timbrayford
Well-Known Member
I believe that its best that we agree to differ don't you?
Releasing non native species to hunt
- Thread starter nun_hunter
- Start date
timbrayford
Well-Known Member
Have I mentioned trout yet?
tackb
Well-Known Member
so ? nothing a few pints of Guinness wouldn't solve......
BenBhoy
Well-Known Member
I can only speak for myself, but I'm someone who rears animals for meat for my livelihood (and I'm pretty good at it). Eventually they will become meat. Whilst I'm rearing them, treating them, keeping them clean & healthy, I never view them as anything but living, feeling animals.
They're not meat until they're hung up imo.
One day you will be ash, but your not ash now are you? (Qué some boffin to tell me we're all particles of ash or something now!! Probably @Apthorpe )
I have to be careful what I say here because I'll be branded a shocking hypocrite, as I've "released" a herd of fallow deer on my farm (albeit within a fenced area), and I kill them by "hunting" in order to exploit the loophole that enables me to process and sell venison under the same exemptions that apply to wild deer.
Be that as it may, there's no doubt that the release of non-native species purely for the purpose of hunting has caused untold damage to ecosystems around the world, with no tangible benefits. Think of the foxes that were taken abroad by the English gentry in order to be able to hunt in the traditional British fashion on their new estates in the colonies. No benefit, only harm. And still causing damage now.
There is no way that this is comparable with the damage caused by farming, as farming is for food production and therefore has a tangible benefit. And it's closely managed and regulated (or can be) so where environmental damage has been caused steps can potentially be taken to rectify that, as we're slowly but surely seeing happening.
Hunting as a primary source of food production hasn't been a thing of any significance in the western world for a very long time, so any suggestion that food production is justification for releasing species to hunt is laughable. (Ignore my fallow deer at this point please!)
With regard to the release of non-native species in the UK, for supposed "conservation" or "rewilding" purposes, I'm broadly in favour of the reintroduction of species that were present here within relatively recent history (say, since the last ice age), but only where an ecological niche still exists for them. Boar are a good example here (despite not having been deliberately reintroduced) as they've clearly slotted straight back into their place in our ecosystem.
I don't think we've got enough of the right connected habitat remaining intact to be considering the widescale reintroduction of large herbivores (eurasian elk and bison) other than perhaps small domesticated herds kept within enclosed areas, largely for novelty value.
We don't have enough expanse of unpopulated area to be considering wolves.
Beavers I'm OK with (aren't we all?
) with one caveat, which I'll come to in a minute.
So that leaves us with the lynx, which is probably the strongest contender. And I sit on the fence.
My biggest issue with any of these reintroductions is that the species immediately receives blanket protection, which is wrong, imo. The protected status should only apply while they remain within the area designated for their release. Those areas will have been carefully studied, assessments on potential impact will have been carried out, permission will have been obtained, and arrangements will have been made with affected landowners within that area. All well and good.
The proposal to release lynx in Kielder is a prime example. I'm sure lynx would be very happy there, and could have protected status within the designated area. But any animals that stray beyond the boundaries of that area should lose that protection, and be given the status of "non-native invasive species", which is where the hunting comes into it. Non-native invasive species can be dealt with by landowners/managers as they see fit, in order to protect their own interests in the land (livestock, crops etc) and to protect the existing native fauna and flora, provided that the methods used comply with good welfare guidelines.
That is, imo, how it should have been applied to beavers that began to colonise areas outside designated release sites, and it is basically the situation that applies to boar (except there are no designated release sites where they are protected).
(But to get back to the OP's original question about a purely hypothetical situation, I'd gladly introduce muntjac into the wild, for hunting, in this part of north-west Wales, so if anyone has got some please get in touch.....).
Be that as it may, there's no doubt that the release of non-native species purely for the purpose of hunting has caused untold damage to ecosystems around the world, with no tangible benefits. Think of the foxes that were taken abroad by the English gentry in order to be able to hunt in the traditional British fashion on their new estates in the colonies. No benefit, only harm. And still causing damage now.
There is no way that this is comparable with the damage caused by farming, as farming is for food production and therefore has a tangible benefit. And it's closely managed and regulated (or can be) so where environmental damage has been caused steps can potentially be taken to rectify that, as we're slowly but surely seeing happening.
Hunting as a primary source of food production hasn't been a thing of any significance in the western world for a very long time, so any suggestion that food production is justification for releasing species to hunt is laughable. (Ignore my fallow deer at this point please!)
With regard to the release of non-native species in the UK, for supposed "conservation" or "rewilding" purposes, I'm broadly in favour of the reintroduction of species that were present here within relatively recent history (say, since the last ice age), but only where an ecological niche still exists for them. Boar are a good example here (despite not having been deliberately reintroduced) as they've clearly slotted straight back into their place in our ecosystem.
