Sportsmen(?) v wildlife
Comments
-
The people who protest against the culling of cormorants on fisheries have obviously never witnessed the destruction and wanton killing they produce. They spear fish far too large for them to eat, and leave them to die with horrendous injuries. At my local fishery (a small course fishery lake in an inner city environment) the bailiffs will always shoot cormorants, quite rightly so. Anglers protect the waterways of this country, and pay a not an insignificant amount by way of a rod/fishing licence to fish. The vast majority of anglers are conservationists by both inclination and by actions. Don't be subverted by those who know very little about nature or conservation.
0 -
Fess up b1, you want to kill birds that hunt to survive so you can fish for fun. Conservationists work with the natural world not bend & pervert it for their own ends👎🏻
8 -
Well said, Rocky. There’s a huge difference between conservation and those seeking to manipulate nature for their 'sport'.
"…the bailiffs will always shoot cormorants, quite rightly so." What is right about it? Are we not supposed to be a civilised nation?
2 -
Firstly Rocky, if the cormorants ate the fish they catch, fair enough. But like foxes, they kill for other reasons other than survival, and leave bodies of dead fish on top of the water. The question as to our "civilised" treatment of animals, next time you pass a butchers shop, or see someone, perhaps even yourself Tinwheeler, tuck into Sunday lunch, please ask yourself how the animals being sold and eaten got to the table? Many lived dreadful lives in inhumane conditions, particularly pigs and chickens, and I doubt if many died of natural causes or old age, and were in fact slaughtered. As a society the majority tolerate this, and enjoy eating meat. So why the double standards?
0 -
Ahhh, my mistake B1, a cormorant not acting like a Human with Human standards deserves to die, I should’ve realised, even though whilst diving to depths they may be guilty of the heinous crime of not having a net or a spear gun or a stun gun to use, just a beak & their own power to survive.
2 -
Double standards, Bazza? Take a step back and look at what you’ve written.
One is humanely slaughtered after being bred in controlled conditions to set standards in order to feed the populace. The other is slaughtered in order to promote and protect a sporting activity after living and doing what nature intended.
One is slaughtered by necessity for food, the other on a whim because it ruins your leisure time and you disapprove of its age old methods. Pah!
2 -
There's always going to be conflicting views on conservation issues and valid points have been raised.
After the cormorants became a protected species, we are now seeing the numbers of this sea-bird increasing in such dramatic numbers, that people are now requesting they be culled, whilst still being protected. It's a similar situation with badgers and no-one seems to mind the culling of red deer each season either.
Perhaps if we didn't interfere with nature or cause so much loss and intrusion into their habitats, then these discussions would not take place.
I have suffered personally from the destruction a pair of cormorants caused in my lake 2 years ago, decimating my stock of Roach & Carp all in under a week, some of which were 30 years old and far too big and heavy for a bird to digest. Living 40 miles from the coast did not deter them either.
I also fish on the Welsh Dee and the decimation in fish stocks is well documented. However, this is not solely down to predation.
I have no desire to harm any creature, nor would I shoot them, but I do wish those who think they know what they're talking about, actually did!
It's time we, as humans, stopped interfering with the natural world and let it take care of itself, after all, there's a much bigger picture going on here and sadly the biggest culprits have not signed up. (What do you expect from a Trump administration?)
0 -
I don’t see anything in either the Oxford or Cambridge dictionary about a conservationist is someone killing wildlife to ensure their own collection of wildlife isn’t naturally predated on.
conservation
noun
B2 the protection of plants and animals, natural areas, and interesting and important structures and buildings, especially from the damaging effects of human activity:wildlife conservation
a conservation area
Conservationist
NOUN
A person who advocates or acts for the protection and preservation of the environment and wildlife.
as modifier ‘conservationist groups’0 -
"It's time we, as humans, stopped interfering with the natural world and let it take care of itself…"
I agree with that comment, Jonray. To interfere with nature by purposely containing fish in a pond for sport is bound to attract those who see it as easy dinner. To then shoot the birds after encouraging them with the provision of fish is barbaric and to do it in the name of sport beggars belief.
3 -
A very interesting amount of comments. (Not sure about the reference to the Trump administration though). So nature should be allowed to look after itself with no human intervention? How many of us are gardeners and use slug pellets, plant food, mow the grass, weed the flower beds and even put food out for birds and other wildlife?? How many of us are farmers? How many of us breed and produce livestock? From the very early days of civilisation Man has contrived to control nature for our own benefit. The countryside which we all love would be a wilderness if not for the intervention of humans. We'd have nothing to eat, and would live a very different existence.
