Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Pet News' started by rona, Oct 10, 2014.
I see you've added a bit.
No they haven't >>
Oh yes, the report that still lists the now admitted accidental death of 12 Red Kite as wildlife crime, How many more like that? They have Chris Packham as Vice president. We all know what his agenda is, the lies he tells and his inability to even recognise the difference between birds from different parts of the world
Was a gamekeeper convicted for the red kites? Link please.
Like him or not, most people acknowledge Chris is a man of integrity. However he is hated & slandered by the hunt/shoot fraternity for courageously speaking out against their cruel & environmentally destructive hobbies.
Anyway to save wasting my precious time arguing I may as well just post these links you verified as FACTUAL
The shoot set hate Chris stating these FACTS, don't they?
. Persecution is still severe locally, for example on managed grouse moors of Scotland; in 2013 not a single pair successfully nested in England (Pitches 2013), despite the fact that there is estimated habitat for more than 300 pairs (Fielding et al. 2011).
In the UK, heather Calluna vulgaris moorland is often managed to maximize the number of red grouse Lagopus lagopus scoticus available for shooting. As part of this management, predators such as raptors, corvids and red fox Vulpes vulpes have traditionally been killed. In the UK, all raptors now have full legal protection but despite this their persecution on grouse moors is still widespread as some species predate grouse.
Good on Chris Packham I say for daring to stand up against the grouse shooting fraternity. Not many are brave enough to put their heads above the parapet and say as openly what so many think. Well done Chris! Keep up the good work! My dream is that one day we will have a government that outlaws the grouse shooting industry.
The ones on 'my' farm were, but as I mentioned in the original post, the police were completely uninterested. It was horrible finding the bodies as they had obviously died in agony and really upsetting for all of us - but would have been much worse if the landowner had had to face being treated like a criminal on top of it. I can't help thinking that spending more effort on re-education would be more profitable than simply blaming/punishing landowners for something that could well be completely beyond their control. (And something that could have actually been caused by someone ill-wishing them)
Hear hear @chillminx! I couldn't agree with you more - only wish I could rep you x
I don't see why a landowner would be treated like a criminal if they had reported the crime & wanted it investigating - quite the opposite (cue one of Rona's anecdotes to the contrary lol ). I know of farmers who have reported hare coursing & badger baiting on their land so I'm sure others will have reported raptor persecution too & not been treated like criminals. Members of the public report incidents of wildlife crime on land owned by farmers and landowners all the time, which includes raptor persecution. A crime is a crime & wildlife crime is one of the most heinous imo. I can't imagine being a landowner or a farmer & turning a blind eye to wildlife crime. I personally, could never do it & well done you for reporting it too. Sadly & all too often the police tend to be hopeless, worse still, sometimes even complicit!. If in the event you or anyone else suspect a crime against wildlife has been committed BAWC have some excellent advice here - http://birdersagainst.org/projects/report/ I have been to one of BAWCs wildlife conferences, they are a fantastic organisation (even had Chris Packham sit on our table(next to my oh) for the meal! lol)
The RSPB had been working with grouse moors for many years trying to resolve the conflict - hen harrier continued to be persecuted to the perilous numbers we see today, hence why the RSPB gave up the ghost. You simply cannot educate these people, they hate species which impact on grouse numbers so kill with impunity & they believe they are above the law because most of the time - they are.
So as we know unequivocally that grouse moors are wiping out our hen harriers & persecuting other bops & as it is nigh on impossible to catch these killers red handed the only way to save our hen harrier is to ban driven grouse moors.
That assumes the landowner finds the evidence first. My point was, that under these new laws, it would be so easy for someone to poison a bird, chuck the corpse onto land belonging to someone they disliked, and then become a 'concerned anonymous citizen' reporting wildlife crime to the police. Ok, so in this case, the landowner would merely have their licence revoked; he or she would not end up with a fine or jail sentence - but it feels a bit like the thin end of the wedge. Punishing someone even when there is insufficient evidence to convict them is very concerning - what's the next step?
Why would anyone who respects wildlife (hen harriers in this case) deliberately poison a bird to chuck it on to a landowner's property to implicate them??? Makes no sense!
Sounds like you are attributing the same warped sense of values to the good people who aim to protect raptors as an integral and valued part of the UK's fauna and those people that persecute raptors simply for squalid greed.
I think you have misunderstood me - I have not said anywhere that birds would be poisoned by people who respect wildlife - that would be ridiculous! What I have said is that this law provides the perfect opportunity for anyone who dislikes a particular landowner to leave poisoned wildlife on that landowner's property so as to get them into trouble.
It seems a rather convoluted way for someone with a grudge against a landowner to get back at them. And rather unreliable seeing as the police apparently are not always keen to investigate suspected raptor poisonings. Who would be informing the police about the dead bird? The landowner? The poisoner?
I am sure there would be easier ways to make someone's life a misery if one wanted to, but I won't post suggestions here as one never knows who might be reading, LOL !
Not really. If someone likes poisoning wildlife AND upsetting their neighbours, it's probably their idea of fun. In our case, I can't believe that so many poisoned creatures just 'happened' to turn up on land belonging to someone who would be upset by it. And I'm sure if this law had applied in our case, the person responsible would have got an extra kick out of making an anonymous phone call blaming the landowner.
Never mind licences, the first step would be to ban driven grouse shoots outright lol. We know without a shadow of doubt they are responsible for the demise of our hen harrier. And they are sink holes for most birds of prey species too. We know grouse moors cause flooding down stream & contribute to climate change. Mountain hare are being wiped off the land. These places are an environmental disaster & a hell hole for the native species which impact on grouse numbers.
Hear, hear Noushka! Very well said!