[Closed] Killng birds of prey

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

Don't get too excited TJ, just because I didn't get on to your POV 😉 ...