Re: Protecting our moorhen chicks

On Fri, 24 Jun 2005 08:58:00 +0100, Mike McDowall
<m.a.mcdowall@xxxxxx> wrote:

>On Thu, 23 Jun 2005 23:29:57 +0100, amacmil304@xxxxxxx wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 23 Jun 2005 09:33:24 +0100, Mike McDowall
>><m.a.mcdowall@xxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>>>On Wed, 22 Jun 2005 17:32:19 +0100, amacmil304@xxxxxxx wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Wed, 22 Jun 2005 10:00:08 +0100, Mike McDowall
>>>><m.a.mcdowall@xxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Tue, 21 Jun 2005 16:39:48 +0100, amacmil304@xxxxxxx wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>Back to your old double standards, I see.
>>>>
>>>>>Yes, we all have double standards. It's called a compromise viewpoint
>>>>>because so many aspects of life are contradictory.
>>>>
>>>>So what you're saying it some predators should be killed and not
>>>>others just because it suits the ideology of some humans.
>>>In a sense. I would substitute the word "species" for "predators" and
>>>"inhibited" for killed. I don't believe in culling as a first resort,
>>>but as a last resort after all other humane management policies have
>>>been applied.
>>
>>Shooting is not a humane management policy.
>>
>>>
>>>>>>Deer prey on saplings and foxes on a variety of mammals.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Why should they not be allowed to live too and nature take its course?
>>>>
>>>>>What do you live on Angus ? Plant material ? Why do you feel it is OK
>>>>>to eat plant and not animal ?
>>>>
>>>>The issue is not about farmed animals.
>>>I didn't suggest that. I don't understand this comment at all - sorry
>>>if I'm being thick. Do you mean you eat wild animals, but not farmed ?
>>
>>Whether we eat plant or animal material was not the issue. The issue
>>was that Malcolm Ogilvie said "I'm not sure there is a lot you can do
>>except let nature take its course. Predators have to live, too!"
>>
>>But he is quite prepared to support the killing of deer, foxes,
>>hedgehogs, black rats, crows etc when it suits his fake conservation
>>ideals.
>>
>>>
>>>>>If this is what you do, I am not saying you are wrong. I find it
>>>>>perfectly acceptable for you to adopt this philosophy. However, you
>>>>>should realize that it is a compromise you have adopted in order to
>>>>>survive; you are adopting double standards.
>>>>
>>>>Killing predators like deer and foxes is not for our survival.
>>>For deer, see comments below re Ethiopia / Sudan. Foxes ? that is a
>>>separate issue. One of the most bemusing things about the hunting
>>>debate was that both sides quoted absolute nonsense as fact - and got
>>>away with it. How could you select one side or the other when both
>>>spouted complete nonsense ?
>>
>>Not true. The pro-hunters spouted nonsense but were caught out by the
>>the Bristol post-mortem and the hunt supporting vets dropped those who
>>shoot in it by outing the cruelty.
>>
>>>
>>>>>We all have objectives we want to achieve. Man has manipulated the
>>>>>environment for centuries, millenia in some cases. That has changed
>>>>>the balance of nature.
>>>>
>>>>Exactly. So it is man who should change his activities to allow some
>>>>balance to return.
>>>Absolutely agree - that is what I am proposing.
>>
>>Good.
>>
>>>Where we differ is
>>>that you think that sitting back and doing nowt will be a more
>>>effective policy than "positive management".
>>
>>No, where we differ is that I think it should be the humans that
>>should be positively managed
>Why do you think I differ there ? This is not a topic we have
>discussed, but you're telling me what I think !

Well you have said what you think I think Remember? "Where we
differ is that you think that sitting back and doing nowt will be a
more effective policy than "positive management"."


>Managing humans is a
>real problem. At the moment we have a Westminster government that is
>totally anti-rural (I mean genuine rural as opposed to suburbia
>extended). We have a Scottish government which has just reduced the
>options for controllong disturbance to wildlife. The Scottish
>govenrment is also focussing on "reversing" population decline as the
>means to overcoming age imbalances. If we want to manage humans, we
>face not just these powerful forces, but also the vast bulk of the
>population who support them.