0 -
So that you understand my comment about the Trump administration, let me spell it out for you - the Trump administration - the bigger picture - the withdrawal of the US from the Paris agreement - global warming - the bigger picture
I'm not sure about your comments re slug pellets & raising livestock are relevant
0 -
We place too many human attributes on our wildlife. They do not kill in the name of sport as we humans do! As we have messed with nature we must now attempt to right the imbalance we have caused. We must recognise our impact on Eco systems and now help nature to redress the imbalance of our making.
For example, we eradicated the beaver from their habitats in recent human times here in the UK, now we should help with their reintroduction. A
0 -
They do not kill in the name of sport as we humans do!
Some statement Micky, Its estimated that the 4 million domestics in the UK kill 4 birds/wildlife each year, thats 16 million birds etc.. The vast majority are well fed so don't need the food. In my own small town gardens I have found bats and birds dead, have watched a cat chuck a live swallow around on our roof, so badly mauled I had to kill it, no I didn't notice that the cats had eaten any of the remains. Call it natural instinct but it is a form of sport. I don't include farm cats in this.
If a fox gets into a chicken coupe it will not kill just one bird for food it will kill them all, I call that sport.
0 -
If a fox gets into a chicken coupe it will not kill just one bird for food it will kill them all, I call that sport.
Not sport at all, in the wild the chickens would flee and the fox would not kill them all, but there is nowhere for them to run. If left alone it would hide the dead chickens and return when times are hard.
We go supermarket shopping, but we purchase more food than we can eat in one sitting. We tidy the food away in cupboards, fridges and freezers just like the fox would bury the carcases if allowed.
Humans have presented the fox something that is unnatural in its environment, its moving with the times..
2 -
Fact, there are increasing numbers of cormorants now seen on inland waterways where in the past few or none have been recorded in the past.
Suggestion, human activity has somehow forced these birds from their natural foraging places into areas where they now come into conflict with us.
Question, is killing them because we have possibly caused the problem the correct solution?
0 -
In a 'natural' environment, do cormorants actually kill that many fish that it does not eat?
I've just returned from Greenland and, whilst most are horrified at the thought of killing a whale, at least the native Inuit did it for food and utilised every last bit of the animal. Most of us are far more wasteful in our impact on nature.
1 -
I see no problem with the Inuit carrying out this practise for food given that Minkie whales are not endangered. Similarly I see no problem with guga hunting in Scotland. Both communities do so out of tradition and eat the meat.
I guess it might not be so bad if the cormorants being shot were being eaten too by those that shoot them. But to kill them just because we humans have driven them to places which we would rather they not be doesn't sit right with many folk.
0 -
. I don't believe in killing animals unless it's for the table. Grouse Partridge and Pheasant are absolutely delicious. , Roe, Fallow and Red Deer are also delicious. Death is quick in the hands of an experienced keeper.
Unless somebody is a Proper Vegan, they need not be so high and mighty about the killing of animals. Ever been to a slaughterhouse or sailed on a commercial fishing vessel.--- There you see real animal cruelty. ---Those poor farm animals are absolutely petrified as the wait their turn to be slaughtered.--- The fish when netted and dragged into the boat suffocate to death for a good number of minutes.--- Think of that when next you have meat or fish.
K
0 -
Totally agree there K. As a game fisherman and a nature lover I only take for my table and then only from stocked or sustainable waters. A few years ago we watched in awe at a local fishing venue when a passing osprey exhibited far better skills than all we anglers, total respect. An absolutely fabulous experience which will remain in my memory for my entire life.
0 -
You know as well as I do K what truly goes on in terms of shoots on game bird estates. Pheasants are reared artificially, and released in vast numbers at a very young age, slaughtered on our roads because they are just so naive about traffic, provide easy meat for other predators, but still abound in huge numbers as easy targets for rich folks to blast at and kill in huge quantities, far beyond anything required for the pot! And what about all the illegal trapping of raptors, killing of hares etc.... on grouse Moors? All to protect a huge industry based on annual slaughter. I know because I have BIL who regularly beats and shoots. I went to college and lived on an estate that was all about hunting, shooting and fishing and saw it daily.
You try taking a dog on a lead onto Devonshire Estates up at Bolton Abbey. It will be crawling with red socked gun toting bla blah’s before you could say “heel”. Same with the rod and reel brigade it’s either pay big money to catch the odd trout, or play in and out with the same poor fish in a lake.
I have no problem with any culture that truly hunts to survive, but those that do it for the sheer fun of mindless killing are something else.
3 -
As per earlier comments on this thread. Sadly Cormorants cause serious injury and disturbance to fish, people who eat farmed fish, which has proved to be a sustainable way of providing food for large populations need to understand the reality. Anglers who fish rivers, where fish are put back observe the damage done to fish, it is a real problem. In a similar way that mink and other animals can upset the balance of nature.
Today I ate some free pheasant shot locally, I'd rather eat a local pheasant than a factory farmed chicken.
0
