springwatch. is there a glimer of hope

pj1

Well-Known Member
I normally watch springwatch for the unusual / rare behaviour that is sometimes shown that unless youve got hourrs to study wildlife you wouldnt see but get thoruoghly frustrated about the lack of realism when it comes to why certain species are in decline and the avoidance of the need for predator control and the wagging of fingers at farmers as they all clearly destroy our fine country and know nothing of how to look after it. But this evening on several occasions corvids and stoats weasels etc were mentioned as a threat to some of our rarer birds. Is this the start of the revolution and an awakening to see what an important part our sport and stewardship has in the countryside or will i be left screaming at the telly once again pleading with them to get a grip.

Your thoughts please

Regards pete
 
Cant argue with that. Would of been stalking but had no reply from land owner.:(
 
I had a lie in this morning, as we were out with the lamp last night, ( with success), I commented to Mrs Finnbear... "must be a slow news day dear!", I had just had the two veggies, Kwis & Mick, serve me up around a quarter hour of springwatch, so will be able to go foxing again tonight , snug in the knowledge I didn't miss it.
 
I normally watch springwatch for the unusual / rare behaviour that is sometimes shown that unless youve got hourrs to study wildlife you wouldnt see but get thoruoghly frustrated about the lack of realism when it comes to why certain species are in decline and the avoidance of the need for predator control and the wagging of fingers at farmers as they all clearly destroy our fine country and know nothing of how to look after it. But this evening on several occasions corvids and stoats weasels etc were mentioned as a threat to some of our rarer birds. Is this the start of the revolution and an awakening to see what an important part our sport and stewardship has in the countryside or will i be left screaming at the telly once again pleading with them to get a grip.

Your thoughts please

Regards pete


+1 as lets be honest even witha pair of 12X50 Leica's you can't see into a nest box.

As for accepting the true impact of mustalid and corvid predation on our Song Bird population I just can’t see any one of those BBC Presenters openly sanctioning their control by means of trap and/or firearm. Far more likely they’d put their weight behind some half-cocked scheme to introduce another alien species that might in turn prey on said vermin.

For my money the most significant threat remains the domestic cat but should Spring Watch wish to champion a £1 bounty on every squirrel and Jay I might present at the counter of my local Post Office they can have my vote.

Cheers

K
 
Sorry, but I think some of the comments above are unfair on Packham - he's gone on record many times as being in support of deer culling, has repeatedly spoken out in favour of farmers and sticks very much to a science based approach to nature - of all the 'TV Naturalists' I think he has the most realistic outlook on the environment, far from being a fluffy bunny hugger.
 
Sorry, but I think some of the comments above are unfair on Packham - he's gone on record many times as being in support of deer culling, has repeatedly spoken out in favour of farmers and sticks very much to a science based approach to nature - of all the 'TV Naturalists' I think he has the most realistic outlook on the environment, far from being a fluffy bunny hugger.



Maybe I missed his supportive views somewhere's.
 
Lets not forget that what many Antis object to more than the actuality of culling is that those who engage in such ENJOY it. That they will not readily admit to this is of course a significant frustration as was clearly the role ‘Class’ played in the battle to ban hunting with hounds. This is therefore the missing peice of narrative that ensures both sides of the argument remain so far apart.

In short, that Chris Packham and other enlightened members of the public acknowledge the need for culling, this does NOT mean they are happy with the concept that you and I should be permitted to roam the woods with a .22 Hornet in hand.

Any argument on our side that wholly relies on the mantra that “we do it because it needs to be done” is in my view fundamentally flawed and is some way from the coherent and honest pronouncement we should be seeking to volunteer at every questioning into why we rise at 02:30hrs on a Spring morning. Fail to include an acknowledgment therein that taking a creature’s life comprises a non-negotiable component of the ‘experience’ and you may as well say nothing.

My view only of course.