I would agree with that.

>
>We should need a government supported by a society which is focussed
>on societies rights to protect the future for the good of society.
>What we have is a goverment that is too weak, to worried about being
>shoved off the gravy train at the next election, to stand up against
>the current pre-eminence of greed. When greed finds itself thwarted,
>it shouts 'individual rights', or 'human rights' and the government is
>too deep in the same issues to argue.

This is back to humans. My post was about the double standards of
Malcolm Ogilvie in respect of his statement the predators have to live
too - or words to that effect.

>
>Yeah, humans should be managed too. As well. Both types of management
>will take time, use both.

Humans need more management than deer.


>
>>>Idealogically I think
>>>your case is quite good. In practice, I am certain it is unworkable -
>>>just like communism :-) I am certain because of population pressure.
>>
>>But population pressure would be reduced in rural areas if it were not
>>actively encouraged by fake conservationists backed by quangos.
>What are you talking about ?
>
>Population pressure on rural areas is all about quality of life. To
>many people, cities are *** places.

I don't agree. Cities are vibrant places. Scenery is rather boring.

>If the "fake conservationists
>and quangos" have made the countryside a nice place for those humans,
>they might have done so by protecting the environment, helping all
>other species.

But they don't.

>Are you talking about the economic efforts to support rural areas ?

Partly.


>You have noted often that you think the efforts of conservationists
>have achieved the opposite of what was intended. I think the efforts
>of the UK goverment to maintain the rural economies have achieved the
>opposite of the stated aims (but I wouldn't say the same about the
>French). The CAP has led to UK agriculture shedding thousands of jobs.
>Investment in infrastructure in the Highlands (and other rural areas)
>has led to many people retiring there, making housing unaffordable for
>local people on low incomes.

The ring of fake conservationists and government is what's wrong. The
fakes give the government advice and the goverment gives them the
power to implement their flawed ideals. This ring needs to be broken.


>
>>>Where we (e.g. landowners) try to back off and leave nature to develop
>>>a more diverse environment, we are thwarted by other pressures such as
>>>neighbours adopting different policies towards species that cross
>>>boundaries (e.g. foxes, or invasive plants); urban pressure for
>>>rrecreational use - or dumping; economic pressure to earn money to
>>>keep people employed; pollution; political interference (which is very
>>>powerful in Europe - we are slaves to the subsidy system). The
>>>situation is incredibly complex.
>>
>>All of which could be positively managed by changing human activities.
>We would need a very different model of government. Something like the
>Chinese, without the middle order corruption <g>
>
>Yes I support your ideals. In practice it would be as workable as
>communism. I believe we must work within the present structure which
>means we will achieve bloody little your way. Indeed, we will probably
>achieve very little by any technique because of the conflicts of
>multiple special interest groups in our society. We had better use all
>the techniques so we can add all the miniscule advances up to, if we
>are lucky, a millimetre.

I don't agree. Ten years ago who would have predicted the hunting ban?

