounded conservation who formed the roots of what we're doing now.

GCT in particular, led the way in promoting well founded game friendly ecosystems (particularly hedgerow networks) that work in tandem with modern agricultural practices - far far ahead of people like the RSPB who remain, IMO, stuck in the "nature reserve" mindset.

Langolm remains, to me, an epithet to the "conservation mindset" they set out to prove that harriers and predation did not damage grouse populations, and failed spectacularly, destroying a previously successful, viable, and sustainable moor in the process - the battle there now is to see how they can bring it back from beyond the brink without destroying the raptors - if they can, then its fantastic news for all and we've all taken a leap forward in how to manage grouse in a raptor friendly manner, if they can't, then hopefully it will lead to sensible discussion on the best ways to manage the problems in the future - that can only be good.

Trailmonkey/TJ – you're both successfully derailing other interesting conversations whilst making another one of your own.

Trailmonkey: (RE your arguments) On the most basic level, I think you need to ask yourself what heritage is – and what the OP has to do with 'heritage' – I think you're missing a trick by conflating 'conservation' and heritage and treating heritage (and by implication conservation) in a monolithic way.

I think if you're really into this kind of thinking, you might be better adopting something of a more critical stance to the 'AHD' thesis – for a start, following a kind of post-foucaultian line (which appears to be what the premise draws upon) you might consider 'AHD' as an effect, or alternatively, as a series of practices or enactments – as such you wouldn't be typing stuff that suggests [i]'AHD is everywhere'[/i]. Maybe that is just my reading of things.

More importantly (and linked to the above), there are a range of things going on within every scenario besides an 'AHD'. To reduce this example to [i]'OMG this really speaks to the untold violence/ hegemony/... of AHD'[/i] weakens the conceptual promise that a more nuanced approach to 'AHD' [i]might[/i] offer precisely because it becomes its own authoritative/structuralist/... reading that forecloses any other possible interpretations of what might be going on – exactly what you are doing.

RE the OP - I did have some thoughts, but can't really be arsed as I don't think anyone is reading any more.

Just add - some interesting stuff here regards Wild Grey Partridge in Sussex

http://www.shootingtimes.co.uk/features/508909/Turning_grey_into_gold.html

Well put bajsyckel