Behind the license revocation

[Bob57]

7 minutes ago, GT3_richy said:

I have the same feeling - it's similar to the pictures of dead foxes in bin liners someone's stumbled across at the side of a path, either that or there are some really, really stupid people involved in shooting these days.

I've never seen pics of that,  out of sight, out of mind👍.

Just a thought, maybe someone's freezer was full😂

[Moorlander]

46 minutes ago, Plecotus said:

 

I hadn't seen it until I followed the link provided on here.  I've read through the sections relavent to shooting and found little to argue with.    Does that make me half-educated too?  I'm a wildlife biologist who has lived and worked in a rual community for 31 years.   I would not expect to find endless references to scientific papers in a manifesto.  There is plenty of research in resepcted, peer-reviewed journals for those inclined to seek it out. 



 

I wouldnt waste my time reading anything that packham involved with as it`s always unfounded and bias , he has no credibility with me.

I also graduated with a related degree  and work in a related industry , from what I`ve seen those who do the least make the most noise and do the least to improve conservation  ie justice for wildlife .

Same with the badger cull , lots of noise from anti groups but science proves them all wrong , figures are proving culling badgers reduce cases of bTB , hence the cull is being rolled out every year with the backing of government scientists .

Too many people have never grown up and imagine real nature being the same as Tales of the Riverbank, its not and quite often viscous.

[Re-Pete]

Bob, I have no problem with anyone hunting live quarry in moderation that he/she is going to eat. I've done it myself...............years ago I had rough shooting over 600 acres in a beautiful part of Essex.

What I object to is stacking the odds in the hunters favour to pander to those who simply take pleasure in killing, and then claiming it's somehow "right" or a "conservation measure".

Driven pheasant etc are a case in point. They were never native birds to start with, and many are imported from the continent as chicks to be raised to provide "sport".

Pete

[Plecotus]

7 minutes ago, Moorlander said:

I wouldnt waste my time reading anything that packham involved with as it`s always unfounded and bias , he has no credibility with me.

I also graduated with a related degree  and work in a related industry , from what I`ve seen those who do the least make the most noise and do the least to improve conservation  ie justice for wildlife .

Same with the badger cull , lots of noise from anti groups but science proves them all wrong , figures are proving culling badgers reduce cases of bTB , hence the cull is being rolled out every year with the backing of government scientists .

Too many people have never grown up and imagine real nature being the same as Tales of the Riverbank, its not and quite often viscous.

 

I think you missed out on an important part of the training that led to your degree....keeping an open mind and not dismissing anything out of hand because you simply don't like it or don't agree with it. 

"Viscous", indeed.

 

[Bob57]

7 minutes ago, Re-Pete said:

Bob, I have no problem with anyone hunting live quarry in moderation that he/she is going to eat. I've done it myself...............years ago I had rough shooting over 600 acres in a beautiful part of Essex.

What I object to is stacking the odds in the hunters favour to pander to those who simply take pleasure in killing, and then claiming it's somehow "right" or a "conservation measure".

Driven pheasant etc are a case in point. They were never native birds to start with, and many are imported from the continent as chicks to be raised to provide "sport".

Pete

Thanks for the reply Pete, so really, grouse shooting shouldn't be a problem with you then?

[One on top of two]

I feel there’s a bit of taring with the same brush  by some here 🤔

[Shuggy]

1 hour ago, Plecotus said:

 

I hadn't seen it until I followed the link provided on here.  I've read through the sections relavent to shooting and found little to argue with.    Does that make me half-educated too?  I'm a wildlife biologist who has lived and worked in a rual community for 31 years.   I would not expect to find endless references to scientific papers in a manifesto.  There is plenty of research in resepcted, peer-reviewed journals for those inclined to seek it out. 



 

I quite agree. But an idealogical animal rights manifesto should not be represented as based on ‘good science’ when it quite patently has not been.

[Re-Pete]

If the birds are artificially raised and driven, then it's obscene..............there was a report published some time back that compared the value per hectare of grouse shooting versus using the land for horticulture.

See here:  https://www.thenational.scot/news/17286836.grouse-shooting-is-least-effective-use-of-scotlands-land

Interesting figures..............

Pete

 

[Malxwal]

13 minutes ago, Re-Pete said:

If the birds are artificially raised and driven, then it's obscene..............there was a report published some time back that compared the value per hectare of grouse shooting versus using the land for horticulture.

