Shooting Short Eared Owls

[old'un]

Don’t know how feasible it would be to catch these BOP and release them in a new un-shot area?

[scotslad]

Totally agree with Panoma above, we're playing right into the anti's hands the way we behave.

 

Yes it still goes on but it really is a tiny % now, u only have to go back 20 years and many things that used to be fairly coommon are now no longer done, the shooting industry has came a long long way in a very short space of time.

It could do with coming the final distance but i doubt that will ever happen as they're will always be someone willing to break the law, like almost every law.

A certian charity is not exactly above the law either, 1 pair of nesting Eagle owls went 'missing'  pretty quickly after they decided to nest on a nature reserve

 

Must admit i think instances like this should push shooters the other way and stand up to these so called 'conservationists' had force EN/DEFRA to have a long hard look at its General Licences and Protection laws esp relating to predators. It is not normal or good to constantly protect predators at the expense of every other animal in the environment.

Very few other countries have blanket protections laws for ever, most adapt as the population either rises or falls which is the waty it should be.

How is it ok to have licenced culls of Cormarants and Goosanders and have canada's and Greylags on the GL when Buzzards out number them massively but are completely protected??

Nature in this country is in a real mess, and the blame is not farmers, habit destruction or climate change.

 

For comparision it took the rspb 1 week to release a press statemnet after it dropped and killed an osprey chick, think only 50 pairs in whole UK (really scotland) so 1 chick is a massive big deal, yet mainstream media has hardly picked up on it. It never owns up to any nests its observers disturb either and the birds abandon.

Hell the rspb doesn't even admit to legally culling predators on its reserves

Not sure the numbers of short eared owls in that area or UK but guessing a lot more tan 50, same with perry's not that rare really

 

 

13 minutes ago, old'un said:

Don’t know how feasible it would be to catch these BOP and release them in a new un-shot area?

 

Been suggested a few times and was a major part in the HH recovery plan (brood management) which happens in many other countries but the rspb were the only stakeholder group which refused to sign up and agree with it.

 

Edited August 30, 2018 by scotslad

[old'un]

1 hour ago, scotslad said:

Totally agree with Panoma above, we're playing right into the anti's hands the way we behave.

 

Yes it still goes on but it really is a tiny % now, u only have to go back 20 years and many things that used to be fairly coommon are now no longer done, the shooting industry has came a long long way in a very short space of time.

It could do with coming the final distance but i doubt that will ever happen as they're will always be someone willing to break the law, like almost every law.

A certian charity is not exactly above the law either, 1 pair of nesting Eagle owls went 'missing'  pretty quickly after they decided to nest on a nature reserve

 

Must admit i think instances like this should push shooters the other way and stand up to these so called 'conservationists' had force EN/DEFRA to have a long hard look at its General Licences and Protection laws esp relating to predators. It is not normal or good to constantly protect predators at the expense of every other animal in the environment.

Very few other countries have blanket protections laws for ever, most adapt as the population either rises or falls which is the waty it should be.

How is it ok to have licenced culls of Cormarants and Goosanders and have canada's and Greylags on the GL when Buzzards out number them massively but are completely protected??

Nature in this country is in a real mess, and the blame is not farmers, habit destruction or climate change.

 

For comparision it took the rspb 1 week to release a press statemnet after it dropped and killed an osprey chick, think only 50 pairs in whole UK (really scotland) so 1 chick is a massive big deal, yet mainstream media has hardly picked up on it. It never owns up to any nests its observers disturb either and the birds abandon.

Hell the rspb doesn't even admit to legally culling predators on its reserves

Not sure the numbers of short eared owls in that area or UK but guessing a lot more tan 50, same with perry's not that rare really

 

 

 

Been suggested a few times and was a major part in the HH recovery plan (brood management) which happens in many other countries but the rspb were the only stakeholder group which refused to sign up and agree with it.

 

Think the RSPB are to afraid to upset any part of its membership for fear of not getting the huge sums donated to them each year, the higher-ups in the RSPB don’t want to upset the gravy train.

[panoma1]

40 minutes ago, old'un said:

Think the RSPB are to afraid to upset any part of its membership for fear of not getting the huge sums donated to them each year, the higher-ups in the RSPB don’t want to upset the gravy train.