>
>>>>>Some of us believe that some of those changes
>>>>>have thrown the balance too far in some particular direction and are
>>>>>prepared to support positive action to change the balance to something
>>>>>we find more "natural", more acceptable.
>>>>
>>>>But you exclude the activities of man in this regard. For instance,
>>>>mass tourism is not more natural.
>>>I certainly do not exclude the activities of man - where did a I say
>>>that ? I think the unbalancing of nature is always due to the
>>>activities of man. If it were not, nature would reach a new
>>>sustainable balance on it's own.
>>
>>I agree.
>>
>>>As man is the cause of these
>>>destructive imbalances, I believe it is our responsibility to try and
>>>sort them out. I have already explained why I think that requires
>>>responsible positive management, rather than riding off into the
>>>sunset and hoping for the best.
>>
>>The positive management needs to be directed at man's activities - not
>>by slaughtering wildlife so that man can continue his destruction
>>unhindered.
>>
>>>>>For instance, if we continue to use deer management policies which
>>>>>encourage unlimited population growth, we can expect to see the
>>>>>Scottish hillside gradually denuded of natural woodland.
>>>>
>>>>But that's the problem.
>>>Absolutely.
>>>
>>You've picked me up wrongly. See below.
>>
>>>>Conservationists would have us believe that it is necessary to reduce
>>>>deer numbers to an acceptable population level that doesn't cause
>>>>ecological damage. When asked why the population has increased so
>>>>rapidly, they tell us that deer are reproducing prolifically and that
>>>>there are no large predators, namely the wolf, left to control their
>>>>numbers.
>>>>
>>>>There is no doubt that wolves were predators of deer, but not for a
>>>>very long time. The last wolf was killed in the UK around 1750, more
>>>>than 250 years ago, and their numbers were in serious decline for many
>>>>decades before that. So it is reasonable to assume that wolves have
>>>>had little impact on deer for the past 300 - 350 years. With that in
>>>>mind one could be excused for thinking that deer numbers would have
>>>>escalated at an enormous rate over that period. But it is only in
>>>>comparatively recent years that their numbers have increased
>>>>significantly, due to a thriving stalking industry and the planting of
>>>>succulent native saplings by conservation groups who abhor deer
>>>>fencing because of their politically motivated agenda of prettifying
>>>>the countryside for public access. Both of these factors contribute
>>>>enormously to an artificially high deer population.
>>>>
>>>>Experience in the United States has shown that hunting and culling
>>>>actually increases deer numbers and readers might be interested in
>>>>accessing the following websites, which explains the situation in some
>>>>detail. http://www.hnva.net/ADMNJ.html and
>>>>http://www.hnva.net/anatomy.html
>>>Yes, management for hunting has been inadequate and numbers have grown
>>>as a result. Culling should be a small part of attempts to redress the
>>>balance and many other management policies should form the bedrock.
>>
>>I don't believe there is any justification in culling. If stalking was
>>stopped and the fake conservationists protected their sapling by
>>fencing fro the first few years the deer population would stabilise in
>>accordance with its habitat in due course.
>What you are proposing sounds like it would result in a bi-polar
>landscape. At one extreme we would have fenced areas, no deer and
>thick vegetation. At the other we would have areas with loads of deer,
>over-grazed, prone to erosion etc. That is exactly what we have in
>many areas now !

No. If conservationists wish to plant trees they should protect them
and the deer population would stabilise in accordance with its habitat
if the artificial impacts such as stalking and culling were removed.


>I can only think you are proposing an increase in the
>fenced area.

Not necessarily. Trees can be individually protected.

>Why ? Neither of these areas represents anything natural
>(to which I thought you aspired). I want a more variable (lower)
>number of deer, so that in some places grazing is heavy enough to keep
>large areas relatively scrub free; some areas have shades of
>intermediate grazing so they are very mixed; and some areas are
>lightly enough grazed to allow pockets (of variable size) of fairly
>thick wood. That wide range of habitats should support a wide range of
>species. (I am not forgetting that beyond that I would hope to see
>plenty other habitat which are not natural ranging for (red) deer such
>as tundra, machair, bog).

Why should man decide which species he prefers?


>Yes we need fencing, as a temporay means of reducing ranging. That
>will lead to reduced breeding success. In severe seasons the mechanism
>may well be through starvation of thousands of deer. Not something I
>would want to see. Do we let them starve when nature catches us out,
>or do we cull ? If we don't let the population reduce, we will never
>get where we want to go, and the fencing will become permanent ! with
>the ill effects described.

Millions of mammals and birds die when nature catches them out. One
wouldn't htink of shooting them to save them.

