Chris Packham’s e-petition calling for a pause in killing of rapidly declining wader species is cantering along again. Before Christmas it passed 17,000 signatures and yesterday it passed both 18,000 and 19,000 signatures.
If you haven’t yet signed then maybe your signature will help move it past 20,000 signatures today.
Please sign here.
And then pour yourself a beer from the Bowland Brewery, why don’t you?
[registration_form]
Stop killing the rapidly declining wading birds. We won’t have any left.
Stop killing the wading birds
And while you are in signing mode, and in line with Mark’s 2017 objective to make national parks better, please also sign the petition which might possibly result in a new 8000 hectare nature reserve in the Peak District National Park if the National Trust is willing (ie by not putting another grouse shooting tenant on its huge moorland estate when it comes to consideration of whom a new tenant might be, having thrown the previous one off).
Go to http://.nomoorshooting.blogspot.com to read the background and find a link to the petition itself. Currently we have just over 3000 online signatures and another 1000 on paper….but the first target is 5000 so we need more!
Thanks
Nick
Signed and sent on.
This must be stopped now
Sort this now
Isn’t it time that the gun happy shooting set gave a little thought to the sustainibility of their passtime?
It might have been acceptable 50 years ago before the dramatic decline in our bird populations, but it simply is not acceptable now. Please stop it.
In 1986 when the FC and RSPB got together to research Black Grouse in Wales we asked the shooting community to agree to a voluntary moratorium on shooting Black Grouse. They agreed immediately without a single objection. Noone suggested shooting was the cause of the Black Grouse decline, because it wasn’t, but numbers had got so low that everyone realised that even the loss of a single individual threatened the species survival. At the time we realised it was a near certainty that Black Grouse would become extinct without the concerted help they have since had – but none of us could have believed that 30 years later there would be fewer breeding Golden Plover in wales than Black Grouse. The point is the same – it is not shooting, but habitat degradation that is the biggest problem for these waders – but what if that Golden Plover you just shot means yet another Welsh pair don’t get together and breed next year ? This shouldn’t be down to the Government – it should be down to shooting to do the right thing, just as it did so responsibly over Black Grouse in Wales (and today in Scotland as well).
Like many waders Golden Plover have set areas where they feed in the breeding season well away from the breeding grounds. Non of these areas are protected. In fact when you ask the folk like those covering the Langholm project, they don’t even know where their Golden Plover feed!! What effect on those Woodcock when 1000s of acres of bracken are removed from the uplands using HLS!! This is one of the most important feeding and loafing areas for Woodcock in especially winter! These are our faults not the shooters. Yes, I have signed it. Seems like 6 months ago but why such a low turn out?
Signed quite some time back, along with the badger variant and the plea to NT.
One might hope for better treatment than that witnessed with the driven grouse shooting debacle … oops sorry did I mean debate? Irrespective, it raises profile of declining species as well as the new conservation ‘brand’, that is to say community grass roots inspired and or led by Mark, Chris, Dominic et. al. Long may this continue ….
Two woodcock today, but that’s the first this year (ha) and the first for quite a while – sadly not seen as often in recent years.
This is completely irrelevant. Shooting has a minimal effect on populations or at least in terms of any effect over and above natural winter mortality or normal fluctuations in populations. Never the less again in this post truth era it’s the easy argument which appeals; shooting kills so it must be shooting which is the problem. The issue is habitat; acres of arable land devoid of invertebrates and the livestock which featured in what was a mixed farming landscape. Sort the farming system out and the waders will come back. We have and they’ve returned; personaly counted 22 woodcock today out of five acres of wet land habitat and that’s not unusual for us these days but we’ve underwood if you want wildlife you have to build the eco system up from ground level, soil health, livestock, cover crops, diversification of crops. Shooting, which we incidentally don’t partake in when in comes to woodcock, is an irrelevant argument and actually slightly annoying intellectually theoretical sideshow
Julian – thank you for your comment.
So if I came onto your land and shot a load of Woodcock you’re convinced it would have no population impact are you? How many would you let me shoot? On what basis?
Most gamebird (so-called) shooting in the UK is almost wholly unregulated. Apart from a close season you and I can shoot as many birds as we like. That sounds highly scientific doesn’t it? And the shooting community has shown itself to be so science-led hasn’t it?
