BS: The (in)glorious 12th

Subject: BS: The (in)glorious 12th
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 12 Aug 17 - 06:32 AM

Today's the day that if you are a grouse you start to keep a low profile! Don't get me wrong here. I am a meat eater and I think hunting is probably a better way to get meat than farming it but the grouse shoot does seem to have become yet another 'industry'.

I am led to believe, and I accept that I may have been misled, that the grouse shoot only started to involve beaters driving the grouse towards stationary shooters when Edward the 7th became to unfit to walk across the moors. Prior to that I believe the line of shooters did walk a long way and disturbed their own grouse.

In addition, farming of grouse to shoot and 'management' of grouse moors seems to have added to the issues that are causing flooding lower down the valleys. See this article for details.

Is it not about time that this issue was addressed? Carry on shooting by all means but can we not make sure it is managed in a way that is better for all concerned? Including the grouse!

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: The (in)glorious 12th
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 12 Aug 17 - 06:36 AM

...and of course there is always ol' Ewan's viewpoint

He called me a louse and said, Think of the grouse
Well I thought but I still couldn't see
Why old Kinder Scout and the moors round about
Couldn't take both the poor grouse and me
He said, All this land is my master's
At that I stood shaking my head
No man has the right to own mountains
Any more than the deep ocean bed

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: The (in)glorious 12th
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 12 Aug 17 - 07:23 AM

other than on a whisky bottle (and then I confess, it didn't have my full attention) - i'm not sure i've ever seen a grouse.

if the English language were consistent I suppose it would go:-

mouse - mice
grouse -grice

Subject: RE: BS: The (in)glorious 12th
From: akenaton
Date: 12 Aug 17 - 07:31 AM

Yes, a lot of shooting up here, The grouse are farmed for "sport", they are so fat they can hardly fly.....The chinless wonders who do the shooting disgust me. mainly Austrians and Germans in this area with a few English townies.....don't know one local who participates.

Locals(gamekeepers etc), usually stick to clays, or deer culling as part of their employment.

Subject: RE: BS: The (in)glorious 12th
From: Iains
Date: 12 Aug 17 - 07:42 AM

For the argument concerning moor management and flooding I think I would want to see a detailed study over time of river velocity and height against rain gauge data, flooding events and moor management.
It may have some merit but I would want to see a detailed study before making any assumptions, it superficially seems more another means to attack grouse shooting, though I could be wrong..
I suspect intense bursts of rainfall cause the flooding events. Burning heather has been an upland management process for many many years. As the heather gets older, higher and more woody the nutritional value and attractiveness to grazing animals decreases. This is not just an issue for grouse moors, it is valid for all moors.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2015%E2%80%9316_Great_Britain_and_Ireland_floods
https:
//www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/sep/08/flooding-uk-government-plans-for-more-extreme-rainfall

http://slowtheflow.net/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/HB_Dissertation_A-Clark-Final.pdf

Subject: RE: BS: The (in)glorious 12th
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 12 Aug 17 - 07:48 AM

If I call people who spend a fortune killing a few small birds a day using a method that depends on other men disturbing the birds first "brainless oiks," I suppose someone will come along and call me jealous. 😂 For me, the worst aspect is the fact that these idiots are permitted to close vast areas of upland to people while they're having their "sport." For me, all beaches, river banks and high wild places should be open and free for anyone to roam at will all the year round. In my otherwise misspent twenties I roamed all over the northern Highlands through many summer days and the only trouble I ever encountered was from midges. I did once have shots fired over my head by aggressive grouse shooters in Upper Teesdale, a highly illegal act. Until they fired I didn't even know they were there. There was no concept of asking me nicely.

Subject: RE: BS: The (in)glorious 12th
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 12 Aug 17 - 08:10 AM

It is indeed a question of all moors and I fully accept that this is only part of the problem. Hence my phrase, "seems to have added to the issues that are causing flooding". Nature is such a delicately balanced ecology that even the slightest thing can make a massive difference. Often for the worse but sometimes for the better. I am a great believer in the fact that even small steps will get you to the end of the longest journey. Yes, Ok, I do have little legs so have your fun... We are not going to reforest the planet overnight or reverse the greenhouse effect anytime soon but surely the quick easy wins should be the place to start.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: The (in)glorious 12th
From: Rapparee
Date: 12 Aug 17 - 09:57 AM

As one who has hunted what we here in Yankdom call "upland birds" (grouse, pheasant, chukar, and others) I must admit that the idea of having the birds driven to the hunters has always puzzled me. People can be shot (witness what Witless Dick Cheney did some years back), and that was a line of shooters walking, not using "beaters." That's totally apart from the land issue -- here you get permission to hunt private land or hunt public land such as National Grasslands and Forests. The concepts of "shooting" in the UK escape me, except as a way to point out how much better one social group is than another. (Yes, there are private "hunting preserves" here and they are spit on by true hunters.)

