Kill one animal to ensure another

I have just posted an article in the Birds of Prey section about a call in Scotland to make culling birds of prey legal to ensure the Grouse chicks for the future.

This raises the question: When is it right to kill one animal for another?

SM

I was going to post about Goshawkes in Raptors, but as SM has mentioned about killing Raptors on this thread I will postit here, as I think it’s relevant to the debate.
Chris Packham featured them in last weeks Animals Guide to Britain. They were the first Raptor to be persecuted to extinction in 1883, after the shotgun was invented, by Gamekeepers protecting Pheasants, and I presume Grouse shoot interests. But with the advent of WW1 Gamekeepers went into the Army, and the Goshawke bounced back. Presumably from captive Falconers Birds that had escaped, there was no re-introduction scheme carried out. They are now mostly found in upland areas of Britain, but in Europe they inhabit most areas, and would prefer to live in lowland woods were prey is more abundant. The reason that they have not spread again through out Britain is down to once again a handful of rogue Gamekeepers. The birds are breeding, but as the young dispearse from the upland areas to find new habitats. These gamekeepers are taking them out to protect the shoots once again. If a handful can do this what would happen to all the Raptors if it was declared open day on them. I think we can all guess.
So what’s the answer ? . The estates should raise more Grouse, and Pheasants so that there are enough for the Raptors to survive, and exist, and enough to enable shoots that bring in income for the Estates to allow them to carry on as well. They will then scream about the cost, so how do they cover the increase in their costs. They charge the well heeled clients who pay for the pleasure ?? of shooting these Game Birds. At least they will be making a contribution to our Wildlife
This really is a carry on from TB's question, about killing one animal to save another

WS

I took TB's debate to be removing non indiginious species to save our own indiginious species and not wholly killing them for another species to survive which I take SM's debate to be. maybe i am wrong???
I have just posted on the Raptor thread and basically said that I don't agree with the unlawfull killing of any animal and I don't agree with Grouse Shooting either, it is not a sport we need to survive and maybe I am ignorant but I am sure the Raptors don't need us to breed Grouse excessively for them to survive. Grouse will breed without our help and some of the chicks will survive and some will not due to being taken by other birds and some just because they fail to thrive. Often nature will work the balance by itself unless there is a natural disaster that tips the balance but then maybe there is a reason for that as well. But should we try and claim to know better than Mother Nature and take out one animal for the sake of another, no I don't think we should. If man was not on this earth, Wildlife would find it's own balance. Maybe this sounds like a double standard but I think man should try and care for and support nature but not take the moralistic stand on what animal should survive and what animal shouldn't. To me it's a bit like saying that only thin people should survive and all larger people should not because then we would perceive the world to be a heathier place.

littlewid-x-

I understand your points,but we have been "managing the environment" for centuries,turning a wooded land into arable.
Moorland isn't able to maintain itself,it turns to birch scrub if not managed,either by grazing(a method used by many animal charities,RSPB etc)or by burning(again used by others).
The Langholm experiment will hopefully bring about some scientific evidence of how to have Grouse and their predators living in harmony,early evidence shows that with mans help,that can happen.
Examples of this type of "help"have already shown us the way,be it feeding Kites, to re-locating Hedgehogs from Islands where man introduced them and they decimated ground breeding birds nests.
I feel mankind has interferred and as such we should try to put right some of our mistakes,indeed I think we have a moral duty to prevent the extinction of wild things in their native habitat.

Like Tigerbunnie has already said, if humans introduced a species which is devastating species i.e rats and hedgehogs then yes. In the issue of grouse/pheasants and raptors, well the only reason I can see that it is causing a problem is that it is losing money for the estates.

If these were completely wild animals with no financial gain or loss for humans, would we get involved? Probably not because nature would reach a natural balance between prey and predator

That really just about sums it up PPH
WS

Sadly the maths of it all is shown in this months Field magazine,Grouse shooting this coming August in Yorkshire,4 guns to shoot 100 brace(200 birds) is £1,875 per gun per day.So that's almost £2000 to shoot 50 Grouse,small wonder they think it's acceptable to do what they do,just for the money.

Just found this



WS

An interesting read WS. Thanks for posting, i'm all for controlling the mink having seen what destruction they have done around us. I know it's not their fault they are here but they are destroying our natural wildlife.

Lai

I so understand the devastation they are having on our wildlife and the economy for people trying to make a living but I still find it hard to accept the destruction of a healthy animal by man and as much as I understand the arguement for, I don't think my heart will ever truely come to terms with it. Just the way I am I suppose, I just wish the situation had never arisen.

littlewid-x-

I saw on the news that the Game and Wildlife Conservation Trust have plans to capture and kill magpies using the Larsen Cage method in Yorkshire, where a cage is divided into 3. A live bird is put in the middle part and he attracts other birds which are trapped and then killed. The reason because they think Magpies are responsible for the decline in songbirds

Not only is this a terrible thing to do as it traumatises the 'bait bird' but there is no definite proof that Magpies are causing the decline in songbirds. Instead of doing a scientific study on the causes they are doing the 'we'll do it and see if we're wrong' method and not looking into other causes.

I know Magpies and Crows do predate songbirds and their eggs but I believe that they are not the main cause and killing one species of bird to maybe save another without evidence to the contrary is a bad conservation and scientific practice

Rant over now!!!

I saw a report on this on the TV last week, and I think as someone said on the report, the major reason for the drop in Song Bird numbers is habitat, not predation. We are interfering again, when nature should be left to it. We would be better off concentrating on trying not to let what we do affect nature in the first place. Thanks for bringing it up PPH

WS