marmalade76
Well-Known Member
Agree with you there, it's humans that need thinning out, not buzzards.
Bussard Control
- Thread starter mtj
- Start date
Agree with you there, it's humans that need thinning out, not buzzards.
Miss L Toe
Well-Known Member
Several points to pick up on here, one man's hobby is another persons lively-hood, look at any of the leisure industries.Firstly raising game birds for shooting is nothing like a farmer rearing stock. One is to sustain a hobby and the other for food.
Game was a vital part of the diet many, many years ago now and even butchers that I know used to have more game displayed than they do now. I might see the occasional rabbit and odd pheasant but that is about it.
There is a similarity to raising game birds and farmers rearing stock, young birds are hatched [like chickens] then kept in small pens with feed, then fed more. Then killed.
Butchers are running a business, and what with Environmental Services, and customer squeamishness, etcetera, the butcher who is also a game dealer no longer preps the birds on the premises. He sells frozen prepared birds, that is the main reason for not seeing fully feathered birds and furry bunnies on sale, the modern housewife expects her meat to be free of feather and fur.
Game may have been part of the rural diet, but subsistence farmers preferred rabbits, deer, pigeons too. It depends how far you wish to go back, in the Middle Ages, a Warrener was a person employed to keep rabbits to provide food over the winter, Dovecotes, with live pigeons provided birds for meat in winter.
The taking of deer was always contentious, with poor forest dwelling peeps not averse to killing a deer to prevent their families starving, while The King maintained his Parks for Hunting. Even today the Landowner in the Highlands objects to locals taking meat for the pot, though poaching is a lucrative "hobby"
Last edited:
1life
...
Sparrow hawks are my hate,and of anyone with a loft of very expensive (thousands of pounds each bird) racing pigeons that has these pests lunching off their pride and joys.Bloody nuisance; mine were only ornamental doves,but that family I had had since 1970, we need the right to deal with the nuisance if it affects us.
Not many buzzards over this way,but with the population explosion of foxes our country ones need the rabbits to live off. Everything was fine before the bunny huggers interfered.
Oh pleeeeeeeease
. The culling of wild birds so that they don't cause a 'nuisance' and (while acting in a perfectly natural way), kill a pigeon! Before you raise your arms in protest, I am not belittling the fact that the pigeons meant a lot to you, I am sure they did. But to call a sparrow hawk 'a pest, that needs 'dealing with' because it preys in your vicinity is another example of humans thinking they should have everything as they like it. You were raising it's dinner for it! Maybe you were in it's area, not vice versa?p.s. not a bunny hugger, just a WILD life lover.
Fantasy_World
Well-Known Member
I knew a lot of the latter as I researched the role of Warrener for an article I wrote about ferreting, as I also happen to keep ferrets and have been rabbiting in the past.
Not every housewife wants the animals fur and feather free, only those raised on supermarket style meat I would imagine. I have no issues paunching and skinning rabbits, or plucking birds. I also happily dispatch fish then gut and fillet when I catch them too.
Birds may be raised to be shot and the eaten, however shooting in the main today is a hobby. The modern man has no need to be a hunter/gatherer now. Not when we have so many food options readily available. Birds are not being shot in the UK so that families will not starve.
Raising a bird to be released to be killed may be similar to a farmer raising pigs, sheep and cattle for instance, but it is not the same. The latter are mostly raised commercially to fuel the demand for cheap meat. The average pheasant raised to be shot will most likely end up on someone's plate, but this will be as a delicacy, unlike a piece of pork, chicken or beef for instance.
The only similarities is the raising of stock and the actual penning up and fattening/maturing.
The gamekeeper is making a living out of his or her work and so is the farmer.
However my point is that I do not feel there is enough justification to allow the destruction of nests and the harming/killing of birds of prey purely on the basis to supposedly protect birds which are not native ( in some cases) and do not form part of today's staple diet.