Subject: RE: BS: The (in)glorious 12th
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 12 Aug 17 - 11:38 AM

Grouse moors are highly managed. The heather has to be just so, otherwise no grice. They are very artificial habitats. In fact, much moorland is semi-natural only, vast tracts once having been afforested. There's concern about the erosion of exposed peat in many areas. Increasing temperatures and hot, dry spells are threats to peatland on slopes. Peat acts like a huge sponge, holding rainwater and releasing it gradually, which is what we want. Loss of peat would mean a lot more runoff, increasing the rate of erosion, and there would be more surface water flooding in heavy rain.

Subject: RE: BS: The (in)glorious 12th
From: Raggytash
Date: 12 Aug 17 - 12:06 PM

Hang about Steve, most of the UK scenery is man made, including things that you and I love like hedgerows and verges.

Subject: RE: BS: The (in)glorious 12th
From: Donuel
Date: 12 Aug 17 - 12:37 PM

Truth is awful funny, but as funny grows awful goes.

I snigger at all the grouse in my fridge.
My bubbling submerged laughter needs a Merlin
to release the mighty floodgates below.

I've met hunters I don't like, some a smidge.
But that has never kept me from laughing with'em.
In fact laughing always made bonds grow.

I killed 2 grouse with my car on the same ridge
They left a mark on my windshield with their beak.
I never saw them coming , so how would I know.

What some do by gun I do by Datsun and a smirk.
There's plenty of hoary shooters like tight lipped sheep.
They join a group, pick a park and lock the gate.

With bow and arrow there's no sound, they don't work.
But the blast of a gun will delight any creep?
You be judge if they are a villain or soul mate.

Some hit their mark with an instant kill by a quirk.
Feelings fueled by toxic tanks of hate that seep.
Killers in a clique, it needn't be your fate.

In our mind we know who's the saint and who's the jerk.
It is sick to worship the prejudice they keep.
My best medicine is laughing at hate.

Twisting gun nuts upon themselves makes me smile.
Death by amendment with a loving heart makes us weep
Here's laughing at you, and your entire manly group.

They choose sides, load their guns and lock their gate.
They drink and wash from a toxic tank and make communal soup.
AR 15's rule the roost, some say for roast grouse sake

Subject: RE: BS: The (in)glorious 12th
From: punkfolkrocker
Date: 12 Aug 17 - 12:41 PM

.. something else for the usual suspects to grouse about...!!!...




ok.. sorry mates.. that's too terrible by even my standards... 😜

Subject: RE: BS: The (in)glorious 12th
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 12 Aug 17 - 01:32 PM

I think I ducked that remark.

:D tG

Subject: RE: BS: The (in)glorious 12th
From: Teribus
Date: 12 Aug 17 - 02:59 PM

Grouse is not farmed, you are thinking of Pheasant.

Controlled burning of sections of heather is essential to provide food (new growth) for the grouse, only a certain limited amount of burning is carried out as the grouse need mature heather to nest

Subject: RE: BS: The (in)glorious 12th
From: punkfolkrocker
Date: 12 Aug 17 - 03:47 PM

So what does grouse taste like ?

..and is it a basic spuds, veg, and gravy dinner - and leftovers sandwiches;
or foul tasting rotted flesh flavour that toffs seem to like, and dress up with poncey expensive odd ingredients presentation to disguise the flavour...???

Subject: RE: BS: The (in)glorious 12th
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 12 Aug 17 - 03:57 PM

There's very little natural wilderness left in Britain. Sea cliffs can come close, as can mountain tops above 3000 feet. True ancient woodland is rare. On Dartmoor, Black Tor Copse and Wistman's Wood come close, as does the stunted oak forest of Dizzard, about ten minutes from my house. The sad fact is that any area determined as natural is inevitably surrounded by less natural habitat and subject to invasive interference therefrom. Great swathes of heather moorland may look very nice in August but they are no more "natural" than a field of waving corn.

Subject: RE: BS: The (in)glorious 12th
From: Mr Red
Date: 12 Aug 17 - 04:21 PM

a grouse about grouse.

there are more important issues. But I guess homelessness is a much more complicated issue, even at the individual level, to invoke a consensus.

Subject: RE: BS: The (in)glorious 12th
From: akenaton
Date: 12 Aug 17 - 04:37 PM

My apologies Mr T, you are of course correct. the old brain cells must be diminishing fast :0). Pheasants it is, beautiful birds, they slaughter them by the sack load.
I have never owned or fired a gun in my life and don't understand why people get pleasure from killing animals.

I think it would be good if these so called hunters were obliged to eat all they shoot.

Subject: RE: BS: The (in)glorious 12th
From: Iains
Date: 12 Aug 17 - 04:37 PM

A quick guide to amplify Steve's contribution.

http://www.macaulay.ac.uk/soilquality/Moorland%20Succession.pdf

Subject: RE: BS: The (in)glorious 12th
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 12 Aug 17 - 05:36 PM

Grouse is not farmed

My apologies. Grouse moors are managed rather than farmed. I suppose there must be a huge difference or it would not have been mentioned...

