There are around 40 million so called game birds ,bread in captivity (in very poor conditions)released into the wild in the UK annually ,for the purpose of the so called sport of shooting.Here are my questions:
Is it true that the RSPB allows the shooting of game birds on some of its reserves?
Is it true that the RSPB allows shooting of ANY birds on its land?
The name of the Society suggests that all birds are protected,however it does not mean this or does it? For example:
Does the RSPB do anything at all to protect game birds?
It is a fact that the lives of other wildlife and many other birds ,including birds of prey would be saved if the shooting of game birds were banned.Are the RSPB opposed to game bird shooting?
Is there any financial gain for the RSPB in allowing game birds to be shot and killed on some of its reserves?
If so ,how is the money spent? On other conservation programmes? If so how does the RSPB justify protecting one bird species and not another? Are Ospreys more important than Pheasants ?
In regards to your questions about the shooting industry, before getting into the details, I should point out straight away that the RSPB is not against legal activities when carried out responsibly. This includes game shooting, where it is carried out responsibly.
Sports shooting is not normally allowed on RSPB reserves, but there are a few reserves where it does take place. This is almost always where we have no control over this, for example if the previous owner of the land or landlord, retains the shooting rights. Wherever possible we obtain the shooting rights when purchasing land, and then do not use them in order to prevent shooting on RSPB reserves. However, this is not always possible, and so there are a small number of reserves where shooting takes place. This is mainly wildfowling and will be strictly monitored, to ensure it complies with legal requirements.
Where there is evidence that shooting is a conservation problem, either for the gamebird species themselves or for other species in the area, we will take appropriate measures. For example, evidence suggested use of lead shot in wildfowling was causing problems for species other than those being shot, as they ingested some of the lead shot and were poisoned. As a result, we campaigned for this to be banned and were successful in outlawing the use of lead shot over wetlands. You also refer to birds of prey. It is true that bird of prey persecution is associated with land managed as driven grouse moors. We therefore spend a lot of time campaigning to protect birds of prey from this illegal killing. However, we do not therefore campaign against shooting per say, for several reasons. Land managed for shooting can have benefits for biodiversity. Regardless of our particular moral judgements on the shooting of gamebirds, land managed to maximise their abundance can also hold good numbers of species of conservation concern. For example, there is increasing evidence that woods managed as pheasant release sites hold good numbers of many of our declining woodland birds. We also work very hard to ensure gamebirds themselves are properly conserved. We would not normally become involved, for example, in work to increase pheasant numbers as this is an abundant species, with several million new birds released every year (it is also a non-native species). However, we have been involved in work to help grey partridge numbers recover, for example at our Hope Farm, as this is a species of conservation concern. Where a gamebird has become particularly uncommon we may push for it to be completely removed form the list of species that can be legally shot. For example, after Europe-wide population declines, we successfully campaigned for curlew to be removed from the "quarry list" of legally shootable species.
I could go on, but a final general point of our work to conserve game birds is our current efforts to have gamebirds included under the Wildlife and Countryside Act. This 1981 legal act covers all wild birds, except those listed on the Game Act. This latter Act does not give as much protection and is very old, with some pieces written over a century ago. We would like to see all wild bird species covered by the Wildlife and Countryside Act, so that all wild birds, including gamebirds, have a certain minimum level of protection.
.
I'm sorry, but I am not aware of the financial details of the small amount of shooting which takes place on reserves. As a general point, we inevitably have to make certain species priorities, based on their rarity, vulnerability and other factors. Inevitably there is only a very limited amount of money available for conservation and this has to be targeted at those species most at risk. From your example, we would be more likely to spend money on conservation projects for ospreys than pheasants, as ospreys are an amber list species of medium conservation concern, while there are currently no conservation concerns in relation to pheasants.
