Wild Justice?

[Mike J]

If fishing will 'never achieve in its current form'; what form must it take in order to achieve cohesion?

A similar form but with a much higher standard of professional management, communication and accountability, less of what is achieved more on long term goals of what is achievable.

How?
Form a small team of anglers who are also successful businessmen to oversee a complete restructuring.
Have every employee assessed and evaluated by independent specialists.
Have all the finances reviewed and published for all to see.
Instigate a long term plan, financial targets and agendas aimed at every angler in the country.

And thats only for starters!

.

[Daniel]

The one thing angling has in its favour over other things that people want banning, is the sheer number of anglers there are.
The other thing in its favour is that generally, fish are returned alive, you can't really say that about a fox or grouse or whatever.

Anglers will never pull together imo, until such time as it's truly threatened.

[Kev Berry]

I have suggested before that the RSPB and Wildlife Trust have got cormorants and otters working for them.
If there is little or no angling interest on a particular water, the conservation groups can buy them cheaper.
My local pit complex has just been bought outright by the WT. Local anglers are waiting to see how long it is before angling is banned.
In 1980 BC (Before Cormorants) there were hundreds of anglers there every weekend of the season.
The complex was bought for £1million. Money from little old ladies donations; although the WT could have afforded it without their donations.

Notts AA have a 99 year lease..they wont be getting rid soon

[Kev Berry]

The lines between 'culture' and politics are easily blurred.

No doubt they'll be turning their attention to angling in due course?

I imagine they see shooting as something the public can be more easily swayed to back a ban on. All those corpses of fluffy birds, all that killing of predators to protect the target species.

Then it'll be angling.

With regard to the birds of prey, I'm with WJ on that (only that). Killing raptors to 'protect' game birds is no different to killing pike to 'protect' trout.

If the shooting estates were smart, they'd realise that they could remove one of the most emotive 'anti' arguments by accepting that predation is inevitable and simply living with it. If they were really smart they could even turn it to their advantage.

A survey of stocked pheasants showed shoots were losing upto15% of birds to road kill, which they accepted.
Yet they were only losing 5% to predators but spending more than the pheasants cost on predator control

Sound familiar

[greencard1]

I have suggested before that the RSPB and Wildlife Trust have got cormorants and otters working for them.
If there is little or no angling interest on a particular water, the conservation groups can buy them cheaper.
My local pit complex has just been bought outright by the WT. Local anglers are waiting to see how long it is before angling is banned.
In 1980 BC (Before Cormorants) there were hundreds of anglers there every weekend of the season.
The complex was bought for £1million. Money from little old ladies donations; although the WT could have afforded it without their donations.

Notts AA have a 99 year lease..they wont be getting rid soon

The boss of Notts AA told me that the first thing the Wildlife Trust are going to do is close the anglers car park.
When did the lease start? 1960s?
Notts AA don't invest anything down there; probably because they are not allowed to.
Everyone has their price. WT could make an offer that Notts AA can't refuse; money that they can spend on their other flagship water.
I hope you are right Kev. Time will tell.

[Kev Berry]

I have suggested before that the RSPB and Wildlife Trust have got cormorants and otters working for them.
If there is little or no angling interest on a particular water, the conservation groups can buy them cheaper.
My local pit complex has just been bought outright by the WT. Local anglers are waiting to see how long it is before angling is banned.
In 1980 BC (Before Cormorants) there were hundreds of anglers there every weekend of the season.
The complex was bought for £1million. Money from little old ladies donations; although the WT could have afforded it without their donations.

Notts AA have a 99 year lease..they wont be getting rid soon

The boss of Notts AA told me that the first thing the Wildlife Trust are going to do is close the anglers car park.
When did the lease start? 1960s?
Notts AA don't invest anything down there; probably because they are not allowed to.
Everyone has their price. WT could make an offer that Notts AA can't refuse; money that they can spend on their other flagship water.
I hope you are right Kev. Time will tell.

Notts wildlife dont care about the fish or anything else below the surface. They bulldozed the bank into the water to make shallows for wading birds without consulting Notts AA.
When told they had covered the spawning ground where the bream and carp always spawned they just said they will have to go somewhere else.
Absolute tossers...and not to be trusted

[SmellySmelt]

The lines between 'culture' and politics are easily blurred.