You are obviously right that shooting is an easy target – that’s the fault of shooters.
Remember all that Chris is asking for is a pause in unregulated killing for fun to allow independent research to take place. It’s not very far off the RSPB position of wanting better regulation of all shoots, is it? How would one regulate shooting without such independent analysis?
So I wouldn’t get on your high horse quite so quickly! Just tell me the basis on which you say ‘Shooting has a minimal effect on populations’ when bags are not properly recorded nor regulated.
Mark, if you actually spoke to shooting people you would see that there’s a high percentage that have a self imposed moratorium.
Ed – if you actually knew me, or much about me, then you’d know that I do, and that I know that some shooters ban shooting of Woodcock on, for example, their Pheasant shoots. And indeed will fine any gun who breaks the rules. But you have no idea of whether the proportion is ‘high’ or not really do you? And there are no independent figures on numbers shot, timing and location – all things that would help assess the impact.
How many Golden Plover are shot in England each year? Where do the figures come from. We know some are because we see the corpses on Tim Bonner’s Twitter account but that’s probably unreliable – particularly as he might have thought they were Linnets (yes, it’s an in joke).
Mark, I can only go on personal experience. For example, the 5 surrounding shoots (including my own) don’t shoot woodcock. I will be venturing off to Norfolk soon and woodcock will definitely be off the menu. GWCT’s guide is pretty clear.
Edward – I’ve never met anyone who says they cheat on their taxes – I have a feeling that there might be some who do. Wonderful though you may be, I’m not really prepared to go on your experience as my basis for public policy. Sorry.
Hi Mark,
Sorry not often I don’t get your point but this time it eludes me. Your reply has moved the discussion from the reality on the ground to the hypothesis that a shooter, you or someone else, would be able to predate the population (in this case my Woodcock) to the point where the population would be unable to recover but you have failed to take on board that the habitat quality determines that point not the shooting pressure.
And yes your right, I am on my high horse on this one actually and I have no intention of dismounting at the moment. Just a bit fed up with the simple answers being banned about on social media concerning complex issues. I fully admit I’m no scientist but actually basic observational skills are all that are needed here; if you have these species, which we do in terms of Woodcock and Plover, in abundance then we must be doing something right ? It’s nothing to do with shooting pressure as that’s as simplistic an argument as saying Sparrow Hawks decimate song birds which clearly is not the case as song bird populations are linked primarily to habitat not predation.
Julian – no basic observational skills are not enough. Are you a friend of Michael Gove?
Habitat quality would determine the population level in the absence of other mortality factors but (rather obviously) if mortality from shooting is very high (I said, if) then the population level will be lower than the habitat would otherwise support.
Where shooting is unregulated (as it essentially is within the open season) and where tolls of shot birds are not properly recorded (as is the case) then you are on very weak ground being so sure that shooting has no impact. How about a moratorium to investigate properly?
No sorry just don’t agree with you on this one; you don’t sound very sure of your ground either I would respectfully point out. I agree with you that shooting is unregulated by your terms as I’d imagine you would like bag limits, pages of forms to fill in and lots of complicated licences…..anything which takes away the responsibility for people’s personal conduct as ultimately this appeals to your inclinations. Personally I think it’s not the way forward. I also think that a relatively pointless petition like this just reinforces the view in the shooting world that “oh they’re just out to get us any way they can, regardless …” If this is a constructive tactic in your view then fine, I respect your position on this but I can’t support it.
Julian – it’s fine that you don’t agree with me, but you don’t seem very sure of your position because you don’t address the science but go straight for what you have decided are my motives.
If I don’t sound very sure of my ground it might be my inherent modesty (;-)) or perhaps something going on in your head rather than mine.
Bag limits are generally speaking a good idea – particularly for mobile resources which cannot be managed for the benefit of a single interest. You’d presumably do away with fishing quotas? Why have close seasons rather than leave everything up to individuals’ responsibility? Why have gun licences even? Surely we are all sensible people?
But a harvest that is badly measured and not regulated is asking for trouble.
Mark; I take your points on board and will retire gracefully from the field; as always I find the discussion constructive thank you. I will leave you with one positive final observation which is that we (and/or both sides) have one thing in common in that we at least care about the issue. That must be hopeful going forward I feel. I’m afraid the reality is that we, together, are in a tiny minority and we may need each others help more than either of us would care to admit. ?