>
>>>>It is the activities of man that requires changing not the slaughter
>>>>of thousands of
>>>>
>>>>>Following
>>>>>that, other vegetation will start disappearing.
>>>>
>>>>Not if the policies are changed.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>We will see escalating
>>>>>erosion, landslips and rockfalls. Forget the human impact of all these
>>>>>changes.
>>>>
>>>>The human impact is the greatest environmentally damaging influence on
>>>>the planet.
>>>>
>>>>>There will be a massive reduction in habitat opportunities
>>>>>and many species will suffer.
>>>>
>>>>There is, and it's human impact to blame.
>>>>
>>>>>The deer will be amongsat those as their
>>>>>food sources will decline. By advocating allowing deer to increase
>>>>>indefinitely I contend you would be doing considerable harm to
>>>>>multiple other species.
>>>>
>>>>Your contradicting yourself. Deer will not increase indefinitely as
>>>>their food sources decline.
>>>That was the point I was trying to make - that they will go on
>>>increasing until habitat destruction limits them too. It would happen
>>>now if keepers did not feed deer, not just in winter but also in cold
>>>slow springs. I have seen them being fed through May.
>>
>>Habitat limitations control the populations of all species.
>>
>>>
>>>The rest above - yes, we agree, with subtle differences in the actions
>>>required.
>>
>>I think we mainly differ on where the positive management should be
>>directed. I say it should be directed at man's activities you seem to
>>think that man's activities should continue and that wildlife should
>>be positively managed - which in the main means killing.

>I believe in management of man, and in management of species like
>deer. Killing ? Not if I can help it, but maybe.

But man won't accept management and kills deer to mask his own
failings.

>
>>>>>I grant you would probably not notice these effects because they will
>>>>>be slow, continuing long after your lifetime.
>>>>
>>>>I agree. Change takes time.
>>>>
>>>>>That does not mean that
>>>>>they will not be catastrophic.
>>>>
>>>>Man will bring about catastrophic change, not deer and foxes.
>>>Yes, but herbivores can be the agents.
>>
>>I don't agree. In the bigger picture of climate change man will be
>>responsible for catastrophic environmental change.
>Man can be responsible, but other species may be the agents through
>which the mechanism acts.

A surplus of deer is not going to make much difference, if any.

>
>>>>>A very similar mechanism has operated
>>>>>in the area of Ethiopia and Sudan. It is no coincidence that that area
>>>>>is now extremely prone to famine.
>>>>
>>>>Predominantly man's making by civil wars and drought.
>>
>>>You're not looking deep enough. What has caused the civil wars and
>>>drought ? Overgrazing, deforestation. Some of that has been caused by
>>>population growth, some by increasing wealth. Wealth in local cultures
>>>is kept in livestock. Man's making - oh yes !
>>
>>Yes but these catastrophies are about man exceeding the carrying
>>capacity of his habitat and we feed them just like the deer you
>>mention above which in the long run doesn't help matters.
>So you don't believe in killing animals, but you do believe in leaving
>the Ethiopians and Sudanese to starve ? Don't worry, I know you don't
>think like that at all.

Well actually I do. It's a habitat problem. Many people or deer will
die if their habitat doesn't support them.


>The point is that these issues are complex and
>will only respond to complex solutions. I believe culling is a
>necessary part of that complex but should be a last resort.

It's not that complex. And I don't believe in culling.

>>>>>Do you really want Scotland to go
>>>>>the same way ?
>>>>
>>>>Allowing deer and foxes to survive will not bring about a civil war
>>>>and drought. Man's activities could tip climate change over the edge
>>>>and bring about an environmental catastrophy.
>>>Allowing overgrazing is bringing about an environmental catastrophe.
>>
>>Don't agree. If deer stalking and culling were stopped there is no
>>doubt that for a period the deer population would rise but as time
>>went on deer like all other mammals would adjust to their habitat. As
>>food became scarce fecundity would go down, the old and the weak would
>>die off and the population would reach a stability in accordance with
>>its habitat - as is the case with all other species.
>Without culling your management policy would deliberately increase the
>numbers of weak and deliberately starve them.

I don't see how it would only increase the numbers of weak deer. It
would after a short time start to strengthen the gene pool.

>Now I am not saying you
>are wrong - I think these are necessary parts of the readjustment
>process we need. I also think that humane culling could reduce
>unnecessary suffering.

Why only for deer?


