A couple of weeks ago, on 24 September, the Shooting Times published a news item in which it was suggested that I support predator culls:
The Shooting Times article was supposedly a précis of an article that had appeared in The Guardian on 11 September, where it was reported that Mary Colwell, Director of Curlew Action, had told a farming conference that a “serious conversation” needs to be had about Fox culling. The full Guardian article can be read here.
I was asked by The Guardian journalist (Helena Horton) to comment on the proposition of widespread Fox and Crow culling for Curlew conservation and Helena duly included my quote, in full, in her article:
“Lethal control of some generalist predatory species will not solve the long-term issue of their over-abundance, which is a direct result of the mismanagement of our countryside.
“The three main long-term issues that need to be addressed include intensive agriculture, where silage-making increases feeding opportunities for Carrion Crows and reduces the breeding success of Curlews; the annual release of up to 60 million non-native Pheasants and Red-legged Partridges, which sustain artificially-high numbers of predators and scavengers; and the illegal killing of birds of prey, including species such as Goshawks, which would otherwise limit the populations of mesopredators and scavengers.
“In the short-term there may be justification for targeted and limited predator control for specific nature conservation purposes, but this should be done only as a last resort and only where robust scientific evidence shows there to be a need”.
You’ll notice that the Shooting Times article published just 12 words from my 139-word quote, selectively chosen and presented out of context, to infer my supposed support for widespread predator culls.
This is either shameless misrepresentation or whoever wrote that piece for Shooting Times, presumably overseen by the editor, is clearly struggling to grasp the principles of basic English comprehension – you know, the stuff you learn at school when you’re eleven about context and drawing conclusions.
And just because a newspaper publishes an article about a controversial topic, including opposing views, doesn’t mean that the newspaper supports either side of the debate – it’s simply reporting a balanced argument for and against.
How can the Shooting Times interpret this as, ‘National press backs fox control for conservation‘?!
Muppets.
I guess the Shooting Times also missed Mary Colwell’s subsequent letter to The Guardian, published on 21 September, in which she clarified her position on predator control:
It’s not quite the message that Shooting Times wants to get across, is it?
Raptor Persecution UK 
Tough titties mate. Predator control is even used by the RSPB to great effect.
You’ve missed the point, entirely.
One gets the impression that creatively7ac5dca9a0 may be incapable of understanding that very important point.
Doubt it. I have worked for the WWT for 36 years
“I have worked for the WWT for 36 years”
Doesn’t stop you being a bit thick.
I volunteer on a Wildlife Trust site on a ridge. In the valley below is a pheasant shoot. Some ‘winged’ birds get as far as the location before expiring, Perhaps they were heading for cover? The corpses, with any lead shot, are not removed. They remain to encourage scavengers into this area, and to deliver their lead, whether eaten or ending in the soil.
Patronising, condescending and plain wrong. As well as missing the point entirely. Typical pro shooting nonsense.
Based on scientific facts and not bunny hugging ideology.
“Based on scientific facts and not bunny hugging ideology.”
You’ll be able to provide the scientific references to back up these ‘facts’ in support of the indiscriminate mass culling (snares, traps, shooting) of foxes and crows as practised by the shooting industry, then?
Along with all the scientific reasons as to why the shooting industry itself isn’t responsible for the historically recent increase in such general predators and scavengers, through their dumping of tens of millions of alien so-called game birds into our environment every single year, year after year, and thereby providing endless roadkill opportunities for such generalist scavengers to thrive?
Why do they do that?
Or, maybe, you’ll be able to supply all the scientific evidence as to how the shooting industry itself isn’t responsible for providing vast numbers of feeding stations for these introduced alien species, but which also happen to benefit crows through the ‘thin’ months of the year, abnormally boosting their numbers even more?
Why do they do that?
Finally, you will no doubt also be able to provide the scientific evidence that the shooting industry itself are not illegally trying to exterminate/restrict certain apex predators of these scavengers?
Why do they do that?
Why wouldn’t banning shooting be so much better for our environment than the mass slaughter of foxes and crows?
…at least bunny huggings a new one – to me anyway.