Protectionists like the RSPB seem to think it's morally OK to covertly kill things they don't want on land they control, because they decide its for the good of species they wish to preserve.........but they condemn as immoral, the killing of anything, by anyone, on land they do not control!

Bunch of ******* hypocrites!

[AVB]

7 hours ago, panoma1 said:

That is what the antis want...to licence shoots, so if shoots or shoot owners or shoot employees do anything (not just control Raptors) they don't like or approve of, they can lobby for the the shoots licence be rescinded!

Its just the anti shooting extremists using tactics designed, not to protect Raptors, but to curtail and finally ban shooting!

There is a difference between lobbying for a licence to be revoked because you don’t like the activity and an employee to be convicted of a crime whilst undertaking an activity related to his job. Surely if the excuse is “well he was put under pressure to do it” then this would likely remove such pressure? 

If an employee of a clay pigeon ground was found to be acting illegally because he was told he should do so by his employer then I bet there would be calls for the grounds licence to be revoked. 

[Scully]

5 hours ago, scotslad said:

 

A certian charity is not exactly above the law either, 1 pair of nesting Eagle owls went 'missing'  pretty quickly after they decided to nest on a nature reserve

 

 

 

 

Can you tell me when this was, and which charity? 

[andrewluke]

14 minutes ago, Scully said:

Can you tell me when this was, and which charity? 

perhaps it's this http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3543792/Why-RSPB-fixed-sights-mighty-eagle-owl-Cricketing-legend-country-sportsman-SIR-IAN-BOTHAM-gives-bird-charity-barrels-troubling-question.html

[bluesj]

7 hours ago, stagboy said:

I know what you mean, but I have to say that  I personally feel embarrassed by the actions of this criminal, because I have spent years telling my birdy friends that it's only a tiny minority, its in decline, etc etc and then the RSPB provide this rock-solid, horrifying evidence and it goes viral. That's not the RSPB's fault for milking it, it's the criminal's fault for breaking the law. And how many of these incidents have we had in the media NW England this year? Remember the horrific Bowland peregrine case. We all know it was keeper who committed that.

In this latest case with the owls, was the keeper pressurised into such behaviour? It can happen, as we all know.

Who is the owner of the moor in question - have they given any statement? 

Who paid for his defence in court? And if they did so, why? If I committed a crime at my place of work, there is no way my employer would hire me an expensive legal team, so if that happened here, then what does this tell us?

 

If I was accused of committing a crime to do with my work my bosses would get the best legal team they could! if it turned out I had committed a crime I would get a bill along with my p45

[Scully]

31 minutes ago, andrewluke said:

perhaps it's this http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3543792/Why-RSPB-fixed-sights-mighty-eagle-owl-Cricketing-legend-country-sportsman-SIR-IAN-BOTHAM-gives-bird-charity-barrels-troubling-question.html

Thanks for that. Genuinely very enlightening and interesting, but I couldn't find any mention of nesting eagle owls going 'missing'. 

[panoma1]

1 hour ago, AVB said:

There is a difference between lobbying for a licence to be revoked because you don’t like the activity and an employee to be convicted of a crime whilst undertaking an activity related to his job. Surely if the excuse is “well he was put under pressure to do it” then this would likely remove such pressure? 

If an employee of a clay pigeon ground was found to be acting illegally because he was told he should do so by his employer then I bet there would be calls for the grounds licence to be revoked. 

Yes there is a difference! But vicarious liability is not the answer, it is an indiscriminate tool the antis have been lobbying for, because it offers a positive means to further their anti shooting agenda, as is their incessant calls for licensing Grouse shooting! They want licensing allegedly to protect raptors....but they also want the license to cover the way moorland is managed! Because they don't like the way the moors are managed by shooting interests!.............Which is just another backdoor attack on Grouse shooting!

If an employer is guilty of " putting pressure" on an employee to break the law, then it is up to the law to prove it in a court of law......not for the law to just deem the employer guilty! That is not the law assuming an accused is "innocence until proven guilty"......but the law assuming someone is guilty until proven innocent!