I feel this is very different from a farmer protecting their free range chickens from foxes for instance.
Chickens are part of the staple diet for most meat eaters, pheasants are not.
Fantasy_World
Well-Known Member
I do agree with this though ^^^^
Alec Swan
...
I quite enjoyed your post, with the exception of the above remark. You're right, of course, man has no need to hunt for food, just as he has no need to tie fishing flies, and test himself against the willy trout. He needn't set the "Bender", to snare the hedge living rat, but he does it, again to test himself.
There are lots of things that man needn't do, but within some there's a base instinct, and whilst killing is only an aspect of the doing, obviously living creatures die at the hand of man, when there is no "apparent" reason, or need.
When I was young, during the early '60s, the average farm workers wage was probably about £8-9 per week. I could earn that, and more during my Easter and Winter school holidays, ferreting, and how I loved it. My mother was appalled that I earned so much money, certainly as much as she did, and during my straightened childhood, the money was handy!
Anyway, we're wandering away from the current theme of this thread. 30 years ago when I worked as a game keeper, shooting had to be paid for, of course, but I find todays let shooting rather distasteful, and it has little to do with the skill of anyone, it seems to me, but everything to do with just how much money those who shoot are prepared to spend.
Going back to the massive increase in the populations of certain birds, I generally recon that there needs to be a feed structure in place, for this to happen, but just why Magpies and Buzzards should have prospered as they have, is a mystery.
Alec.
rhino
Well-Known Member
Which of their estates?
I livery on their main estate at Bowhill and see no resemblance whatsoever to what you've posted.EAST KENT
Well-Known Member
Oh pleeeeeeeease
p.s. not a bunny hugger, just a WILD life lover.
It is probably quite "natural" for foxes to kill lambs,but we shoot them as nuisances..same difference. As for it being "natural" to kill incredibly expensive racing pigeons ..words fail me. Simply put,these predators ,since protection,have over populated and need control.
Alec Swan
...
I hadn't noticed this post until it was pointed out to me. Are we to assume that you have evidence of these claims, and accusations? Without clear proof, you really have no right to make such unfounded and shameful accusations. Produce the evidence, and I'll withdraw my words.
Alec.
1life
...
No, not 'same difference'. In fact, very different! Lambs are probably being reared for food consumption, expensive racing pigeons are being reared for a leisure time pursuit.
The sparrow hawk is hardly going to notice the price tag on the top of a pigeon's head and leave it be if it's a home-bred expensive pet. So yes, the kill IS natural to them!
Yes, they are predators. That IS natural.
Dobiegirl
Well-Known Member
The Sparrow Hawk has been the bane of my life at times taking the wild birds I spend a fortune feeding. Now that the Swallows are here the wild birds stand more of a chance as the Swallows see them before they strike and give their warning cry.
I also have Pigeons and have lost a lot to the Sparrow Hawk but was luckily enough if you can call it luck to see a Peregrine come in and take one. It wasnt until a few moments after I thought Oh flip that was my Pigeon.
I also have Pigeons and have lost a lot to the Sparrow Hawk but was luckily enough if you can call it luck to see a Peregrine come in and take one. It wasnt until a few moments after I thought Oh flip that was my Pigeon.
Tormenta
Well-Known Member
Lambs are someone's livelihood, racing pigeons are a hobby. Not the same difference IMO. I'm quite sure the Sparrowhawk doesn't differentiate on how much it's lunch cost you. They have as much right to be on this planet as you have.
Fantasy_World
Well-Known Member
Tormenta and 1life I agree with both of you. The hawks are behaving naturally and killing other birds, that is what they do. They do it so they can eat, survive and raise chicks. How their supply derives is up to us. We feed birds in the gardens and other areas which encourages wild birds to collect in areas. Hawks notice this and will be quick on the uptake and will take birds that they can catch. As for pigeons, again they are prey to them. They are not a natural source of food as the pigeons are 'man-made' ie we breed them for speed, and homing instincts and they are far removed from their wild relatives, the rock dove wasn't it? It must be upsetting to lose prize birds however to eradicate the predator of them ( the hawks) is immoral and also un-natural.
