Game shooting protects wildlife?

[British Red]

Into the hair splitting again, as usual no point in continuing. It was simple enough and the very first post really said all that needed to be said. Buzzard control for a dubious reason, good thing or not?

It is not hair splitting to point out that buzzards are not a protected species any more than a starling is.

Neither is a legitinate cull, approved by the correct government agency a "dubious reason".

The law makes provision for seeking permission. The permission was requested and granted by people who investigated the reasons - something you have not done.

There is nothing "dubious" here. There is a law. The law was followed.

 

[Bushwhacker]

What does a plague of Buzzards feast upon when caged pheasant poults aren't about?

 

[xylaria]

Into the hair splitting again, as usual no point in continuing. It was simple enough and the very first post really said all that needed to be said. Buzzard control for a dubious reason, good thing or not?

It is not hair splitting, it is no differant than any other form of pest control. Horses are kept for sport and hobbies, rabbits and moles are very seriously controlled on equine land. The land is some of the most expensive in farming, and horse breeding can be very lucrative, but the pasture has to be kept just right to make it vaible. Game shooting make use of land that is more biodiverse than any bean field.

 

[santaman2000]

....Game shooting make use of land that is more biodiverse than any bean field.

LOL. There's some excellent deer and rabbit shooting on the fringes of bean fields. Quail shooting also.

 

[dump of the stig]

are there any solid stats on how much money the landowners are loosing too pheasant predation by buzzards?
Seems mad to take on buzzards when fish farms, carp fisheries, and fisheries in general are loosing out big time
too newly re- introduced otters, There doing very well by all accounts, but ive heard carp fisheries are getting trashed
by them (behave like foxes take a chunk out of everything) is it because they are cute and fluffy or because
mp,s are more concerned about the health of there favourite shoot?

 

[Bushwhacker]

They'll lose more to cars, disease and wandering off than they ever will to a buzzard.

 

[British Red]

LOL. There's some excellent deer and rabbit shooting on the fringes of bean fields. Quail shooting also.

Here though santaman most bean fields are sprayed mercilessly - no other plants grow, so no insects thrive, so no higher life forms live. I live in such an area, Square miles of monoculture farming where nearly nothing wild lives. It is a marked contrast to the previous game farm I lived on where wildlife was abundant and diverse.

 

[santaman2000]

Here though santaman most bean fields are sprayed mercilessly - no other plants grow, so no insects thrive, so no higher life forms live. I live in such an area, Square miles of monoculture farming where nearly nothing wild lives. It is a marked contrast to the previous game farm I lived on where wildlife was abundant and diverse.

Yeah it's not as good as it once was here either (also due to the size of the fields) The game I mentioned primarily fed on the beans themselves; but they do need the fields to abut woods where they can nest or bed, get water, breed, etc. Back when I was kid the fields were from 30 to 100 acres on average and abutted such woods or had overgrown fencerows around them. Now they're growing in size and the critical "verges" are disapearing.

 

[dwardo]

There was no way back out of our responsibility for "managing nature" since we invented the sharp edge and the atlatl,
This changed dramatically when we invented the bow and made things much worse. Not forgetting Land management and farming ..

I see 10 times the amount of buzzards as only a few years ago and if there is sound evidence that they are causing a problem then they need to be controlled.
Yes its a shame and I enjoy seeing them every day but we started meddling a long time ago and now have no choice.

 

[British Red]

Same here santaman - most fields here don't even have fences now - let alone hedges - just dykes (ditches). There are no deer here - a few hares and loads of wood pigeon - but thats it. The farm that had a game component and preserved its woodland had in my estimation somewhere between twenty to fifty times as many species and hundreds of times the number of individual wild animals and birds - innumerable invertebrates.

 

[dump of the stig]

havnt seen a buzzard on my local downs for yonks, more disturbingly heard any sky larks

 

[Fin]

It always makes me laugh when humans beat themselves up over "wildlife management" and "pest control".

IMO those that seek to preserve a species for it's own sake are utterly naive. The entire history of life on earth is a history of extinction, and this started long before we arrived. We are not the only species who manage our patch - a lion will kill, on sight, any cheetah it finds (including the cute furry "bay-bees") because it instinctively regards the cheetah as a weaker competition for resources - i.e. a pest.

