I have read a lot of articles recently about shot or poisoned birds of prey and quite frankly find the whole thing abhorrent, but I recall, when at school, reading a book on the Perthshire countryside in the late 1800's and there were long lists of all the wildlife shot in the name of sport. I'm not talking hundreds, but tens of thousands of birds, in fact almost anything that they could shoot at. In one year alone, "sportsmen" almost wiped out the entire population of birds of prey in that County. Have things improved for wildlife and are we only hearing about these incidents because of better communications?
I'm fairly certain that things will not get a lot better. Country people (farmer, keepers etc) have a job to do, but they still very much go by what their parents / grandparents told them and tales are embellished. One farmer told me how a friend of a friend told of how one of his cows was killed by a mink - so mink were lethal killers and should be wiped out. These people, keepers especially, are living in tied accommodation and if their landlord, laird, squire or whatever says " kill the birds of prey or your sacked", they will, for fear of losing their home. No questions will be asked as to how it's done. You will also find that if caught, the local magistrate will usually be a big landowner and shooter of game and he / she will be lenient. You'll also find that the gamekeeper's boss will pay their fine - because they've done what they had to do.
So, are these incidents just isolated or are things still bad and do these "criminals" get protection? I'd like to think that what we hear of is only isolated incidents. We should also bear in mind that many gamekeepers are some of the best naturalists and go about their work with conservation in mind.
Stand Where The Peaks Meet The Sky
KatTai said: On a similar theme, I have just heard on the radio that there is to be an event for Pigeon fanciers this week-end, at which they are asking people to sign a petition to have Sparrowhawks culled because they are killing their prized birds. I am not against anybody following their particular favourite pastime, but not at the expense of natural wildlife. What do you think?
On a similar theme, I have just heard on the radio that there is to be an event for Pigeon fanciers this week-end, at which they are asking people to sign a petition to have Sparrowhawks culled because they are killing their prized birds. I am not against anybody following their particular favourite pastime, but not at the expense of natural wildlife. What do you think?
I agree with you - if they want to pursue their hobby releasing their birds into the wild they have to accept that their birds face risks as a result, if they can't deal with that and accept they will lose a few birds to predators, weather, getting lost etc then they need to find a different hobby. Someone should never be entitled to cull wildlife for the sake of a hobby.
Is game bird shooting a hobby as this seems to be the worst culprit.
Pete
Birding is for everyone no matter how good or bad we are at it,enjoy it while you can
I sometimes think that the best thing for wildlife on this planet, would be for all human life to be removed (not that I would actually want it to happen). Any species that can be eaten by us, interferes with our livelihoods or sport or just doesn't fit in with our society, will always be persecuted. Look what happened to the Passenger Pigeons in America. There is no natural balance to nature now, human interference has effectively stopped that. The only birds that are safe from interference are those that are bred for sport, and some of them are non-native species. Mismanagement by large game estates in Scotland has ensured that red deer die in their hundreds every winter. They are shot for sport, but their natural forest habitat was cut down to make way for sheep and grouse and in the absence of natural predators (wolves - which were eradicated in the 1700's), die of starvation, because the estates are overstocked with deer. It's all down to human meddling. Even the majority of pheasants that are shot for sport are bred for the purpose and are only released from captivity just in time to be shot. They have no real fear of humans and no sense at all about survival in the wild. I am now of the opinion that there's very little wildlife in these Islands that can tuly be called "natural", such is man's influence. Even birds, which are great at adapting to changes in habitat, would many of them be where they are now without our interference. We can only guess.
Border Reiver said: I sometimes think that the best thing for wildlife on this planet, would be for all human life to be removed (not that I would actually want it to happen). Any species that can be eaten by us, interferes with our livelihoods or sport or just doesn't fit in with our society, will always be persecuted. Look what happened to the Passenger Pigeons in America. There is no natural balance to nature now, human interference has effectively stopped that. The only birds that are safe from interference are those that are bred for sport, and some of them are non-native species. Mismanagement by large game estates in Scotland has ensured that red deer die in their hundreds every winter. They are shot for sport, but their natural forest habitat was cut down to make way for sheep and grouse and in the absence of natural predators (wolves - which were eradicated in the 1700's), die of starvation, because the estates are overstocked with deer. It's all down to human meddling. Even the majority of pheasants that are shot for sport are bred for the purpose and are only released from captivity just in time to be shot. They have no real fear of humans and no sense at all about survival in the wild. I am now of the opinion that there's very little wildlife in these Islands that can tuly be called "natural", such is man's influence. Even birds, which are great at adapting to changes in habitat, would many of them be where they are now without our interference. We can only guess.
HEAR HEAR - except I would like the human life to be removed - my only request on offering up my life - I'd like to be a fly on the wall to watch nature take back her planet... then I can die happy.
Unknown said: Just a quick one from me, but have you read the RSPB's 2009 Birdcrime report? http://www.rspb.org.uk/Images/birdcrime_tcm9-260567.pdf
Just a quick one from me, but have you read the RSPB's 2009 Birdcrime report?
http://www.rspb.org.uk/Images/birdcrime_tcm9-260567.pdf
Was there NO bird crime on non-raptor species at all? This seems a very biased toward the 'iconic' species to me.... and a bit of research and I find:
'The RSPB took the inexplicable decision in 2009 to cease recording certain categories of incidents, such as the shooting and destruction of non bird of prey species. Therefore the 682 crimes against non birds of prey reported in 2008, an increase of 480% over the previous five years, are effectively sidelined by the Society. The RSPB does acknowledge that the figures supplied in this year’s report fail to give a total figure for bird crime in the UK, rendering the report’s title a misnomer.The report is firmly focused on birds of prey and plays down the decrease in the number of incidents of illegal persecution against them. In the report’s introduction, it states that the degree of overlap between the killing of birds of prey and driven grouse moor management in the uplands of England and Scotland is striking. Yet in 2009, of the 268 reported incidents of shooting and destruction of birds of prey, only 38 were confirmed, 16 of which were in the North of England. None have been directly linked to grouse moors. An RSPB spokesman’s statement that conflict through the management of upland grouse shooting moors and estates in the North of England is the main problem for birds of prey is therefore totally unfounded.The gulf between “reported” and “confirmed” cases is stark: 32 reported incidents of bird of prey persecution in Derbyshire, Greater Manchester, Lancashire and Cheshire in 2009. Number of confirmed cases? Two. There is a notable lack of evidence available; anyone can report an incident, however inaccurate, and it will be included in the report, giving a skewed picture of the truth. If hardly any of those cases are confirmed, well, why get in the way of some scare statistics?'