Most predators in the wild have no other feathered, furred or scaled predator. The top predator is us and don't we revel in that fact. Predator populations on the whole are governed by food sources, as are all wild animals in the world. When the source of food diminishes then so does the animal or bird that was using it to thrive.
When nature does go awry it is always the humans that are behind it. A fact we should always remember. Flora and fauna co existed quite happily on this earth before man's arrival and we could do well to remember that.
Most predators in the wild have no other feathered, furred or scaled predator. The top predator is us and don't we revel in that fact. Predator populations on the whole are governed by food sources, as are all wild animals in the world. When the source of food diminishes then so does the animal or bird that was using it to thrive.
When nature does go awry it is always the humans that are behind it. A fact we should always remember. Flora and fauna co existed quite happily on this earth before man's arrival and we could do well to remember that.
EAST KENT
Well-Known Member
rhino
Well-Known Member
Not true, there has always been evolution, speciation and extinction, it's nothing new.
Prior to us coming along and 'wrecking everything', it is estimated that 99.9% of all species that have ever existed became extinct
Not such a happy existence after all...
Fantasy_World
Well-Known Member
Your very name says it all PMSL
Gosh you are so funny ha ha I almost choked on my sandwich
Fantasy_World
Well-Known Member
Not true, there has always been evolution, speciation and extinction, it's nothing new.
Prior to us coming along and 'wrecking everything', it is estimated that 99.9% of all species that have ever existed became extinct
Not such a happy existence after all...
Where was this information cited and also it also an estimation. As humans we can never know exactly what happened in the past without hard evidence to support claims.
I cannot be bothered to delve into environmental studies but I will say one thing that cannot be rebuked, that mankind has had a far greater effect on this planet than any other living species.
fburton
Well-Known Member
Yes, but that was over millions of years. Apparently, we/humanity have accelerated the process enormously:Prior to us coming along and 'wrecking everything', it is estimated that 99.9% of all species that have ever existed became extinct
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/mar/07/extinction-species-evolve
The IUCN created shock waves with its major assessment of the world's biodiversity in 2004, which calculated that the rate of extinction had reached 100-1,000 times that suggested by the fossil records before humans.
No formal calculations have been published since, but conservationists agree the rate of loss has increased since then, and Stuart said it was possible that the dramatic predictions of experts like the renowned Harvard biologist E O Wilson, that the rate of loss could reach 10,000 times the background rate in two decades, could be correct.
amandap
Well-Known Member
Perhaps there is hope for human 'happyness' then.
They will have the world to themselves with their friendly species... Glad I wont be here to see it.
Very depressing info fburton.
stencilface
High upon a hillside
Ah, EO Wilson, genius man
Alec Swan
...
And it's also entirely possible, that within two decades the thoughts of the experts could be considered to be complete and utter nonsense. We have a long way to go, and all that's being offered is hypothesis and possibilities, and yes, I agree, anything's possible.
Alec.
rhino
Well-Known Member
No, facts have never appeared to be your 'thing'
Figure comes from Newman, M (1994) A mathematical model for mass extinction (Cornell University) and is cited in a huge number of journal articles. Estimation? Of course it is, since it is covering several million years of evolution
Not so sure how 'hard facts' would be possible And as we have no idea of the numbers of species existing at the present time, everything is an estimate! Still, feel free to pick and choose the bits of research that you like the sound of
Last edited:
brighteyes
Pooh-Bah
I quite enjoyed your post, with the exception of the above remark. You're right, of course, man has no need to hunt for food, just as he has no need to tie fishing flies, and test himself against the willy trout. He needn't set the "Bender", to snare the hedge living rat, but he does it, again to test himself.