No doubt they'll be turning their attention to angling in due course?

I imagine they see shooting as something the public can be more easily swayed to back a ban on. All those corpses of fluffy birds, all that killing of predators to protect the target species.

Then it'll be angling.

With regard to the birds of prey, I'm with WJ on that (only that). Killing raptors to 'protect' game birds is no different to killing pike to 'protect' trout.

If the shooting estates were smart, they'd realise that they could remove one of the most emotive 'anti' arguments by accepting that predation is inevitable and simply living with it. If they were really smart they could even turn it to their advantage.

A survey of stocked pheasants showed shoots were losing upto15% of birds to road kill, which they accepted.
Yet they were only losing 5% to predators but spending more than the pheasants cost on predator control

Sound familiar

If there are predators in the same areas as the birds, it will become a constant threat to the birds. This will make the birds leave the area for their own safety.
That percentage of roadkill will be a hell of a lot lower in a very rural area. Predator control is essential to keep the birds from wandering more than usual.

[davelumb]

I have suggested before that the RSPB and Wildlife Trust have got cormorants and otters working for them.
If there is little or no angling interest on a particular water, the conservation groups can buy them cheaper.
My local pit complex has just been bought outright by the WT. Local anglers are waiting to see how long it is before angling is banned.
In 1980 BC (Before Cormorants) there were hundreds of anglers there every weekend of the season.
The complex was bought for £1million. Money from little old ladies donations; although the WT could have afforded it without their donations.

Notts AA have a 99 year lease..they wont be getting rid soon

The boss of Notts AA told me that the first thing the Wildlife Trust are going to do is close the anglers car park.
When did the lease start? 1960s?
Notts AA don't invest anything down there; probably because they are not allowed to.
Everyone has their price. WT could make an offer that Notts AA can't refuse; money that they can spend on their other flagship water.
I hope you are right Kev. Time will tell.

Notts wildlife dont care about the fish or anything else below the surface. They bulldozed the bank into the water to make shallows for wading birds without consulting Notts AA.
When told they had covered the spawning ground where the bream and carp always spawned they just said they will have to go somewhere else.
Absolute tossers...and not to be trusted

The county trusts, from my experience, are run to keep a load of non-expert funders happy. Figurehead species always get priority. So anything unusual for the area, rare, feathered or fluffy will have all sorts done for them.

The reserve I worked on in the '80s has (had?) some cracking roach and rudd in its lakes. Wonder how they got in there? LOL

There is now a cormorant roost on there with over 100 birds killing off trees. Questioned about the impact of these birds on the fish populations the answer was that they are only doing what comes naturally. The next question should have been, "In that case, why do you employ someone to shoot grey squirrels?" Of course the Beghaus clad binocualr toters who subscribe to the trust don't know abut the pest control. Hypocrites the lot of them.

[Stewlaws]

I have suggested before that the RSPB and Wildlife Trust have got cormorants and otters working for them.
If there is little or no angling interest on a particular water, the conservation groups can buy them cheaper.
My local pit complex has just been bought outright by the WT. Local anglers are waiting to see how long it is before angling is banned.
In 1980 BC (Before Cormorants) there were hundreds of anglers there every weekend of the season.
The complex was bought for £1million. Money from little old ladies donations; although the WT could have afforded it without their donations.

Notts AA have a 99 year lease..they wont be getting rid soon

The boss of Notts AA told me that the first thing the Wildlife Trust are going to do is close the anglers car park.
When did the lease start? 1960s?
Notts AA don't invest anything down there; probably because they are not allowed to.
Everyone has their price. WT could make an offer that Notts AA can't refuse; money that they can spend on their other flagship water.
I hope you are right Kev. Time will tell.

Notts wildlife dont care about the fish or anything else below the surface. They bulldozed the bank into the water to make shallows for wading birds without consulting Notts AA.
When told they had covered the spawning ground where the bream and carp always spawned they just said they will have to go somewhere else.
Absolute tossers...and not to be trusted

The county trusts, from my experience, are run to keep a load of non-expert funders happy. Figurehead species always get priority. So anything unusual for the area, rare, feathered or fluffy will have all sorts done for them.