(for what it’s worth I’d rather hug a bunny than a human, I do so all the time at the petting farm and get bitten for it, which is fair enough)
Very well said Keith – the local pheasant feeding stations I’ve seen have always been infested with / over run with rats – bt no pheasants. I think they alternate release pens though so maybe the ones I saw were temporarily redundant and the rats were feeding on left overs. I’ve no doubt if they were in use the keepers would have eradicated the rats.
p.s in my reply to you Keith I meant…. when it mentioned satellite data I wrongly thought it meant it was going off satellite PHOTOS of burn patches not satellite IMAGERY as I’m guessing what IS shown in the map is classed as.
That’s it from me, I’m sure Ruth will be sick of me interrupting her by now.
The RSPB use predator control as a last resort. As the scum that head up fox hunting in the UK claim that there has been a 40% drop in the fox population since the Hunting with Hounds Act was passed, in any other species they would be, at the very least, amber-listed and require licences to be shot.
The biggest killers of ground nesting birds are multiple silage cuts, early or multiple haylage cuts, multiple cropping of oil seed rape and early harvesting of winter sown cereal crops. Alongside that is the failure to provide suitable nesting cover around field boundaries. Not all farmers are at fault, many subscribe to the Nature Friendly Farming Network, but far too many are still Luddite NFU followers.
Then, as mentioned in the article, if the shooting estates released only those birds that are going to be shot for food, rather than fun for the sick, psychotic people who just like killing things, and all carcasses are removed from the shooting area at the end of the day, there would not be the free food bazaar to artificially inflate generalist predator populations.
Re your quote that “there has been a 40% drop in the fox population since the Hunting with Hounds Act was passed”.
It’s always amused me that two key arguments made by foxhunting supporters during the Hunting Act debate were “foxes kill are prolific killers of chickens and wildlife so their numbers need to be controlled” and “the Hunt is all about the social aspect and quite often we don’t even see a fox, let alone kill one.”
I didn’t say Simon, love that whilst giving your name you’re not afraid to call fox hunters + shooters (what they indeed are) you come across as being a bit fearless in your opposition to them. Your comment showed specific knowledge of various affects + hardships to / of ground nesting birds.
Wow. Aside from leaving out the inconvenient opening two thirds of your comment entirely, even in the sentence that they did quote they failed to include the preamble “In the short term…” and the important “…but” afterwards. That’s pretty transparent cherry-picking: a cynic might conclude that they were deliberately mispresenting conservationist opinion, which of course the shooting industry would never do…. /sarc
Good comment Simon. I know this said that Mary Colwell was addressing farmers, bt I would call what shooting estates carry out as ‘predator eradication’ more than culling. (I’m under the belief ‘to cull’ means ‘to reduce numbers’)
Also, no mention from the shooting fraternity about the competition for food for the curlews resulting from the millions of pheasants released into the countryside every year. Many of which survive the season and plague our fields, woods and gardens.
[Ed: Comment deleted, off topic]
In addition to the excellent points raised in other comments about why there might be too many generalist predators such as foxes and crows that might be negatively impacting ground nesting birds because their numbers are out of balance with the ecosystem there might be another reason for this. Foxes and crows are highly intelligent opportunists who quickly learn to exploit new sources of food. Therefore they could benefit from human activity in general, not just road killed pheasants, food put out for released game birds etc. This could be by scavenging rubbish around farms/country houses or in the case of foxes finding plenty of easy prey in the form of rats/mice that live around human habitation. There’s also good evidence to show that lynx will kill foxes in their territory so the absence of apex predators could well benefit some meso-predators. For all these reasons the number of foxes, crows etc. might be higher than they would be in a more natural/balanced environment meaning that levels of predation on the eggs/chicks of ground nesting birds is higher than it “should” be and limited culling of foxes, crows might be of conservation value although it will always be less important than ensuring there’s plenty of good quality undisturbed habitat for ground nesting birds.
Thanks for that. I’m rather fond of Lynx:-)
I recall a photo of the nest of a Golden Eagle. One of the prey items was half of a fox,