I have not seen a hare shot at in 20 years, nor as already said is there any point at all in a close season for hares.
Have some of that Chris Packham
- Thread starter Yosemite Sam
- Start date
that's ok then, nothing more natural than shooting pray animals to eat
- Location
- Welshman living in Nottinghamshire
Then pick it up with other hand & beat him with soggy end
Got sick of rabbit.that's ok then, nothing more natural than shooting pray animals to eat
thought I might be a nice for a change[emoji850]
renewablejohn
Member
- Location
- lancs
Rabbits are always far more common to hares due to the communal nature of their burrows so the public are more aware of them. The initial mixy in 1950's had very little effect on hares but by 1960 the actual mixy had evolved with a high percentage of rabbits immune to the original mixy. The later strains of mixy crossed over and became deadly to hares. Its these later strains the scientists are finally catching up with. Yet another case of blame the farmer rather than ask the farmer what the true facts are.
What has caused a few posters to have a completely negative attitude to landowners,farmers,and farm managers etc, as regards agriculture and the environment??
Know doubt scientific studies will show tha certain species of wild life will have dwindled while others have increased. I think it very one sided to blame agriculture for harming the environment , BUT urban development on a massive scale is very rarely mentioned, yet rural development (to include new roads)must have taken away far more habitat for wild life than agriculture.
Why do some insist on sticking the knife in landowners,farmers etc, BUT they do not mention land developers etc for doing away with wild life habitat?
Is there a subconscious second agenda in some posters minds?
One poster says he remembers what certain wild life was like in the sixties, so must be knocking on in years now,like me
67, but I can never remember wildlife running around as depicted in Beatrix Potter books. That is just a life of a dreamer so some will just have to keep chasing their dreams by being an internet troll. Dream On.
The Laxton Estate which is on the market would be ideal for Chris Packham etc to
buy, if Chris was to put out an appeal to his ...... watch viewers to donate £5 each they should soon raise the finance to buy it. Only trouble is land is not with vacant possesion.
Know doubt scientific studies will show tha certain species of wild life will have dwindled while others have increased. I think it very one sided to blame agriculture for harming the environment , BUT urban development on a massive scale is very rarely mentioned, yet rural development (to include new roads)must have taken away far more habitat for wild life than agriculture.
Why do some insist on sticking the knife in landowners,farmers etc, BUT they do not mention land developers etc for doing away with wild life habitat?
Is there a subconscious second agenda in some posters minds?
One poster says he remembers what certain wild life was like in the sixties, so must be knocking on in years now,like me
67, but I can never remember wildlife running around as depicted in Beatrix Potter books. That is just a life of a dreamer so some will just have to keep chasing their dreams by being an internet troll. Dream On.
The Laxton Estate which is on the market would be ideal for Chris Packham etc to
buy, if Chris was to put out an appeal to his ...... watch viewers to donate £5 each they should soon raise the finance to buy it. Only trouble is land is not with vacant possesion.
Last edited:
SLA
Member
- Location
- Lincolnshire
I think there is a massive underestimate of the damage vehicles do to wildlife, the shear volume of traffic now will have an effect.
Apparently butterflies aerodynamics means they just get blown about but bees go splat, which can’t be a good thing for bees with all those lovely wildflower banks alongside the main roads. When I cycled into uni first thing, was shocked at how many remains of songbirds were dead on/alongside the road.
Go into any urban area and where as people used to have flowers in their gardens, most are now gravel/paving with an occasional bush ( usually a conifer) no flowers therefore no insects or birds. Then the birds get fed in gardens which attracts the neighbourhood cats and they congregate in high numbers which encourages disease, but of course its the farmers fault.......
Apparently butterflies aerodynamics means they just get blown about but bees go splat, which can’t be a good thing for bees with all those lovely wildflower banks alongside the main roads. When I cycled into uni first thing, was shocked at how many remains of songbirds were dead on/alongside the road.
Go into any urban area and where as people used to have flowers in their gardens, most are now gravel/paving with an occasional bush ( usually a conifer) no flowers therefore no insects or birds. Then the birds get fed in gardens which attracts the neighbourhood cats and they congregate in high numbers which encourages disease, but of course its the farmers fault.......
The trouble is us country folk cannot tell those that live in suburbia that they are causing a problem by doing what you say in your post,but those same people are the ones sucked in by Chris Packham, George Monbiot,etc and are brainwashed in to thinking that agriculture is destroying wildlife.I think there is a massive underestimate of the damage vehicles do to wildlife, the shear volume of traffic now will have an effect.
Apparently butterflies aerodynamics means they just get blown about but bees go splat, which can’t be a good thing for bees with all those lovely wildflower banks alongside the main roads. When I cycled into uni first thing, was shocked at how many remains of songbirds were dead on/alongside the road.
Go into any urban area and where as people used to have flowers in their gardens, most are now gravel/paving with an occasional bush ( usually a conifer) no flowers therefore no insects or birds. Then they get fed in gardens which attracts the neighbourhood cats and they congregate in high numbers which encourages disease, but of course its the farmers fault.......