 

Edited August 30, 2018 by panoma1

[stagboy]

Vicarious liability seems to allow the civil test (balance of probabilities) to usurp the criminal test (beyond reasonable doubt) in order to impose very serious sanctions. This seems fundamentally unjust to me, yet some argue that it is no more unjust than the laws relating to pub landlords and their staff, or the owners of shops whose staff sell fags and alcohol, etc.  Ie you, the owner, are liable if your staff misbehave on your property.

VC is already operating in Scotland,  and Scottish conservation bodies make the case that it is proving to be at least partially effective in reducing raptor crime. (And no doubt it gives the authorities a warm feeling when they fine an estate huge sums of money.)

Frankly, if grouse moors don't manage to show a significant decline in the current rate of "incidents", such as the Cumbrian owl thing and the recent Bowland peregrine thing, and also a concurrent increase in certain raptors densities on grouse moors, then I fear driven grouse shooting will have been the author of its own destruction (with knock-on effects for the rest of us). 

Raptor persecution is a gift of really potent ammunition to the enemies of shooting. Indeed, many people who otherwise wouldn't feel strongly motivated against shooting are turned into antis because of raptor persecution. 

[Mice!]

I've said this before, in an RSPB mag they were chuffed to bits over 4 something's fledging, I'll have to find the article, could have been curlews, they listed a predator fence, at who knows what cost and predator control as reasons for the success but didn't elaborate what predators were controlled or how.

we all know they do it, they just choose to pretend it doesn't go on.

[stagboy]

There is a world of  difference between legal predator control and some selfish moron stamping on owls. I have just about had it with the grouse lot. I have been a shooting man all my life and I've been on every march, written letters - done all that. But I have just about had it with these idiots.

Edited August 31, 2018 by stagboy

[pinfireman]

On 29/08/2018 at 23:49, scotslad said:

Must admit while not condoning it, it really is a making a mountain out of a mole hill.

Dunno wot the munbers are in eng, but i scotland actual confirmed numbers of raptor persecution is now down to single figures most years.

It's not that big a problem probably far more BoP will die flying into power lines and wind turbines than are actually persecuted each year

In the last 20 years shooting as came on  massively, still have a wee way to go but being honest u'll never ever stop it 100%.

 

People drink and drive all the time yet no one trys to ban either drinking or driving, so folk will always break the law wot ever

It,s NOT the numbers shot, it,s the bad publicity it gets us! Numbers are irrelevant!

[panoma1]

1 hour ago, stagboy said:

There is a world of  difference between legal predator control and some selfish moron stamping on owls. I have just about had it with the grouse lot. I have been a shooting man all my life and I've been on every march, written letters - done all that. But I have just about had it with these idiots.

You've "just about had it with the Grouse lot"? What a stupid statement, which helps no one except the antis.......you claim to be a shooting man? Who needs a friends like you eh?

You condemn everyone for the actions of a small minority......so you support vicarious liability? I suspect you are not what you would have us believe!

[stagboy]

Read my earlier post again; I do not support vicarious liability. In fact, I actually stated the basis "seems fundamentally unjust to me." How much clearer can I be?  I then gave the argument of those who do support it. I did not say that was my own position. Please don't put words into my mouth. That's a tactic favoured by antis (who probably read these posts).

The people who really do help the antis are those few selfish fatcat grouse moor owners and agents who pressurise certain keepers into stamping on owls, and then when the balloon goes up try appeal to the rest of us to "defend shooting".  Equating  legal predator control to raptor crime is simply machine-gunning ourselves in the foot. 

The mainstream shooting community (most of whom don't have the privilege of shooting driven grouse, incidentally) are sick of the actions of the criminal minority who are damaging our wider reputation. I personally will have no truck with the raptor crime deniers and the apologists.  Nor should any decent shooter.

Edited August 31, 2018 by stagboy
clarity

[Bazooka Joe]

Quote

What a stupid statement, which helps no one except the antis

Stagboys statements wouldn't be there if it wasn't for the keeper's actions, he (keeper), & he alone is the only one helping the antis with their agenda.

I'm not a great fan of the RSPB, but well done to them for highlighting what happened.