The reserve I worked on in the '80s has (had?) some cracking roach and rudd in its lakes. Wonder how they got in there? LOL

There is now a cormorant roost on there with over 100 birds killing off trees. Questioned about the impact of these birds on the fish populations the answer was that they are only doing what comes naturally. The next question should have been, "In that case, why do you employ someone to shoot grey squirrels?" Of course the Beghaus clad binocualr toters who subscribe to the trust don't know abut the pest control. Hypocrites the lot of them.

The re introduction of the great bustard from the Russian steppes was an unmitigated disaster initially on Salisbury plains .... The question on fox control was swerved by the trust, thereafter the issue on fox's was taken into account, hypocracy is all but whitewashed in order to appease and achieve funding.

[davelumb]

I have suggested before that the RSPB and Wildlife Trust have got cormorants and otters working for them.
If there is little or no angling interest on a particular water, the conservation groups can buy them cheaper.
My local pit complex has just been bought outright by the WT. Local anglers are waiting to see how long it is before angling is banned.
In 1980 BC (Before Cormorants) there were hundreds of anglers there every weekend of the season.
The complex was bought for £1million. Money from little old ladies donations; although the WT could have afforded it without their donations.

Notts AA have a 99 year lease..they wont be getting rid soon

The boss of Notts AA told me that the first thing the Wildlife Trust are going to do is close the anglers car park.
When did the lease start? 1960s?
Notts AA don't invest anything down there; probably because they are not allowed to.
Everyone has their price. WT could make an offer that Notts AA can't refuse; money that they can spend on their other flagship water.
I hope you are right Kev. Time will tell.

Notts wildlife dont care about the fish or anything else below the surface. They bulldozed the bank into the water to make shallows for wading birds without consulting Notts AA.
When told they had covered the spawning ground where the bream and carp always spawned they just said they will have to go somewhere else.
Absolute tossers...and not to be trusted

The county trusts, from my experience, are run to keep a load of non-expert funders happy. Figurehead species always get priority. So anything unusual for the area, rare, feathered or fluffy will have all sorts done for them.

The reserve I worked on in the '80s has (had?) some cracking roach and rudd in its lakes. Wonder how they got in there? LOL

There is now a cormorant roost on there with over 100 birds killing off trees. Questioned about the impact of these birds on the fish populations the answer was that they are only doing what comes naturally. The next question should have been, "In that case, why do you employ someone to shoot grey squirrels?" Of course the Beghaus clad binocualr toters who subscribe to the trust don't know abut the pest control. Hypocrites the lot of them.

The re introduction of the great bustard from the Russian steppes was an unmitigated disaster initially on Salisbury plains .... The question on fox control was swerved by the trust, thereafter the issue on fox's was taken into account, hypocracy is all but whitewashed in order to appease and achieve funding.

Got loads of media coverage though, so no doubt helped someone climb their career ladder.

[greencard1]

It has been suggested in the past that there should be a binocular tax to be paid by anyone using binoculars at a nature reserve; say, £5 a year.
The money would be spent on fish to re-stock the reserves, so that the birders can continue to watch the fish-eating birds that they love.

Why don't the Angling Trust suggest things like this? It would open up the discussion on predation; and probably educate some people.
The RSPB kill a lot of wildlife every year; and although they say that they do not hide this fact; they certainly do not advertise it.

[greencard1]

Usually if you point out to a WT or RSPB member that there are a lot of cormorants in their area; their answer is 'There must be a lot of fish then'.

[Kev Berry]

The lines between 'culture' and politics are easily blurred.

No doubt they'll be turning their attention to angling in due course?

I imagine they see shooting as something the public can be more easily swayed to back a ban on. All those corpses of fluffy birds, all that killing of predators to protect the target species.

Then it'll be angling.

With regard to the birds of prey, I'm with WJ on that (only that). Killing raptors to 'protect' game birds is no different to killing pike to 'protect' trout.

If the shooting estates were smart, they'd realise that they could remove one of the most emotive 'anti' arguments by accepting that predation is inevitable and simply living with it. If they were really smart they could even turn it to their advantage.