See here:  https://www.thenational.scot/news/17286836.grouse-shooting-is-least-effective-use-of-scotlands-land

Interesting figures..............

Pete

 

You cannot artificially raise grouse. All you can do is manage the habitat to encourage their breeding success, which in turn benefits many other species.

And the article is in a Nationalist left wing rag, SNP propaganda rubbish.

[drum]

Ive been keepering for over 30 years,pheasant,partridge and for the last 22 years grouse.Its hard to say this but times and peoples attitudes to the shooting industry have changed,for the worse,its becoming harder and harder to justify what we do.

So much game is being produced during the season that it has become practically impossible to give it away for free,never mind selling it.The meat has become almost a  waste product and this is harder and harder to justify to the none shooting public.We really need to get on top of this "in house" before guidlines that make commercial driven shooting impossible are forced upon us by government.

All of which has nothing to do with a temporary ban on shooting carrions which are having a field day on the local lapwing nests,that is just a discrace forced upon us by an ego driven ,meglomaniac knob head who goes by the name of packham.

Drum

[Akeld]

3 hours ago, Re-Pete said:

 

We don't eat a great deal of meat, but what we do eat comes from local farms, is free-range or organic, is excellent, and I'm happy to pay over the odds for it.

 

 

 

 

And do those farms carry out any form of pest control, to allow the product to get to market?

[Re-Pete]

The reason people's attitudes have changed might be down to the fact that there's far too many people, and a lot of them, including myself,  find naturalists like Packham more agreeable than those posing with their rifle and a dead fox............

Pete

[Bob57]

42 minutes ago, Malxwal said:

You cannot artificially raise grouse. All you can do is manage the habitat to encourage their breeding success, which in turn benefits many other species.

👍 Exactly, and covering Scotlands moors in wind turbines, housing , horticulture ? etc? won't benefit wildlife much at all, but will help our small island to cater for more people, to generate more rubbish, to be dumped somewhere.

Keep it wild, like it's been for centuries, there's enough dog walkers and building going on in the rest of the country.

 

[drum]

2 minutes ago, Re-Pete said:

The reason people's attitudes have changed might be down to the fact that there's far too many people, and a lot of them, including myself,  find naturalists like Packham more agreeable than those posing with their rifle and a dead fox............

Pete

You may well be right regarding posting pics online of dead foxes,however i think calling packham a naturalist is pushing it a bit,hes a glorified kids tele presenter who diagnosed himself with aspergers because he finds it hard to get on with people who disagree with him.

[spanner]

1 hour ago, Re-Pete said:

The reason people's attitudes have changed might be down to the fact that there's far too many people, and a lot of them, including myself,  find naturalists like Packham more agreeable than those posing with their rifle and a dead fox............

Pete 

Have you noticed the name of the Website, why would you come on it if you abhor shooting as you obviously do.  If you eat meat but oppose Game Shooting you are a hypocrite, Pheasants etc live a wild life and don't travel in a wagon to a slaughterhouse to die. My shoot has planted thousands of trees, fenced many areas and we feed about 7 tonnes of Wheat a year and we control Crows and Foxes .  There is a great variety of bird life and Hares that simply wouldn't be there if we didn't.  We shoot @ 200 Pheasants a year and all are eaten with glee.  

[Bob57]

18 minutes ago, Akeld said:

And do those farms carry out any form of pest control, to allow the product to get to market?

Yep ,I used to shoot loads of foxes, rats and magpies on a free range chicken farm, that produced organic eggs from ground that was bare, not hardly a blade of grass, personally I'd rather eat a battery hen egg ,than one that had come from a rat eating chicken!!

[Popsbengo]

5 minutes ago, spanner said:

Have you noticed the name of thie Website, why would you come on it if you abhor shooting as you obviously do.

That's ridiculous.  The "home of precision shooting" is not a preserve of hunters. Do you want to only hear echos of your own narrow opinion?  I'm quite open to listening to a point of view I don't agree with but I'm ready to learn

[Plecotus]

31 minutes ago, drum said:

You may well be right regarding posting pics online of dead foxes,however i think calling packham a naturalist is pushing it a bit,hes a glorified kids tele presenter who diagnosed himself with aspergers because he finds it hard to get on with people who disagree with him.