[panoma1]

13 minutes ago, Bazooka Joe said:

Stagboys statements wouldn't be there if it wasn't for the keeper's actions, he (keeper), & he alone is the only one helping the antis with their agenda.

I'm not a great fan of the RSPB, but well done to them for highlighting what happened.

My post wouldnt be there either if Stagboy hadn't applied blame (vicarious liability) for this act to the "Grouse shooting lot"............it was not the actions of the "Grouse shooting lot" it was, as we all know, the actions of one idiot!

[TIGHTCHOKE]

8 minutes ago, panoma1 said:

My post wouldnt be there either if Stagboy hadn't applied blame (vicarious liability) for this act to the "Grouse shooting lot"............it was not the actions of the "Grouse shooting lot" it was, as we all know, the actions of one idiot!

Nail on the head!

[stagboy]

Admittedly, I should have been clearer that I meant  the minority who commit crimes, as well as the (larger) minority who tacitly condone such crime, and also the (even larger) minority who try to excuse such actions. There are way too many of each category. 

In effect, if not intent, they are all, to varying degree, enemies of shooting. Yet they have the gall to demand our support! Well, I have had enough of defending selfish people who never seem to learn. As have a great many wildfowlers, rough shooters and deer stalkers that I know.  

Edited August 31, 2018 by stagboy
typo

[old'un]

5 hours ago, stagboy said:

There is a world of  difference between legal predator control and some selfish moron stamping on owls. I have just about had it with the grouse lot. I have been a shooting man all my life and I've been on every march, written letters - done all that. But I have just about had it with these idiots.

Do you think the action by this keeper is only applicable to the ‘grouse lot’ ?

[panoma1]

2 hours ago, stagboy said:

Admittedly, I should have been clearer that I meant  the minority who commit crimes, as well as the (larger) minority who tacitly condone such crime, and also the (even larger) minority who try to excuse such actions. There are way too many of each category. 

In effect, if not intent, they are all, to varying degree, enemies of shooting. Yet they have the gall to demand our support! Well, I have had enough of defending selfish people who never seem to learn. As have a great many wildfowlers, rough shooters and deer stalkers that I know.  

But you are generalising again and tarring everyone with the same brush! With suspicion not evidence! Putting yourself up as judge, jury and executioner.........Who decides who are the "selfish people"? Because someone (maybe with their own agenda?) alleges/decides they are?  (That's rough justice and/or the justice of a pack of dogs!) And at what point do these allegedly "selfish people" cease to have your support, and that of "the great many Wildfowlers, rough shooters and deer stalkers" you claim to know?.......As soon as an allegation is made?........Or when the weight of evidence proves their guilt beyond reasonable doubt? 

That is why the antis support vicarious liability, so they can attack shooting interests without having to provide evidence sufficient to prove their allegations (of involvement beyond reasonable doubt) its like the RSPB and Raptor persecution UK (or whatever they call themselves) alleging that every raptor reported or found dead is as a result of illegal activities, usually pinning responsibility on Grouse shooting interests, as this suits their agenda!

I condemn anyone involved in the illegal killing of raptors, but will not condemn any individual alleged to have illegally killed raptors until the are proven to have done so in a court of law!

 

[stagboy]

2 hours ago, panoma1 said:

But you are generalising again and tarring everyone with the same brush!

No I am not. I am condemning the people who commit crime, and those who knowingly harbour them. They know who they are.

[panoma1]

Quote "as well as the (larger) minority who tacitly condone such crime, and also the (even larger) minority who try to excuse such actions. There are way too many of each category" if that is not a sweeping generalisation, unjustly and without proof tarring many with the same brush, I don't know what is!

Provide statistical, peer reviewed evidence to support your accusations, and I will gladly retract my critism!

[stagboy]

21 minutes ago, panoma1 said:

if that is not a sweeping generalisation, unjustly and without proof tarring many with the same brush, I don't know what is!

It seems you don't.

I have named nobody, I have not defined any proportion, merely " a minority" of varying degree. And that is true, as we have recently seen. I myself don't know the size of this minority, but it seems that it is larger than I thought. That it exists is beyond question.

 

Edited August 31, 2018 by stagboy