I don't think we've got enough of the right connected habitat remaining intact to be considering the widescale reintroduction of large herbivores (eurasian elk and bison) other than perhaps small domesticated herds kept within enclosed areas, largely for novelty value.
We don't have enough expanse of unpopulated area to be considering wolves.
Beavers I'm OK with (aren't we all?
) with one caveat, which I'll come to in a minute.So that leaves us with the lynx, which is probably the strongest contender. And I sit on the fence.
My biggest issue with any of these reintroductions is that the species immediately receives blanket protection, which is wrong, imo. The protected status should only apply while they remain within the area designated for their release. Those areas will have been carefully studied, assessments on potential impact will have been carried out, permission will have been obtained, and arrangements will have been made with affected landowners within that area. All well and good.
The proposal to release lynx in Kielder is a prime example. I'm sure lynx would be very happy there, and could have protected status within the designated area. But any animals that stray beyond the boundaries of that area should lose that protection, and be given the status of "non-native invasive species", which is where the hunting comes into it. Non-native invasive species can be dealt with by landowners/managers as they see fit, in order to protect their own interests in the land (livestock, crops etc) and to protect the existing native fauna and flora, provided that the methods used comply with good welfare guidelines.
That is, imo, how it should have been applied to beavers that began to colonise areas outside designated release sites, and it is basically the situation that applies to boar (except there are no designated release sites where they are protected).
(But to get back to the OP's original question about a purely hypothetical situation, I'd gladly introduce muntjac into the wild, for hunting, in this part of north-west Wales, so if anyone has got some please get in touch.....).
Last edited:
That's interesting....years ago, I read about a guy in Essex who kept a herd of deer, and he reckoned that by using a rifle (silenced, I think), he could drop a selected animal within a group, and the others would barely react.
He reckoned the meat tasted better as well because the animal was unstressed.
D.
He reckoned the meat tasted better as well because the animal was unstressed.
D.
tackb
Well-Known Member
shakey jake
Well-Known Member
I dont think its as simple as that, pandas are either pretty or ugly.
Very black and white!
No, it hasn't been known for ever.
What do you think bulldogs were bred for?
Before it became a "sport", baiting cattle with dogs immediately before slaughter was believed to improve the quality of the meat.
Agree with the point entirely.I can only speak for myself, but I'm someone who rears animals for meat for my livelihood (and I'm pretty good at it). Eventually they will become meat. Whilst I'm rearing them, treating them, keeping them clean & healthy, I never view them as anything but living, feeling animals.
They're not meat until they're hung up imo.
One day you will be ash, but your not ash now are you? (Qué some boffin to tell me we're all particles of ash or something now!! Probably @Apthorpe )
We rear pigs each year and whilst we rear them for meat we also keep them as we enjoy having them. They are well looked after and get belly rubs if they are so inclined. Whilst the end goal is meat production they are well treated and not viewed as meat until they come back from the abattoir in boxes. Decent life and a quick death. Some of our friends wonder how we can be so nice to them and then have them killed...I ask if they would prefer us to be horrible to them?
timbrayford
Well-Known Member
Oh yes, I used to have a free range herd of Tamworths back in the 1980s, I've also been part of a DIY shoot releasing partridge, duck and pheasant. I don't have any issues with harvesting released game.... provided of course that they have acquired wild habits. Last year I turned down the opportunity of shooting some very tame released ducks, it would have been just like slaughtering farm livestock!
Did you not slaughter your free range pigs like farm livestock?
And if so, why the aversion to killing free range, but fairly tame, ducks?
Can't really see there's any difference there.
timbrayford
Well-Known Member
I didn't personally do the slaughtering, the local FMC did that, I don't enjoy bumping off our surplus cockerels either. The problem with the released ducks was that they hadn't acquired wild habits and far from taking an early opportunity to escape whilst out of gunshot range they'd merely swim around waiting to be fed. I regret that neither yourself nor Packham can appreciate the difference.
You cannot go out and shoot anything that is not game in season or vermin . Domestic stock have totally different rules applied
BenBhoy
Well-Known Member
I regret that yourself & most vegans can't appreciate how farmers feel about their livestock.
You're not making any sense.
I'm sure you'd have been really hacked off if your free range pigs had taken an early opportunity to escape on the day of slaughter, yet you seem to consider the ducks not worthy of killing because they didn't attempt to escape out of range.
And I thought my earlier post (#65) in this thread was a touch hypocritical! Jeez!
Last edited:
We have always allowed fish nothing but a bum deal . I stopped fishing for stocked fish years ago . That said I do eat what is allowed in the sea , rivers and lakes ( selectively for wild fish ) If the place has significant amounts of stocked fish , i dont go , Its really slowed down my fresh water fishing
Similar threads