Best wishes
Jeff Knott
Jeff Knott
Species Policy Officer
Royal Society for the Protection of Birds
The Lodge
Sandy
Bedfordshire
SG19 2DL
Tel 01767 693006
I printed a copy of the above e-mail from the RSPB ,and passed this to the editor of the newsletter for our local RSPB group at Mansfield.I had to print it out as the editor in question does not have a computer,so I couldnt e-mail it .My intention was to address these important issues ,get a debate going locally regarding the shooting of birds on RSPB land and take it fron there regarding what positive contribution the group could make to the problem.The next newsletter duely appeared and guess what? they had completely ignored my e-mail.I take this to mean that the Mansfield RSPB group are happy to condone ,the shooting of birds on RSPB land as the opportunity for debate was ignored.I am on record as saying on this site that I dont like the attitude that several members of the Mansfield RSPB group have towards birds ,several members want to cull for example Canada Geese (and grey squirrels)
My wife wrote to the National Trust ,heres their reply from David Bullock ,Head of Nature Conservation .
Illegal persecution of birds of prey
The National Trust deplores illegal persecution of any protected species. In our properties in the Peak District, we work closely with the RSPB and Natural England, as a partner in Nest Watch, to improve bird of prey conservation. Through this scheme we place trained volunteers and staff in targeted locations to monitor nest activity, sharing resources with the RSPB. The annual breeding success of peregrines, goshawks and ravens on our High Peak Estate can vary from year to year, due to natural and unnatural causes and, in some years, they fail to breed altogether.
Recent evidence from the RSPB suggests that populations of most of our species of birds of prey are recovering. However, we remain very concerned about the illegal persecution of the hen harrier, especially on grouse moors. In 2006, when harriers bred on our High Peak Estate land, the male bird disappeared. Some suggested he had been shot but there was no evidence to support this claim. The RSPB?s Peak Malpractice publications, which you refer to, focus primarily on the north-eastern Dark Peak area. This is not Trust land, although we are not exempt from these issues.
Heres my comment: In other words if a species isnt protected ,then as far as illegal persecution goes then the NT couldnt give a toss. The reason that Goshawks and hen Harrier populations have declined substantially on National Trust land is because illegal persecution is rife and getting worse ,the NT do VERY LITTLE to stop this from happening.Lets hazzard a guess shall we ?grouse shooting moors ,Hen Harriers dissapearing in these areas is it possible that posh tossers are blowing these magnidficent birds away with guns? YES its a fact not a guess or an opinon I dispute the comment that there is no evidence to support the claim that in the 2006 case of the Hen Harrier on NT land mysteriously dissapearing when he was one half of a breeding pair ,the evidence is available for all to see on the internet Wake up National Trust you are living in a dreamworld.Back to David Bullocks reply:
Management of the uplands for red grouse
The shooting of grouse for sport is a legitimate activity. Some argue that the historic and cultural activity of managed grouse moors has shaped the landscape, ensured the continuity of the moorland, and provides a good habitat for upland breeding birds (such as golden plover and other waders). If not for this activity, the upland heath habitats would have been lost many years ago to sheep overgrazing. On the other hand there is a concern that the intensive management of moorland for grouse can damage peatlands (through, for example, burning) and in fact is not the best way of conserving upland biodiversity. The Trust is very concerned that intensive management of any land can damage its ability to function and contribute to ecosystem services, delivering clean air and water, and healthy resilient soils. This is especially important at a time of huge and uncertain climatic change, and the consequent need for carbon conservation. The Trust owns very few moors that are managed intensively for driven shoots of grouse. They are all tenanted. We are actively negotiating with our shooting tenants to find ways of minimising loss of carbon from the moorlands they manage. One of the issues that we continue to come up against, and you may have a view on this, is that if prescribed burning for grouse habitat ceased, would wildfires increase and would these do more damage to the peat than controlled burns?
My comments: ok heres the facts of the matter.Shooting of grouse on moors does not in any way improve biodiversity ,rather it has the opposite effect.The National Trusts argument here is feeble.The ideal situation on a grouse shooting moor is simplly remove the shooters from the equasion ,dont burn it ,dont dig up the peat and dont introduce sheep.Please see the animal Aid site for details of the impact of shooting so called game birds has on the environment and biodiversity.Finally Im sure Curlew and Golden plover just love sharing a moor where Grouse shooting is practised ,what a great argument NT that these birds benefit from sharing this environment .Conservation and the National Trust used in the same sentance? a contridiction in terms surely?If you disagree with my comments and would like to read some propaganda from the National Trust then use this link:
If you would like more details of our nature conservation work please refer to the following link to our A Pocket Portal to Nature: http://www.nationaltrust.org.uk/main/w-pocket-portal.pdf
Yours sincerely,
David Bullock
