Game shooting protects wildlife?

[British Red]

He didn't ask for a variation in the law boatman - you really need to go and read the Wildlife and Coutryside Act and understand what it means - the act makes provision for permission to destroy the nests of problem species that are not Schedule 1 (protected species). This procedure has been in place since the act was written.

So, again, for your information

Buzzards are not protected

The law has not been changed

The landowner has to satsify the NE before permission is granted that there is detriment - he did.

 

[boatman]

You keep saying that Buzzards are not protected but I have searched the internet to find any indication that they are not protected, or are the RSPB etc etc lying? Show how they are not protected if there is no evidence that they are a significant detriment and if they are why destroy nests rather than active adult birds who, if they do, will continue to predate? Sounds very much like petulance on the behalf of the landowner and it is strange because Defra have admitted that they had no evidence but have decided to get some now.

 

[nodd]

Most things in the countryside be it A Buzzard, Pheasant or just the view has a value and provide an ecosystem service in one form or another. As always there is no black and white answer regarding ecology and contryside management

 

[British Red]

You keep saying that Buzzards are not protected but I have searched the internet to find any indication that they are not protected, or are the RSPB etc etc lying? .

Read the Act - birds which are protected by special penalties may be found in Schedule 1.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1981/69

In order to shoot any bird it must be

Not Schedule 1

AND

On the General Licence shot by the landowner or his appointee

OR

By specific licence granted by Natural England covering Species not on Schedule 1 or the General Licence. A specific licence will cover a certain land area - not the species in general. The comments by NE in this case show that they have inspected the landowners site and agree that a cull of nests (which is common practice and mentioned in the Act). was appropriate.

 

[boatman]

So the Buzzard is protected else why go to the bother of this formality? The rest is questionable as to whether they did inspect properly and a proper case made with evidence. But nobody has yet answered the question as to why nests rather than adult birds? The nests ain't predating and any birds hatched from them might well shift away from their home range as we know that buzzards tend to do especially as there would, by the very act of the birds having parents, be adults already in residence.

May I suggest that shooting or trapping adult birds is rather more public and likely to concern the public more.

If you think this is a simple case of a poor businessman desperate to protect his investment then I am simply baffled.

 

[British Red]

It is no more protected than a blackbird or a starling - The WCA starts from a position of requiring a licence to kill any bird. Protected birds are listed in Schedule 1 and no licence to kill (General or specific) will be granted.

A general licence is issued each year for birds that are considered a general pest and these may be shot by any landowner or their appointee if causing damage or nuisance.

Birds that are threatened are protected by special penalties and are listed in Schedule 1 - the common bizard (buteo buteo) is not a Schedule 1 protected bird.

All other birds may be shot under specific licence from Natural England when evidence of problem is submitted and approved - that happened in this case.

Since a specific licence was issued in this case, the burden of evidence must have been met. Natural England have stated

"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."

You seem to have a problem with not only the landowner, but the law and the statutory body in question without having read the legislation or visiting the site. I suggest we allow those who have done both to make the judgement.

 

[boatman]

If any kind of licence is required to shoot a bird then that bird is protected in any normal meaning of the word. But you have not answered the point that it is nonsense destroying a nest rather than the bird. What is the case for destroying the nest not the birds if the adult birds are the clear and present danger to the pheasants? Oh sorry, we have no evidence that they are but we get some soon perhaps.

Pointless to keep repeating the same points so that is my lot on this topic.

 

[santaman2000]

If any kind of licence is required to shoot a bird then that bird is protected in any normal meaning of the word......

By that definition then even the pheasants, quail, doves, ducks, etc. that are the very game birds are protected species over here. You can't hunt ANYTHING on public land without an ordinary hunting license (mind you a small game license is only about $12 anually in most states.

 

[British Red]

If any kind of licence is required to shoot a bird then that bird is protected in any normal meaning of the word. But you have not answered the point that it is nonsense destroying a nest rather than the bird. What is the case for destroying the nest not the birds if the adult birds are the clear and present danger to the pheasants? Oh sorry, we have no evidence that they are but we get some soon perhaps.

