bigjim
wild fish populations can’t support free for all fish taking
They used to when there was a much larger population in the Highlands.
But point taken, and the answer is to restrict that traditional right to those who need the food.
The catch and release wealthy fish torturers would howl somewhat, but we shouldn't encourage psychopaths. Killing and maiming animals for fun and pleasure is a sick hobby.
As for the deer, if hunting for "sport" was banned, then there will be no profit for the landowners in encouraging unsustainable populations, and that problem would be on the way to being solved. If there were still too many, then charge the landowners a deer tax per head. They would soon organise a cull.
Thanks slowoldman but don’t believe the RSPB can be trusted to give a balanced view, no mention at all of the impact on local people.
OK how about Scottish Raptor Study Group?
cinamon – firstly I really do struggle with the concept of creatures being introduced in order to provide theme-park entertainment for the public.
reintroduced. I can't work out if you've never been to a theme park or never observed wild animals in their natural habitat - even from a "safari" type boat... its hard to make any comparison.
Secondly, there was on i-player I think a program about sea eagles where pro-sea eagle campaigners and residents of a tiny island off the coast of Skye were interviewed. The residents were crofters, eeking out a barely sustainable living with sheep. Apparently they would normally expect 75% of their lambs to survive each year but since the arrival of sea eagles this has reduced to 50%. They were losing half of the lambs meaning a huge financial hit year after year and it was becoming unsustainable as obviously nobody reimburses or compensates them.
Dead lambs were shown and not a pretty sight, no question it was sea eagles who’d killed them.
Should these crofters abandon their way of life? Why should they, they’ve been crofting for donkey’s years? Crofting is a tradition in Scotland and obviously a very hard life especially with variable weather conditions. Are the sea eagles more important than the crofters? I don’t know whether any other crofters or farmers are affected by these birds but surely there’s a good chance it will happen elsewhere.
Not much crofting on the isle of wight though - so not following the connection. Ironically, if one group of farmers was going to understand the plight of the sea eagles being pushed out of their natural habitat by overzealous landowners only interested in themselves it would surely be crofters.
It does seem to be recognised that sea eagles will take health lambs in some circumstances:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2019/05/31/farmers-welcome-documents-showing-sea-eagles-do-kill-healthy/
but lets not pretend that the animal was going be bouncing around the hills like a fluffy cloud forever. It was destined to end up on dinner plates. Nature is harsh, bigger animals eat smaller ones, just because a lamb is "farmed" doesn't make the process any worse.
As for compensation - there was a scheme (which cynically, probably helps inflate the number of reported losses!). I think this scheme has been replaced with one which is aimed at funding activities/equipment to scare eagles away from livestock rather than throw money at compensation.
To cap it all off, not many crofters do it as a sole livelihood; many of those disadvantaged by losing lambs have some vested interest in tourism too, so benefit from the upside.
I get that it’s bringing in money and providing jobs but at the expense of others trying to make a living from the land? Doesn’t sit well with me at all.
Crofting and the very rural island communities are not quite as clear cut as that - someone might be a crofter who also works as at the ticket office for the ferry, delivers the post, drives a taxi, runs a B&B (or all of the above!). That will probably be less of a clear advantage in the populated south, but then there are probably fewer people who are subsistence farming on the breadline either.
As molgrips suggests, it's way too complicated and nuanced to be summed up in that article I linked but that does help to show the range of opinion.
I live in a National Park, the largest in Scotland and an area famed for its wildlife and wilderness. Lots of folk want to see that preserved and enhanced. Lots of locals frankly just want a decently paid, full-time job and housing they can afford without being priced out by holiday homes. Of course, tourism brings some jobs but they tend to be seasonal and minimum wage.
Folk also want a range of shops and services that don't entail long journeys or mail order. Without the seasonal income many get, there would be even fewer than at present.
All of that requires a change of mindset away from the disneyficatiion some desire, or a return to some human-free wilderness others propose. With an abundance of "green" energy available we really need an improvement to some strategic transport links (the bloody mainline railway for a start) and a diversification of employment.
Will that drive some tourism away? Probably. Few here would mourn that if there were alternatives.
What IS clear is that the current land ownership and taxation model has failed. Without a redistribution of land and the income it generates, nothing will change.
Edit: typed as poly was posting. Can't disagree with any of that either.
Thanks slowoldman but don’t believe the RSPB can be trusted to give a balanced view, no mention at all of the impact on local people.
And that there, is the 2010s in a nutshell.
This isn't a dig at whoever said it at all, but when did we reach the point that whenever we're presented with information that doesn't prove our pre-existing opinion, we just discredit it or ignore it.
There is no doubt legally or morrally about the raptor persecution. Its SOME grouse moors. The data is complete and damning
