Countryfile tonight

Knowing what the bbc do to unsupport fieldsport's it will probably be anti but we will see, and as for john craven well we all know what he think's about blood sports.

Could be worse it could be Bill oddy. :rofl:

But maybe I'll be wrong hopefully.

Mark.
 
There you go! Peter Fraser reckons that it is all you lowland stalkers fault. Roedeer totally out of control. Red deer an endangered species, all 350000 of them. Craven shoots a crap group and Fraser says fine?
 
There you go! Peter Fraser reckons that it is all you lowland stalkers fault. Roedeer totally out of control. Red deer an endangered species, all 350000 of them. Craven shoots a crap group and Fraser says fine?

I didn't quite hear it like that. Peter Fraser said when Craven suggested that the NT at Mar Lodge commented on the increase in deer numbers as a trend over the last 60 years that the deer in his area were not increasing. He said that the Roe population had exploded. What I would say is that the two interviewee's at Mar (NT and the Employee) did not substantiate the population increase claim to a specific species. So they have left it a bit vague?

Where's the FC ? It's their dam policy in the main that I would say is the future issue.

Are the FC going to turn around in a couple of years and say (like that national trust) that they got 'it' wrong?

T
 
The NT response has to be moderate, as 1000's of members who pay membership each year would be horrified to know they condone killing Bambi! (and yes I know Bambi was a Roe)
 
Probably right there, bound to be a yank breed! My mistake. In my defence it was not on my DSC recognition test!
 
I thought i heard the owner at Mar Lodge say that they had culled too many deer and that they had got it wrong on this occasion, ill have to replay it on sky+!
 
Still no answer to the underlying question, namely why is it necessary to destroy one type of habitat to replace it with another (trees)? What is the problem that supposedly can only be fixed by destroying an open hill habitat and replacing it with forest? Who has decided that, and why? :confused:
 
Last edited:
Still no answer to the underlying question, namely why is it necessary to destroy one type of habitat to replace it with another (trees)? What is the problem that supposedly can only be fixed by destroying an open hill habitat and relaxing it with forest? Who has decided that, and why? :confused:

Because there is plenty of open hill and not nearly enough lovely native woodland. Get your planting spade out.
 
In fairness to Countryfile (and John Craven), the programme didn't claim to be an in-depth documentary giving a rigorous examination of all the issues. It aired the subject, gave both sides an even handed opportunity to present an overview of their positions, and quite clearly made the point that conservation measures to promote one aspect of the countryside can have a harmful effect on the conservation of another.
 
Marr Lodge keeps coming up. You do not get the bigger picture. The results will not be seen for 200 years by which time it will be a housing scheme
 
Back
Top