Pointless to keep repeating the same points so that is my lot on this topic.

It is indeed pointless - as I have said, the statutory body were satisfied that a licence should be issued and that the actions taken were legal, proportional and did not threaten the ecology of the buzzards. They have read the law and visited the site. You have done neither but seek to second guess them.

I have provided links to the law, extracts and explanation.of the relevant sections and the written statement of the statutory body. None of these seem to satisfy you even they they clearly show your post concerning protected status and changes to the law to be erroneous.

You may like buzzards more than pigeons or other birds, but to somehow think that your personal preference for one life form over another should convey a different legal status seems both irrational and deeply entrenched. Might I suggest, again, that you take the time to actually read and understand the laws in this matter?

 

[Everything Mac]

I can't help but notice that the article specifies "nest and eggs" not the breeding pair themselves. Unless I missed something this would leave them free to build another nest elsewhere no?

 

[British Red]

Indded Mac - nest destruction is common where an area is site specific. CLearly tis prevents numbers increase from the young, but also the hope is that the birds will seek out another territory where they are not a problem species

 

[Eagleman]

I disagree with the claims that shoots create diversity. In general they are all essentially interested in a mono-culture of some sort - maximising one species alone. The suppression of some predators does have an influence on the other species but at the cost of the predator, which is after all part of the bio-diversity. Foxes and some of the mustelid family are very different predators to birds of prey and do cause more damage due to being much more prone to "killing sprees". This is generally accepted that lethal control is appropriate for these predators. I have seen foxes and stoats kill hundreds of birds in various colonies in just a few days.

Buzzards kill just a tiny proportion of released pheasants per year and these numbers could even be offset by releasing more or by releasing fewer with better care. In the Netherlands releasing pheasants is banned, so why are we not immediately going to the protection of the pheasants and ensuring that all pens have a roof to keep predators out during the most vulnerable period of development? Lets face it poults are just well grown chicks, not even adults they are naive and a perfect target for any predator. If every pen had to have a roof on until the poults were a certain age then there would be far less predation and everyone would have the same costs across the industry.

Also a massive number (depending on the shoot) are just shoved in a midden to rot and attract foxes, which are in turn killed. I found one the other week that certainly had several hundred pheasants in that had not been used for food - so really just shot for fun and profit.

I am not against country pursuits but I do not like to see a slaughter for fun. Killing native fauna that have little impact on field sports and which can be mitigated for in other ways is just wrong.

I have signed this petition and if you feel strongly too (no matter where you are in the UK) I would sign this petition and enourage others to do so too.
http://www.change.org/en-GB/petitions/snh-do-not-licence-the-culling-of-buzzards-in-scotland

 

[dump of the stig]

well after nearly 2 pages of utter BS and petty bickering a totally rational and reasonable post.
Tho I maybe wrong isn't change.org an American organisation and is therefore utterly toothless?
Wont this petition in order for it to have any impact and be raised in parliament have to go via gov.org?
I think I read that change.org reseaved nearly a million sigs over ian Duncan smith but could not be raised
in parliament for this reason so went by completely ignored. I could be wrong, ill get back to you on this.


Yup change.org is utterly pointless if you live in the UK, the petition needs to be started through the official
government website for it to be heard and have any impact, by law our MP,s can just ignore anything
by change.org sorry mate, I only found out about this the other day and have been caught out in the past.

 

[Rich.H]

Seems that some folk haven't quite understood how British wildlife is grouped as such. The easiest way I find rather than to go trawling through gov websites for laws and arguing over them is simply read the hunting act. It clearly explains how the majority of all wildlife in this country is broken down to three groups.

Protected species: These are fully off limits to anyone and severe penalties await those who ignore such.

Non endangered wildlife: Here lies most of the wild animals in this country, they are not in danger and also not at full pest levels as such they are wild animals and to be left alone. In certain situations localised populations can become a pest problem and approval for control methods can be sought for that local group only. This group also tends to include in season species such as ducks etc.