A survey of stocked pheasants showed shoots were losing upto15% of birds to road kill, which they accepted.
Yet they were only losing 5% to predators but spending more than the pheasants cost on predator control

Sound familiar

If there are predators in the same areas as the birds, it will become a constant threat to the birds. This will make the birds leave the area for their own safety.
That percentage of roadkill will be a hell of a lot lower in a very rural area. Predator control is essential to keep the birds from wandering more than usual.

Young poults straight out the pen wouldnt recognise a predator or a 4 x 4 for the danger they are. So they will walk in front of cars or right upto a fox.
Any road anywhere near where young birds are turned out soon become full of flat pheasants.
Of course the vermin predators eat the dead birds, it's easy meat ready tenderised, and it shows in their stools/pellets they have eaten pheasant...so they are guilty.

Keepers feed them to stop them wandering dont they?
Never heard of preds driving them away, pheasants arent that clever, and few get to be old enough to learn.

[SmellySmelt]

The lines between 'culture' and politics are easily blurred.

No doubt they'll be turning their attention to angling in due course?

I imagine they see shooting as something the public can be more easily swayed to back a ban on. All those corpses of fluffy birds, all that killing of predators to protect the target species.

Then it'll be angling.

With regard to the birds of prey, I'm with WJ on that (only that). Killing raptors to 'protect' game birds is no different to killing pike to 'protect' trout.

If the shooting estates were smart, they'd realise that they could remove one of the most emotive 'anti' arguments by accepting that predation is inevitable and simply living with it. If they were really smart they could even turn it to their advantage.

A survey of stocked pheasants showed shoots were losing upto15% of birds to road kill, which they accepted.
Yet they were only losing 5% to predators but spending more than the pheasants cost on predator control

Sound familiar

If there are predators in the same areas as the birds, it will become a constant threat to the birds. This will make the birds leave the area for their own safety.
That percentage of roadkill will be a hell of a lot lower in a very rural area. Predator control is essential to keep the birds from wandering more than usual.

Young poults straight out the pen wouldnt recognise a predator or a 4 x 4 for the danger they are. So they will walk in front of cars or right upto a fox.
Any road anywhere near where young birds are turned out soon become full of flat pheasants.
Of course the vermin predators eat the dead birds, it's easy meat ready tenderised, and it shows in their stools/pellets they have eaten pheasant...so they are guilty.

Keepers feed them to stop them wandering dont they?
Never heard of preds driving them away, pheasants arent that clever, and few get to be old enough to learn.

I’ve seen with my own eyes poults moving out of an area due to predators, in the sky and on the ground. From stoats to BOPs, they will bigger off. It’s in their hard drive to recognise predators, even if they have been hatched by man and at a young age. Yes they aren’t the wisest on the road. I used to be an under keeper, have you raised game birds?? Pheasants are bad but partridge are the jumpiest. Food doesn’t hold them early in the year. A lot of dogging in has to be done, it takes a lot of hours in the day.

[greencard1]

Just to answer Dave's point above.
The wardens on the reserve would be shooting grey squirrels because they are an alien invasive species, having been introduced from America in the 1890s.
The cormorants, however, most of which would have originated in China; and have only been in the UK since the 1980s, are obviously a British Bird !!?!!???!!!

[Mynki]

Labour under Blair eliminated hunting with dogs and dispite numberous opportunities nothing has ever been done by the Conservatives to revoke the Law.

But what nobody can ignore is that Nature Conservation has to sometimes come from the barrel of a gun!!

.

I'm not sure this is completely accurate Mike. The Hunting Act is arguably the worst piece of legislation ever written. It has nothing to do with animal welfare at all. It's purely political. It didn't eliminate hunting with dogs. You just can't use more than two dogs when stag hunting or fox hunting.

Though you can allow drag hunting. That's the real joke for me. What did the people who agreed to allow drag hunting think would happen when a large pack of fox hounds come across a fox or its scent when 'drag hunting'?

As for the tories, I believe there's been at least a couple of attempts to overturn the hunting ban but they didn't have the majority required.

That said, the current tory government have made it clear that they will not be seeking to overturn it. Borris Johnsons partner and their friend Zac Goldsmith a re staunch animal rights people. They have also decided to ban the importation of African trophies without consulting any of the African nations that allow hunting. Whilst this will please the armchair animal rights supporters it won't help with the significant amount of dollars requited to maintain hunting areas in Africa which manage populations of species hunted and all the smaller wildlife that call these places home.