>
>>>This is not helped by people who have only ever seen denuded hillsides
>>>insisting they are "natural", "beautiful", and insisting that they
>>>must remain so "for the sake of the tourists".
>>
>>The skin-deep beauty of landscapes should not be a consideration. But
>>this is what the fake conservationists are trying to achieve and
>>maintain in National Parks and with "aesthetically pleasing
>>woodlands".
>>
>>>
>>>I have limited my comments so far about foxes. I am not sure why you
>>>are so focussed on this species as I see it as totally different from
>>>deer, which I started talking about.
>>
>>They are both victims of human intervention.
>>
>>>I am ambivalent about foxes. As
>>>an arable farmer, I am totally pro-fox, They help keep rabbits in
>>>check.
>>
>>I agree.
>>
>>> As a conservationist I am slightly anti-fox as they are a
>>>danger to ground-nesting birds.
>>
>>So are humans and their dogs.
>Too right - and cats (spit).
>
>>>The conservationist says the farmer
>>>doesn't need the fox now that buzzards have returned.
>>
>>There are lots of thing we don't actually nee but we shouldn't destroy
>>them.
>>
>>>
>>>As a person, I like foxes because they are wonderful animals with
>>>tremendous gall, and it is a great joy to see their craftiness at
>>>work.
>>
>>Good. Same here.
>>
>>>
>>>The situation is clearly very similar to sparrowhawks. The Game
>>>Conservancy Trust recently published a paper on sparrowhawk effects on
>>>grey partridge. Sparrowhawks are not a problem, unless grey partridge
>>>numbers are so low that any negative impact is important. With me the
>>>species of concern is peewit. I am trying to get peewit back. At the
>>>levels I have (which is usually none, occasionally a few nests) any
>>>lost nest is a disaster, so the fox is important. The farmer (in me)
>>>sensibly refuses fox control so I'll just have to try to get peewit
>>>back despite the foxes (but what about corvids ;-)
>>
>>I have no problem with anyone trying to increase the population of a
>>rare species. What I am absolutely opposed to is the killing of
>>members of one species to protect another.
>>
>>>
>>>So Angus and Colin, I think we have the same aims, mainly the same
>>>ideas on how to get there :-)
>>
>>Not quite, but closer than many others.
>
>I still see unresolvable conflict in my own views. for instance, there
>has been a lot of publicity recently about decline in Golden Eagle
>numbers over the "recent past". There is a huge row going on about
>persecution. While I agree this is probably occurring to some degree I
>would be very surprised if it had increased in the time frame spoken
>of. Why ? Because during that same time frame the economics of the
>situation have tilted heavily in the eagles favour. Sheep are
>virtually uneconomic in the Highlands now.
>
>What might be happening to the eagles ? I wonder if the huge increase
>in the number of hill-walkers might be a major contributory factor.
>Eagles are notoriously vulnerable to disturbance. A few decades ago we
>were all Munro-baggers. Now many have "been there, done that" and have
>moved off in pursuit of new hills. Many of these people are fit, even
>into retirement, so time, work commitments, distance, physical
>challenge, can all be dismissed. Just about every area now attracts
>walkers. As an example, I climbed Ben Damh in Torridon in November a
>few years ago. I counted forty folk including myself on that hill
>(plenty dogs too). How can eagles withstand that sort of spread of
>disturbance ?

That's a major problem. People get paid too much for doing too little
and have too much recreation time. That must change with the
pressures from the emerging economies. see today's Financial Mail on
Sunday.

>
>Society needs interesting space to exercise folk to keep them healthy.
>That interesting space is damaged by the process. What to do ?

People need to work harder in a physical way.

>
>I'm very aware that, as a landowner, I could be accused of trying to
>raise artificial barriers to keep people off 'my' land. I hope the
>arguments I present are strong enough to rise above that, and deal
>with real issues of concern to society as a whole, not just my own
>vested interests. Note that in the Highlands I admit being an intruder
>- on the other side of the fence.

Quite.




Angus Macmillan
www.roots-of-blood.org.uk
www.killhunting.org
www.con-servation.org.uk
.

Quantcast