In reply to Clare:
Clare Bailey said:I don't think mountain hares have the same security in numbers and I worry about how many are being killed off.
I don't think mountain hares have the same security in numbers and I worry about how many are being killed off.
In reply to Ian S:
Of course the other consideration is that they're being killed to allow grouse to successfully breed ........... so they can be killed.
I feel sad for birds which are considered to be 'game'. I don't like the term 'game' ......... though it's kind of accurate, with people shooting said birds for the difficulty of the target rather than to enjoy a good meal. I was lucky enough to see my first ever woodcock at Minsmere recently - that's considered to be a game bird. Google it, go to Images and check out how many photos of it are either of a dead bird or a cooked one. Yet I'm pretty sure it's a red listed bird here.
Our herring gulls are red listed birds. Think about that the next time you hear some flaming idiot calling for a cull of them.
The suggestion that Deer, unlike Hares, have no natural predators, sounds right, Clare. But instead of culling Deer, perhaps we should support the introduction of Wolves to help control the Deer population. Furthermore, Grouse moor owners could advertise and organise expensive photographic expeditions for punters to photograph Deer, Hares and Wolves rather than sending out their Gamekeepers to cull them, much as fish farms have worked out that they can charge photographers to film fishing Ospreys to recover the costs of the fish the Ospreys eat and similar to Big Game Safaris to view, not shoot, wildlife in Africa.
Presumably both Deer and Hares eat saplings as part of their usual diet (or not, I trust someone who knows will tell us!) But if they do, then they would help to control the growth of new little trees, thus helping to keep the moor as a moor, rather than allowing the uncontrolled natural ecological succession of a moor turning into a wood. If true, that would argue that moor owners should appreciate the contributions of both Deer and Hares to maintaining moorland rather than culling them. Or is it the fact that Deer and Hares pay far less than wealthy businessmen to cavort about a grouse moor, not to mention that Deer and Hares are really poor shots when it comes to shooting Grouse?!
Kind regards, Ann
In reply to Gardenbirder:
The trouble with the Mountain Hare is that they are thought to carry some bug that harms the poor little pampered Red Grouse so there are less for their "sport". They are then just dumped surely at least they could sell them on as game meat. It is worth Googling just what birds are legal to shoot including Woodcock,Snipe both Common and Jack and Moorhen. I think the days when country folk needed to shoot for the table are long gone so why are there species on the legal list.
Pete
Birding is for everyone no matter how good or bad we are at it,enjoy it while you can
In reply to Seaman:
HERE is the list of quarry species allowed; I agree Pete that in this day and age the list seems very outdated and archaic as if we are still living in cave-man's days when there was a need to hunt for survival. I don't know how often amendments are made to the quarry list but they need to balance all the factors and take into account that we are now living in the 21st century.
I am in favour of culling animals (including grey squirrels! ) for purposes of protecting environmental habitats and strengthening the gene pool in herds but so called "Game" sport should be looked at more seriously and not by politicians who often have a vested interest in protecting the wealthy business run hunting parties who kill only for some sick pleasure.
_________________________________________________________________________
Regards, Hazel
In reply to HAZY:
On the last day the number is at 46,211.
Clare, was this the second petition on this subject, I think it was. Doesn't look like this allegedly civilised country cares, I suppose all that matters to quote (from many years ago) Harry Enfield is "loadsamoney". Ian
Of course people care. It would take literally millions of signatures, though, to make any kind of impact. Everyone who signed the last petition had the sheer horror of reading through the transcript of the last Parliamentary debate on the subject - I think it's a total lack of faith in the system which has caused this.
Maybe we should put a lot more effort into getting the shooting business licenced. Not the best solution I admit but it would be at least a start at getting some control in what seems to be a do what we like game at the moment.
That would be better than nothing Pete but with the apparent apathy (which Clare & I respectfully disagree on the reasons for) that seem to exist towards this subject, I doubt that will have any more chance of success. Sorry if that all sounds very negative, maybe I got out of the wrong side of the bed this morning. Ian