I've always regarded hunters as the most active conservationists because they have an interest in preserving their sport. The fox, deer, pheasant, grouse, quail, trout, salmon et al - like anything else in life - have to pay their way. An example:

Here in France the sanglier (wild boar) thrives in most of the large forests - despite it being a serious pest to farmers. Why? because significant numbers of frenchmen and women like nothing better than to spend the season shooting them for the pot! (the dried saussicon are particularly delicious). The result is that the chasse de sanglier is a large part of french culture and a powerful lobby preserves forest habitat against developers, industrial farmers and the like.

Another example is Africa where it's populations of large animals, in the face of a rapidly growing human population, only survive due to tourism and (very expensive) managed big game hunting. If those industries were to fail...well I'm sorry cute leopard cub, but we humans have got mouths to feed!

 

[Bushwhacker]

It's called not taking responsibility for managing this artificial landscape our ancestors have created.

 

[dump of the stig]

unfortunately now vast chunks of it are artificial and almost dependant on humans, unfortunately humans are idiots and driven by
self centred greed a lot of the time and there lies the problem. And it seems even the activists are only concerened with the cute fluffy ones
Look at the north atlantic cod for instance, taking a right battering

 

[petrochemicals]

as has been commented in the past many times a short spike in food numbers (game birds)will not sustain a population long term. A bird of prey can only eat so much no matter if there is a glut of food. To reduce numbers you have to dessimate populations by eradication in areas (like the victorians and red kites, or foxes today) or reduce year long food sources, not just gamebirds. Buzzards do hunt gamebirds, I've seen, but theyre lazy scavengers mostly. If you introduced other apex predators like golden eagles there would be more compertition for larger ranges. Golden eagles take foxes remember !

I watched the programme about yellow stone and the wolves

 

[Jackdaw]

Seems like this discussion is based on a non-story anyway:

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/myth-bust-reports-that-defra-is-proposing-to-cull-buzzards

Buzzards take live pheasants. I've seen them do it twice this year alone. They are very efficient hunters and when there is a game shoot within their hunting area (like where I currently work) they will invariably take pheasents etc.

I seem to remember hearing that the GWCT were doing a similiar study into game birds and predation by raptors. There are lots of studies that link an increase in avian predator numbers to the presence of managed shoots such as:
The Effects of Raptor Predation on Grey Partridges Perdix perdix.
The direct and indirect effects of predation by Hen Harriers Circus cyaneuson trends in breeding birds on a Scottish grouse moor.

 

[British Red]

To reduce numbers you have to dessimate populations by eradication in areas (like the victorians and red kites, or foxes today)

You aren't suggesting that fox numbers have been decimated (which os only a 10% reduction by the way!)? Fox numbers are at 250,000 or thereabouts according to a variety of sources - and every keeper I know reports them as increasing year on year.

 

[boatman]

Fact:

Government agency Natural England issue the first ever license to destroy four buzzard nests to prevent the protected birds preying on young pheasants at shoot.

The shoot owners, who said buzzards were damaging their business, were given permission to destroy the eggs and nests between April 23 and May 8.

The license was uncovered through the Environmental Information Regulations, which is equivalent to a a Freedom of Information (FOI) request.

Still say it was a non-story? Notice the Defra statement does not say that it did not issue licenses but that it will not cull Buzzards in future and we are going to have to pay for research to see if predation by Buzzards on pheasants is significant. Presumably to be significant the predation will have to exceed numbers killed on the road.

 

[British Red]

Still say it was a non-story.

Yep - the procedures were followed for a species that is neither endangered nor protected. Permission was sought in the correct manner and granted in the correct manner

A business owner protected his business - the same as people who shoot feral pigeons on buildings, wood pigeons on peas and foxes after chickens.

Birds and animals have always been controlled by man as needed - they still are. No difference between destroying buzzards and destroying pigeons provided that the rules are followed.

Total non story - just some rabble rousing

In a statement the government agency said: "The buzzard population in the locality remains particularly high and concentrated and we are confident that the local conservation status will not be adversely impacted by the destruction of this small number of nests."

 

[boatman]

So you accept it happened. Businessman "protected" his investment with no evidence that there would be any benefit. How rabble rousing? It was true. Now we have an open debate and maybe will have some evidence. Should any individual be able to ask for a variation of the law if they only THINK that they are suffering a commercial detriment? Oh, and do it without it being public knowledge. You obviously think this a good thing or at least one that should not be commented on.

Do you really believe this Red?