There are lots of things that man needn't do, but within some there's a base instinct, and whilst killing is only an aspect of the doing, obviously living creatures die at the hand of man, when there is no "apparent" reason, or need.
When I was young, during the early '60s, the average farm workers wage was probably about £8-9 per week. I could earn that, and more during my Easter and Winter school holidays, ferreting, and how I loved it. My mother was appalled that I earned so much money, certainly as much as she did, and during my straightened childhood, the money was handy!
Anyway, we're wandering away from the current theme of this thread. 30 years ago when I worked as a game keeper, shooting had to be paid for, of course, but I find todays let shooting rather distasteful, and it has little to do with the skill of anyone, it seems to me, but everything to do with just how much money those who shoot are prepared to spend.
Going back to the massive increase in the populations of certain birds, I generally recon that there needs to be a feed structure in place, for this to happen, but just why Magpies and Buzzards should have prospered as they have, is a mystery.
Alec.
Ah, the 'willy trout'. Alec, once again, you have made me smile
The rest of the thread makes for very interesting but inconclusive reading. Are buzzards under threat or not?
fburton
Well-Known Member
Your thoughts on the previous paragraph?And it's also entirely possible, that within two decades the thoughts of the experts could be considered to be complete and utter nonsense. We have a long way to go, and all that's being offered is hypothesis and possibilities, and yes, I agree, anything's possible.
Alec.
The IUCN created shock waves with its major assessment of the world's biodiversity in 2004, which calculated that the rate of extinction had reached 100-1,000 times that suggested by the fossil records before humans.
Of course, and statistics is an essential tool in this area - just because we don't count the oats in a scoop doesn't mean we can't feed the correct amount.
rhino
Well-Known Member
Your thoughts on the previous paragraph?
Of course, and statistics is an essential tool in this area - just because we don't count the oats in a scoop doesn't mean we can't feed the correct amount.
Shockwaves, and criticism of research methods aplenty
I wasn't the one discounting estimates
Fantasy_World
Well-Known Member
No, facts have never appeared to be your 'thing'
Figure comes from Newman, M (1994) A mathematical model for mass extinction (Cornell University) and is cited in a huge number of journal articles. Estimation? Of course it is, since it is covering several million years of evolution
And as we have no idea of the numbers of species existing at the present time, everything is an estimate! Still, feel free to pick and choose the bits of research that you like the sound of
Gosh you have a real issue with me don't you? Did I decapitate you in a former life maybe lol.
Actually for the record facts are my thing and seeing as I have many academic qualifications to my name and also used to be employed in a job in which facts were a must then I can assure you that I am well aware of facts thankyou
I also know how to cite too since essays and articles have been very much my thing.
The reason I don't cite on here very much is because I cannot be bothered too. At the end of the day this is just a forum, that is all it will ever be. I prefer to concentrate my efforts in real life to be honest and not in cyber space.
Fantasy_World
Well-Known Member
Very interesting reading and I happen to share the same views. I have been interested in wildlife and ecology for many, many years. I even studied EVS at A level years ago.
It is very doubtful that the human race will ever become extinct but if it did I would be 99.9% sure it would be by our own hands.
rhino
Well-Known Member
No, I don't have an issue with you, just your statement that which I felt was simplistic and untrue, so I responded
Seems a bit hypocritical that you 'can't be bothered' citing yet request it of others
, but then so does Ah, the old cherry...
Love it
EAST KENT
Well-Known Member
Yes ..amusing is`nt FW,well, I reserve the right,legal or otherwise ,to deal with anything that causes my property injury or death..so there.
marmalade76
Well-Known Member
Ah, the 'willy trout'. Alec, once again, you have made me smile
The rest of the thread makes for very interesting but inconclusive reading. Are buzzards under threat or not?
It appears not
http://www.countryside-alliance.org...sappointed-by-defra-u-turn-on-buzzard-control