Such is the power of the media.
Serious suggestion.
I do wish Chris Packham, George Monbiot, Brian May,RSPB etc would all club together to buy a 2000 acre arable estate , farm it according to their dreams, charge the farm £100 acre +rent a year and show a profit. Then they may be able to show how the way to farm .
Big Ooops. They would not apply for any schemes ,subsidies etc as they are against farmers being susbsidised.
As I said in another post they should buy the Laxton Estate to demonstrate their ethos profitably, including £100 acre rent and claiming no area payments etc which they disagree with, and Farm it organically,as they do not really agree with agrochemicals and artificial fertilisers.
I do wish Chris Packham, George Monbiot, Brian May,RSPB etc would all club together to buy a 2000 acre arable estate , farm it according to their dreams, charge the farm £100 acre +rent a year and show a profit. Then they may be able to show how the way to farm .
Big Ooops. They would not apply for any schemes ,subsidies etc as they are against farmers being susbsidised.
As I said in another post they should buy the Laxton Estate to demonstrate their ethos profitably, including £100 acre rent and claiming no area payments etc which they disagree with, and Farm it organically,as they do not really agree with agrochemicals and artificial fertilisers.
Last edited:
The RSPB do own a farm, granted not 2,000 acres. But they are pretty open about it’s finances.
https://www.rspb.org.uk/our-work/conservation/conservation-and-sustainability/farming/hope-farm
They do take the SFP for the farm.
They also own large tracks of land next door to me. Not arable land but marsh land, though they do grow some spring barley down there. It’s over couple hundred acres I think.
They also used to run a highland sheep farm, not sure if they still do.
https://ww2.rspb.org.uk/Images/Farming_at_Haweswater-an_economic_report_2013-2016_tcm9-451498.pdf
That clearly states it needed the SFP to be viable.
Do the RSPB charge a rent to themselves so as to speak ?
Charging a rent say of £100
Acre as tenants would make a big difference to the bottom line.
So they agree with SFP
SFP to be viable? Hah! And a huge HLS, and a massively subsidised rent, and significant owner input into boundary work.
(local reports indicate huge investment in 'prettifying' boundary works etc, beyond what is declared in RSPB expenditure/capital grant works)
'The RSPB pays an agricultural rent which in 2016-2017 was £22,000 per annum', against a SFP/HLS income of £278,939.
I wouldn't mind those terms m'self.
The owners (UU) and the RSPB are playing at it, using very large chunks of outside money, pretending its some kind of model.
And, for me, it is. Although not quite in the way they intend.
Don't ever let them, or anyone else claim that the Haweswater experiment is any kind of beacon to follow.
Fallowfield
Member
'One poster says he remembers what certain wild life was like in the sixties, so must be knocking on in years now,like me
67, but I can never remember wildlife running around as depicted in Beatrix Potter books.. That is just a life of a dreamer so some will just have to keep chasing their dreams by being an internet troll. Dream On. '
I think you are referring to my recollection of mixied rabbits staggering about, unable to move or see properly.
How you have managed to construe that as some misty eyed nostalgic recollection of a non existent bucolic idyll is beyond me.
67, but I can never remember wildlife running around as depicted in Beatrix Potter books.. That is just a life of a dreamer so some will just have to keep chasing their dreams by being an internet troll. Dream On. '
I think you are referring to my recollection of mixied rabbits staggering about, unable to move or see properly.
How you have managed to construe that as some misty eyed nostalgic recollection of a non existent bucolic idyll is beyond me.
In the last 20yrs I would also like to bring in the effect of cleaner air, we have a lot more mosses lichens etc, Himalyan bollsam along every water course, and ivy climbing everywhere killing trees.
These some of these things are natural I presume and some not but they will all alter the natural cycle and some species will gain and some lose.
I believe it is called evolution. Do we need to interfere?
These some of these things are natural I presume and some not but they will all alter the natural cycle and some species will gain and some lose.
I believe it is called evolution. Do we need to interfere?
Fallowfield
Member
Ivy doesn't kill trees.
if we want, we are part of nature as well its perfectly natural for us to go out and kill ma few things that get in the way of us producing food and other things we want, I don't see the problem
she does if she takes a chainsaw to them
nart wrong with that either she needs something to keep her warm
- Location
- Lincolnshire
There must a few bits of goodness you can see in what farmers have done to help wildlife over the last 20 years surely? There are many many examples of excellent schemes with thousands of acres now dedicated to providing habitat.
Lots of us even do stuff voluntarily without any need for payment. We do try but also need to make a living and provide food and energy.
Most agrochemicals will soon be banned and techniques are now much more wild life friendly than they used to be. Pollution incidents have been greatly reduced.
What more can we do? I think the balance is about right. I can't see a major problem.
Lots of us even do stuff voluntarily without any need for payment. We do try but also need to make a living and provide food and energy.
Most agrochemicals will soon be banned and techniques are now much more wild life friendly than they used to be. Pollution incidents have been greatly reduced.
What more can we do? I think the balance is about right. I can't see a major problem.