Historically the conservatives have always been the party for country sports, but I fear this lot will have much less interest in them.

As for banning fishing, I decided years ago if that ever happened, I'd continue to fish on in defiance anyway. Though I really can't see that happening in my lifetime.

[davelumb]

No UK political party which has a serious chance of forming a government will now campaign for bringing back fox hunting as the overwhelming public (for public read media) opinion is against it. It's seen as a vote loser.

[Mike J]

For better or for worse it is the world of democracy we live in.
Politicians need a majority to be elected to Parliament where they can then vote on our legislation and isn't a single Politician alive who would support a motion that would loose them votes and prevent their reelection.
The vast majority of the voters of this country was, and is still is against hunting, and will remain so long after we are all dust. Hunting had gone the same way as bear baiting, as will trophy hunting, we just have to accept the legislation as part of the society we live in today.

As for Africa, we gave them a good start but its leaders have created the problems and its for the people to solve, not us, especially if they wish to turn the whole place into a desert by unsustainable farming methods that cannot support its ever growing population.

Emigration is the option of anyone who is not content with the country they reside in, be it an Africian, European or even a Chinaman.

For me, my trophy heads have been binned or donated to charities, (trophy) photographs of fish are rarely seen, but I will die retaining a few small mementos, and my whip. Evolution maybe?

.

[Mynki]

For better or for worse it is the world of democracy we live in.
Politicians need a majority to be elected to Parliament where they can then vote on our legislation and isn't a single Politician alive who would support a motion that would loose them votes and prevent their reelection.
The vast majority of the voters of this country was, and is still is against hunting, and will remain so long after we are all dust. Hunting had gone the same way as bear baiting, as will trophy hunting, we just have to accept the legislation as part of the society we live in today.

As for Africa, we gave them a good start but its leaders have created the problems and its for the people to solve, not us, especially if they wish to turn the whole place into a desert by unsustainable farming methods that cannot support its ever growing population.

Emigration is the option of anyone who is not content with the country they reside in, be it an Africian, European or even a Chinaman.

For me, my trophy heads have been binned or donated to charities, (trophy) photographs of fish are rarely seen, but I will die retaining a few small mementos, and my whip. Evolution maybe?

.

Trophy hunting per se won't ever be eliminated completely. You yourself posted earlier in the thread that sometimes conservation needs to be undertaken via a gun.

Here in the UK Keeping herds of red deer numbers in check for example requires old stags 'going back' removing along with organised numbers of young stage, hinds and calves.. So the estates they live on will still be forced to hunt genuine trophy animals. The yanks won't cave in to a few tree huggers anytime soon either. If ever.

[Mike J]

For better or for worse it is the world of democracy we live in.
Politicians need a majority to be elected to Parliament where they can then vote on our legislation and isn't a single Politician alive who would support a motion that would loose them votes and prevent their reelection.
The vast majority of the voters of this country was, and is still is against hunting, and will remain so long after we are all dust. Hunting had gone the same way as bear baiting, as will trophy hunting, we just have to accept the legislation as part of the society we live in today.

As for Africa, we gave them a good start but its leaders have created the problems and its for the people to solve, not us, especially if they wish to turn the whole place into a desert by unsustainable farming methods that cannot support its ever growing population.

Emigration is the option of anyone who is not content with the country they reside in, be it an Africian, European or even a Chinaman.

For me, my trophy heads have been binned or donated to charities, (trophy) photographs of fish are rarely seen, but I will die retaining a few small mementos, and my whip. Evolution maybe?

.

Trophy hunting per se won't ever be eliminated completely. You yourself posted earlier in the thread that sometimes conservation needs to be undertaken via a gun.

Here in the UK Keeping herds of red deer numbers in check for example requires old stags 'going back' removing along with organised numbers of young stage, hinds and calves.. So the estates they live on will still be forced to hunt genuine trophy animals. The yanks won't cave in to a few tree huggers anytime soon either. If ever.

Nature conservation from the barrel of a gun.
Selling the shooting of trophy animals and of females to recreational sportmen can add revenue but its overall effect on the cull is minimal in most situations.
Culling of a species by skilled professionals can be brutally efficient and in no way can it considered sport or trophy hunting, it is just a job to carried out as quickly and as efficiently as possible. It is a rare case indeed for an experienced professional to look twice at a head and even rarer to consider it as a trophy.