Pest species: Here the population numbers have become a problem to the extent that any legal humane means may be used to control numbers at anytime,this group includes your foxes, pigeons etc.

I'm willing to stick my head on the block here and venture that 99% of all folk who complain about country folk controlling species on their land are people who live in towns & cities. They also probably practice pest control in their own homes & gardens upon bugs/slugs etc with ruthless determination, finally they probably happily go to the local supermarket each week to buy an animal part for a sunday roast without any major thought for how it came to be there.

Compare that to the true country folk who watch the changes on the land through the years and you get a real educated view on population numbers that a lobby run survey can never reveal. If farmer Giles tells me the foxes are out of control I'll believe him before any report commisioned from from any animal welfare organisation who sends one city dweller out to the fields for a weekend with a ticker.

Folk happily complain from comfy armchairs about how terrible it is that a bird was shot or a fox trapped etc, but then want more and more food for an expanding human population that physically forces farmers to sterilize the fields, if they do not do this the crops will not provide enough output. Yet take a stroll in any managed heath or woodland for country sports and it's heaving with wildlife.

To argue that country sports do nothing for wildlife protection is ludicrous as many species exist almost nowhere else but on sport type land. If the sports were ended that land would go one of three ways. Sterile farm fields for crops, Government body managed forests used for pretty much nothing due to draconian laws about them (can count the species in these on one hand), or simply paved over for development.

Someone pointed out we have few true apex predators like golden eagles etc in the wild to compete for food, this is a harsh fact that is unlikely to change with human numbers and land needs. As such we need to take that role and keep a balanced number of other species, simple fact is that requires killing, culling, controlling or whatever name you wish to give it.

 

[British Red]

Excellent post!

 

[Everything Mac]

I agree. An excellent post.

 

[Bowlander]

Thirded! An excellent post.

 

[Bushwhacker]

Er..... fourthed? .....Quaded?

 

[petrochemicals]

'twas me who said about the golden eagles. Going by the yellow stone park experience in america it would help to control the other species that flourish and more, an if we reintroduced apex predators that became established, it follows down the line. The badgers and foxes flourish because there are no wolves for one reason, another being plentiful food. After the cod collapse in nova scocia new foundland , lobsters bloomed in numbers. Perhaps if we just sterilised the foxes badgers buzzards seagulls and introduced different predator bird spieces (and wolves y/n?) that would lead to a foothold populace. Foxes are killed around specific areas like commercial poultry places, and far more sucessfully than 20 pilloks 40dogs and 20 horses do in one day, but then again we/they sell rat glue and euthanise unwanted pet dogs.

Beavers where the key in yellowstone, brought about by the introduction of the wolf, and they changed the entire park!

Like any species specific activity, gameshooting will probably increase rats foxes buzzards crows pidgeons etc directly or indirectly, throwing things out of balance, but to what degree does a few birds affect the total state of alteration

 

[JonathanD]

As a scientist that specialises in one area, let me share some thoughts. The conclusions of which are not great.

1. Buzzard populations fall through control and persecutions. Adder populations become sustainable. Corvids increase.

2. Due to buzzard control, pheasant populations increase. Song bird populations are sustainable again and in certain corvids explode. Adder populations fall slightly.

3. Buzzard persecution is stopped. Adder populations fall again slightly. Corvids at an all time high.

4. Buzzard protection is successful, as are better methods of pheasant rearing and release methods. Corvids still on top. Adders fall to an all time low. Buzzards are laughing at all the food available, although the prey items differ greatly from those 50 years ago. Pheasants and corvids eat anything in sight.


The conclusion is simple. Human management of species can never be successful. We target one area and other areas associated either profit or suffer in an ad infinitum chain. It's a chain of events beyond our control or understanding. The spread and increase of our species and it's control over nature will only ever result in extinction and depletion in other species. Even the most basic mathematics and scientific results can see that.