racing pigeons and hawks

It's stupid people blaming predators. There's many associations to blame predatory birds for a decrease in prey, but a predator has evolved not to wipe out it's prey because otherwise it would die. Predators and prey have lived together for millons of years so the prey would have been wiped out if the predators were responsible for the decline.

Sorry for being quite 'strong' but it really upsets me to see the persecution of raptors fOr our selfish gains. And what upsets me more is people use the fact that certain species may increase in these areas due to lack of predators (and crash when the habitat can't support them but they don't tell you that) as evidence for predators causing a decline in prey, which is wrong- the predator keeps prey levels level, rather than causing a decrease as the BTO have proved.

I just wanted to get these facts out there before a full scale hawk vs songbird argument.

Racing pigeon enthusiasts have obvious reasons for disliking birds of prey - release a load of pigeons into the countryside and inevitably some will be taken by predators. Most pigeon racers accept that this is nature and accept the law of the land that protects all birds of prey, for very good reasons. However, there is an element that thinks lobbying for the right to kill raptors is a good idea, and the whole spurious songbirds argument is a fabrication that they use to gain wider support for their cause.

This 'kill everything that threatens our enjoyment' attitude, along with more and more efficient ways of doing the killing, is what led to the near or total elimination in Britain of many of our birds of prey and also predatory mammals like Otter and Pine Marten in the last century. Through strict protection most are now recovering, and we need to learn from our mistakes, rather than revisit this shameful episode in our history.

As Michael has explained, a predator doesn't eliminate its food supply, its numbers are controlled by the amount of food available. Any decline in prey species will cause a corresponding decline in predator numbers as more predators fail to survive and breed, and that's the way balance is maintained. Long-running bird population studies show that there is no evidence that native predators are harming songbird numbers - actually many songbird species are showing a long-term population increase.

Hi Mostyn. You're absolutely right to be concerned. Only two "interests" in the UK want to see birds of prey culled - game shooters and pigeon racers. There is, of course, no PR mileage in declaring these aims so a fairytale about impacts on songbird populations (complete with a bespoke lobby group masquerading as a "conservation body") has been concocted.

Fortunately most people aren't dim enough to be taken in.

The "legit" conservation bodies are very much aware of what is going on and exactly who is behind the disinformation.  Thank you for spotting some and raising it on this forum.

JBNTS

Unknown said:

There's many associations to blame predatory birds for a decrease in prey, but a predator has evolved not to wipe out it's prey because otherwise it would die.

Unfortunately with Racing Pigeons the predator prey relationship is not that straightforward as the pigeon fancier is, in effect, releasing more food into the air every time he opens his loft. The same principle as to why red kites turn up in numbers at Gigrin Farm and there is evidence that hawks have learnt to hang around lofts.

That said it is clearly wrong to call for predator culls and work should be aimed at finding ways to reduce any perceived impact on pigeons as they return to the loft.

I've seen the same sign on the back of a van, I wanted to pull the driver over and explain things to him but I suspect it would have fallen on deaf ears. I can only agree with the sentiments already posted here.

Michael,Aiki,Bob,Robbo and JohnB have put the argument right on the nail here,everybody wants to get rid of raptors if they interfere with their interests.The arguments have been going on for years and no doubt will continue in the next generation.In  over 50 years of watching the ups and downs of raptors in our local dales areas I think we have every argument under the sun for culling of birds and we have had some great discussions with keepers and farmers but have always agreed to disagree but have made some good contacts on the way.Sticking signs in car windows does not help anyones' cause even if people bother o read them.

Can't add any more to all the cogent statements made above - can just say I support them.

:-)

JD

Seaman----while the odd farmer may dislike BOP in general they have no problem with them unless they are of the shooting brigade and many would be quite happy with them on their land.Obviously in general only the large Eagles bother any livestock and as far as I am aware of no BOP causes any damage to any crop.The sheep farmers I know worry more about the corvids than the Eagles.

Thank you for all your contributions. As the driver, who parks his truck near my house, is confident enough in his belief to proclaim it so unashamedly I doubt that rational argument would have any effect at all. But the twisted logic of it shocked me, I must admit.

I shall pursue the matter.

Of course, the Royal Pigeon Racing Association has declined to comment - so far. I wonder if the royal patrons of two such divergent bodies as the RSPB & RPRA feel any sense of conflict, paradox or irony in itheir positions Not much hope there, I would guess, given at least the senior Royals' love of hunten, shooten and fishen?

Can such a public advocacy of the killing of raptors - for surely there can't be any other interpretation - be legal?

Any suggestions?