There are situations both here and other countries where the results of proffesional culls are left to decay naturally, and others were local people or those who have sufferred crop damage are the only beneficiaries.
Probably the worse application is when a native species is shot to protect a non native recent arrival, and the best being the policies of the NZ DOC and the Ecuadorian authorities management of the Galápagos Islands

[JohnCopeman]

When you are charging a " sportsman" X amount of pounds per point on a red it's a trophy.
Let's not brush it under the carpet. That's the problem. Why be affraid to admit what goes on when it's legal and legitimate.
Nicola has currently stopped the Germans coming to Scotland so the deer management game is very busy at present.
Unfortunately the hotels are not open so venison requirements are " way down".
Estates are having to seek help to deal with the excess....read PAY......if the price was dropped to £2 per pound in the supermarkets/ butchers there wouldn't be any excess....fat chance of that...who is going to pay more for venison than beef. Drop the price to something realistic, get it popular and sell it. Surely that's what " Management" is all about.
Come October when the local butchers are trying to sell a brace of pheasants in the feather for £8 then moan that they are a bad seller.........plucked at 2 quid each they would fly out the door. Mine do.....well not fly- as the wings are removed

[JohnCopeman]

We still have Martin Salter- he no longer may be an active mp but is still with the Angling Trust.....
That's my problem...The Angling Trust.... we let them represent us BUT they are not a government body- which DEFRA and the EA are....the AT are a buisness that takes subscriptions and donations to pay its employees. Those employees are largely there for personal agenda and to get " up the ladder" to push their angling and/ or political careers.
The AT is the main body representing competition angling in the UK BUT contributes nothing to existing teams BUT insists all team members be played up members and pay to bear their insignia....true story.

[greencard1]

My hope lies with salmon and trout anglers.
Avian predators are still extending their range, and game anglers who have not seen their fish stocks threatened before may be seeing it now.
I know it is a generalisation, but game anglers are historically professional types who may be able to organise themselves better than coarse anglers.
I was not impressed with Martin Salter on the recent Farming Today programme, and I am not impressed with the Angling Trust in general; but if they could galvanise anglers to show a united front against the likes of WJ they would get my backing; because we do not presently have anyone else.

[Mynki]

When you are charging a " sportsman" X amount of pounds per point on a red it's a trophy.
Let's not brush it under the carpet. That's the problem. Why be affraid to admit what goes on when it's legal and legitimate.
Nicola has currently stopped the Germans coming to Scotland so the deer management game is very busy at present.
Unfortunately the hotels are not open so venison requirements are " way down".
Estates are having to seek help to deal with the excess....read PAY......if the price was dropped to £2 per pound in the supermarkets/ butchers there wouldn't be any excess....fat chance of that...who is going to pay more for venison than beef. Drop the price to something realistic, get it popular and sell it. Surely that's what " Management" is all about.
Come October when the local butchers are trying to sell a brace of pheasants in the feather for £8 then moan that they are a bad seller.........plucked at 2 quid each they would fly out the door. Mine do.....well not fly- as the wings are removed

I disagree. If I take anyone out and they take a hind or a calf it's not a trophy in my eyes. The forestry companies we manage deer for work with us to agree a cull plan and most of the animals to be removed are typical 'cull animals'. Technically a trophy would be a beast that meets the measurements required by an authority such as Rowland Ward, CIC, SCI or even BASC.

***Just reread your post again and seen the 'per point' comment. I do know a few people who do that. But I don't believe a 6 point sika stag or a 4 point roe buck etc is a real trophy. It's just exploiting newbies who know no better.

The deer management game has become increasingly busy over the last 15 years or so in Scotland.

What gauls me is that there are plenty of scientific studies showing that deer numbers in the UK needs to be reduced significantly and yet the local supermarket stocks venison produced in New Zealand. A few years ago the factor of a local estate was selling pheasants in feather at 50 pence each as they struggled to get rid of them. I find that really sad....