He has a zoology degree and had started a PhD when the chance to become a camerman came up, which he decided to take.  I've worked on Springwatch with him from time to time.  He knows way more about natural history than most on here and a very great deal more than some of the other presenters I've encountered.

[drum]

1 minute ago, Plecotus said:

He has a zoology degree was had started a PhD when the chance to become a camerman came up, which he decided to take.  I've worked on Springwatch with him from time to time.  He knows way more about natural history than most on here and a very great deal more than some of the other presenters I've encountered.

And yet hes willing to halt the protection of ground nesting birds from predation from crows .Interesting.Who else have you worked with that hes more knowledgable than?

Was his catch phrase "Blobby Blobby Blobby" by any chance?

[spanner]

11 minutes ago, Popsbengo said:

That's ridiculous.  The "home of precision shooting" is not a preserve of hunters. Do you want to only hear echos of your own narrow opinion?  I'm quite open to listening to a point of view I don't agree with but I'm ready to learn 

It's called UK Varminting so he might expect to read about Foxes getting shot but comes on slagging people off who do!!

[One on top of two]

Love the way Ex hunters are just like Ex smokers ...

believing that your ideas and behaviour are morally better than those of other people..

ah yes that’s it ,  self righteous 😂

[Plecotus]

Just now, drum said:

And yet hes willing to halt the protection of ground nesting birds from predation from crows .Interesting.Who else have you worked with that hes more knowledgable than?

Was his catch phrase "Blobby Blobby Blobby" by any chance?

He's a formally trained zoologist who had a passion for widlife from an early age.  Michaela Strachan and Kate Humble are both fine people but they would be the first to admit that they are, first and foremost, journalists and presenters, not naturalists.

The legal challeng that was mounted was not to stop people shooting corvids when there is a demonstrable good reason for doing so.  The LAW requires that anyone who wishes to do so justifies WHY they need to do it. 

Natural England (NE) realised they had been acting illegally for many years with these general licences and, caught with their trousers firmly around their ankles.  Be upset with NE for this sudden withdrawl of the licenses, not Chris Packham.  You can read all about it here: https://markavery.info/2019/04/28/what-wild-justice-says-about-the-general-licence-issue/
 

[drum]

3 minutes ago, Plecotus said:

He's a formally trained zoologist who had a passion for widlife from an early age.  Michaela Strachan and Kate Humble are both fine people but they would be the first to admit that they are, first and foremost, journalists and presenters, not naturalists.

The legal challeng that was mounted was not to stop people shooting corvids when there is a demonstrable good reason for doing so.  The LAW requires that anyone who wishes to do so justifies WHY they need to do it. 

Natural England (NE) realised they had been acting illegally for many years with these general licences and, caught with their trousers firmly around their ankles.  Be upset with NE for this sudden withdrawl of the licenses, not Chris Packham.  You can read all about it here: https://markavery.info/2019/04/28/what-wild-justice-says-about-the-general-licence-issue/
 

It was Packham and co who triggered this purely to cause as much upset to the game shooting industry as possible.Why do you think they did it at nesting time?

 

[One on top of two]

2 minutes ago, Plecotus said:

He's a formally trained zoologist who had a passion for widlife from an early age.  Michaela Strachan and Kate Humble are both fine people but they would be the first to admit that they are, first and foremost, journalists and presenters, not naturalists.

The legal challeng that was mounted was not to stop people shooting corvids when there is a demonstrable good reason for doing so.  The LAW requires that anyone who wishes to do so justifies WHY they need to do it. 

Natural England (NE) realised they had been acting illegally for many years with these general licences and, caught with their trousers firmly around their ankles.  Be upset with NE for this sudden withdrawl of the licenses, not Chris Packham.  You can read all about it here: https://markavery.info/2019/04/28/what-wild-justice-says-about-the-general-licence-issue/
 

Well not to worry as there all be back in place by the end of the week and we’re all be back doing our bit.  And  mr packham and the rest of jolly his gang can skulk off and annoy some other part life that doesn’t agree with him . 

 

[Plecotus]

42 minutes ago, Bob57 said:

👍 Exactly, and covering Scotlands moors in wind turbines, housing , horticulture ? etc? won't benefit wildlife much at all, but will help our small island to cater for more people, to generate more rubbish, to be dumped somewhere.

Keep it wild, like it's been for centuries, there's enough dog walkers and building going on in the rest of the country.

 

If you want to keep it wild, returning much of it to forest would be a good start.