K
 
I think Klenchblaize does raise a valid point - but at the same time you have to look at how 'sellable' that is with the vast majority

I would actually in many ways greatly prefer to have someone speaking out there who takes the approach "look, I'm not particularly fond of it but on balance It is for the best, for the following reasons:" as I believe that it is a far more accessible message with the vast majority of the population, the agnostics, than having someone speak out on our behalf who is wholeheartedly pro but immediately alienates people in the way that I'm afraid the Countryside Alliance spokespeople manage to do.
 
Funny how no one gives gardeners a hard time about pruning... weeeding... herbicides... pesticides... cutting flowers and and harvesting produce - they don't, of course, because it would be barmy, but for some reason that doesn't stop them taking a dim view of our parallel attempts to combine a most agreeable and therapeutic leisure activity with the creation of a lovelier and more varied world. Just imagine the outcry if a govenrment protected slugs and aphids instead of badgers and buzzards! What's that, nurse?.. my tablets? Oh, I'd forgotten I was supposed to take those!
 
Lets not forget that what many Antis object to more than the actuality of culling is that those who engage in such ENJOY it. That they will not readily admit to this is of course a significant frustration as was clearly the role ‘Class’ played in the battle to ban hunting with hounds. This is therefore the missing peice of narrative that ensures both sides of the argument remain so far apart.

In short, that Chris Packham and other enlightened members of the public acknowledge the need for culling, this does NOT mean they are happy with the concept that you and I should be permitted to roam the woods with a .22 Hornet in hand.

Any argument on our side that wholly relies on the mantra that “we do it because it needs to be done” is in my view fundamentally flawed and is some way from the coherent and honest pronouncement we should be seeking to volunteer at every questioning into why we rise at 02:30hrs on a Spring morning. Fail to include an acknowledgment therein that taking a creature’s life comprises a non-negotiable component of the ‘experience’ and you may as well say nothing.

My view only of course.

K

Agreed...they just don't like anyone else enjoying themselves or having a differing point of view.

Oh well off, to protect some more endangered ground nesting birds.
 
Sorry, but I think some of the comments above are unfair on Packham - he's gone on record many times as being in support of deer culling, has repeatedly spoken out in favour of farmers and sticks very much to a science based approach to nature - of all the 'TV Naturalists' I think he has the most realistic outlook on the environment, far from being a fluffy bunny hugger.

Anyone remember the series where David Belamy followed a keepered shoot through a full season? It was a great program to watch as he showed the environmental stewardship put into shoots and the resulting benefits to ecological systems and biodiversity. It's about time our shooting organisations got together and produced a television series for prime time terestrial television, we always see the anti's pushing their agenda's via TV, so why are we not doing the same?
 
I've never seen that documentry with David Belamy but they reckon his positve relationship with the keepering/shooting community was why his work suddenly dried up and why the new breed of presenter either keep any shooting connections well hidden or just oppose it openly wih suits alot of the tv types so they get more work and real knowledgable and respected people like mr bellamy get pushed out.

Things have to change, u can only reel out the same old tired excuses so often before people start to realise them for the lies that they are, and shock horror but some birds/animals ie predators actually eat each other! The more predators the more things have to be eaten, all very simple biology/ecology but it seems like many allegedly educated people have rewrote science to fit in with their views

But kenchblaize u are spot on, it is the whole class thing and people objecting to and the enjoyment factor, they don't really grasp or understand that it is not the pulling off the trigger that give u the enjoyment, it's just being out there enjoying nature, wether or not u go back empty handed should have no bearing on how enjoyable ur day was
 
Sorry, but I think some of the comments above are unfair on Packham - he's gone on record many times as being in support of deer culling, has repeatedly spoken out in favour of farmers and sticks very much to a science based approach to nature - of all the 'TV Naturalists' I think he has the most realistic outlook on the environment, far from being a fluffy bunny hugger.

Agreed. He does love his badgers though :stir:
 
Back
Top