[Mynki]

Nature conservation from the barrel of a gun.
Selling the shooting of trophy animals and of females to recreational sportmen can add revenue but its overall effect on the cull is minimal in most situations.
Culling of a species by skilled professionals can be brutally efficient and in no way can it considered sport or trophy hunting, it is just a job to carried out as quickly and as efficiently as possible. It is a rare case indeed for an experienced professional to look twice at a head and even rarer to consider it as a trophy.

There are situations both here and other countries where the results of proffesional culls are left to decay naturally, and others were local people or those who have sufferred crop damage are the only beneficiaries.
Probably the worse application is when a native species is shot to protect a non native recent arrival, and the best being the policies of the NZ DOC and the Ecuadorian authorities management of the Galápagos Islands

I'm not sure I've ever met a professional who would agree with this Mike...

"It is a rare case indeed for an experienced professional to look twice at a head and even rarer to consider it as a trophy."

Even the crown servants employed by the forestry commission. They know when they've taken a big animal just like a trawler man appreciates the size of his catch.

The recreational hunters actually play a very large part in conservation. The money they spend pays for the leases on the land and the staff who are then charged with protecting the animals on there. This in turn provides an umbrella of protection for smaller species and reduces the amount of animals killed for 'bushmeat' regardless of their IUCN red list status.

[Duncan Holmes]

Usually if you point out to a WT or RSPB member that there are a lot of cormorants in their area; their answer is 'There must be a lot of fish then'.

like it or not they are right and the science backs up their claim.

Whether its sustainable is another question, that unfortunately both sides will struggle to prove.

[greencard1]

Usually if you point out to a WT or RSPB member that there are a lot of cormorants in their area; their answer is 'There must be a lot of fish then'.

like it or not they are right and the science backs up their claim.

Whether its sustainable is another question, that unfortunately both sides will struggle to prove.

Kev posted a while ago that Trent chub and barbel have a faster growth rate than chub and barbel on other rivers.
I believe that the reason for this is that the opposition for food has been eliminated by avian predators; i,e, smaller fish have been removed , and therefore the chub and barbel have more food to eat. This is illustrated by research done at Holme Pierrepont in the 1990s which is available to read on the internet.
So for a while, you can have a big cormorant presence, and still be catching good fish. But not for long.

[Stewlaws]

The balance within nature can certainly tip very quickly on the back of poor management.... Interesting topic, with so many variables though and certainly weighted towards what your vested interests are in...

[JohnCopeman]

When you are charging a " sportsman" X amount of pounds per point on a red it's a trophy.
Let's not brush it under the carpet. That's the problem. Why be affraid to admit what goes on when it's legal and legitimate.
Nicola has currently stopped the Germans coming to Scotland so the deer management game is very busy at present.
Unfortunately the hotels are not open so venison requirements are " way down".
Estates are having to seek help to deal with the excess....read PAY......if the price was dropped to £2 per pound in the supermarkets/ butchers there wouldn't be any excess....fat chance of that...who is going to pay more for venison than beef. Drop the price to something realistic, get it popular and sell it. Surely that's what " Management" is all about.
Come October when the local butchers are trying to sell a brace of pheasants in the feather for £8 then moan that they are a bad seller.........plucked at 2 quid each they would fly out the door. Mine do.....well not fly- as the wings are removed

I disagree. If I take anyone out and they take a hind or a calf it's not a trophy in my eyes. The forestry companies we manage deer for work with us to agree a cull plan and most of the animals to be removed are typical 'cull animals'. Technically a trophy would be a beast that meets the measurements required by an authority such as Rowland Ward, CIC, SCI or even BASC.

***Just reread your post again and seen the 'per point' comment. I do know a few people who do that. But I don't believe a 6 point sika stag or a 4 point roe buck etc is a real trophy. It's just exploiting newbies who know no better.

The deer management game has become increasingly busy over the last 15 years or so in Scotland.

What gauls me is that there are plenty of scientific studies showing that deer numbers in the UK needs to be reduced significantly and yet the local supermarket stocks venison produced in New Zealand. A few years ago the factor of a local estate was selling pheasants in feather at 50 pence each as they struggled to get rid of them. I find that really sad....

I did say " Red"

[Mynki]

I did say " Red"

Same thing fella. I could have said the same for a 6, 8 or 10 point red. I know some pro stalkers charge a fee for these where as they don't for staggies etc. Still they're not real trophies.