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: The (in)glorious 12th
From: Iains
Date: 13 Aug 17 - 03:57 AM

I wonder where the truth really is? Some interesting points are raised.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-4785582/Sir-Ian-Botham-Cute-No-verminous-killers.html

Subject: RE: BS: The (in)glorious 12th
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 13 Aug 17 - 04:44 AM

There are some interesting points indeed, Iains. Underlining the fact that nature is a very delicate balance. Too much of one thing or another will have a great effect. Gamekeepers certainly have been part of country life for generations and I think they do indeed know more than most about their own locality. Maybe if the RSPB employed gamekeepers along the same lines as managed grouse moors they may do a lot better in these areas? I do think, however, that Mr Botham is being rather unfair on the RSPB. They undoubtedly do good work in many areas but an organisation with such a vast remit will not get everything right first time. As to whet the truth is. Well, as I have often said in many threads where opinions are polarized, the truth probably lies somewhere in the middle.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: The (in)glorious 12th
From: Iains
Date: 13 Aug 17 - 05:11 AM

Dthe G I think the RSPB, rather like the RSPCA and national trust, tend to let ideals get in the way of common sense at times(and I have phrased that as delicately as I could)
Mr Botham also can hardly be regarded as a disinterested observer.
I would take issue with the lack of transparency though- I would make the continued charitable status of the RSPB dependent upon independently verified transparency.
Nature, the environment, ecosystems-call it what you will, Despite continual scientific studies, it has a nasty habit of frequently upsetting deeply held "beliefs". Probably because the many strands making the whole have extremely complex, poorly understood inter relationships and inter-dependencies.

Subject: RE: BS: The (in)glorious 12th
From: JHW
Date: 13 Aug 17 - 05:21 AM

Aware of the impending 12th I walked Barden Reservoirs (nr Skipton N. Yorkshire) amongst stunningly purple heather and apologised "Sorry grice" to all those I disturbed; possibly a buzzard too lumbered into the sky from very near me. (Not sure as no call but very big and right colour)
Lovely walk.

Subject: RE: BS: The (in)glorious 12th
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 13 Aug 17 - 05:31 AM

Can't say I disagree with much of that Iains but even if Ian B is not a 'disinterested observer', he is a cricketer, not a scientist :-)

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: The (in)glorious 12th
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 13 Aug 17 - 07:17 AM

Botham's article is arrant, ignorant nonsense (and he's a cricketing hero of mine). He reminds me of all those letter-writers to the Western Morning News who call for the destruction of all sparrowhawks. How do these people suppose that the songbirds, etc., managed to live alongside foxes and other predators for thousands of years since the last glaciation? If you want some home truths, Iains, it's that gamekeepers, via nest-wrecking, shooting and poisoning brought hen harriers to the verge of extinction. Golden eagle nests are wrecked every year in Scotland and birds are regularly poisoned. Landowners and their gamekeepers are not interested in maintaining biodiversity or ecological balance. They are interested only in maintaining their extremely limited range of desirable species which can be shot for the sport of brainless gits like Sir Ian and for their profit. Gamekeepers play a massive part in keeping our most magnificent raptors under constant threat, and farming practices, along with domestic cats, are the biggest threat to songbirds. If we all knew a bit more and cared a bit more, we wouldn't allow these countryside vandals to douse fields with neonicotinoid insecticides that wipe out bees and migrate up tbe food chain or plant winter wheat where skylarks breed. Foxes and birds of prey are easy scapegoats and they can't answer back, even though they're a bit brainier than Botham.

Subject: RE: BS: The (in)glorious 12th
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 13 Aug 17 - 07:48 AM

I think he does make some good points. Steve, but it is not the whole story. Yes, some gamekeepers are guilty of what you say but they know their stuff and some may care more for biodiversity than you give them credit for. Yes, I agree with him on some points but as I said the RSBP does stalwart work in a lot of areas and they should not be written off because they may get some things wrong. If we had the best of both of them we would be on a winner but while a few rich people control the game we do not have much chance. But that is a different topic altogether :-)

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: The (in)glorious 12th
From: Stu
Date: 13 Aug 17 - 09:07 AM

"poorly understood inter relationships and inter-dependencies."

Not as poorly understood as you might think. We understand very well that an ecosystem is a flow of energy, from sunlight to apex predator. Ecosystems can be stable for very long periods when they reach an equilibrium but that this stability is affected (amongst other things) by the loss of various components that reduce biodiversity, and the loss of apex predators (in the case of the moors birds like hen harriers) has significant affects on the health of an ecosystem.

I can highly recommend this book which is very readable without being dumbed down: The Wolf's Tooth: Keystone Predators, Trophic Cascades, and Biodiversity

If we could make every farmer, gamekeeper, politician and other monetised user of the land read and understand this book, the world would be a better place.

Subject: RE: BS: The (in)glorious 12th
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 13 Aug 17 - 09:12 AM

His article is basically an anti-fox rant which is predicated on the fact that foxes prey on game birds. The problem there is that game-bird habitat is highly artificial and just happens to be nirvana for foxes. You might as well rail against pigeons for inhabiting Radcliffe bus station in large numbers, where bits of crisps, pasties, pies and butties provide a rich harvest of pigeon grub. Neither Botham's grouse moor nor Radcliffe bus station are remotely natural habitats. Yet he comes out with this piece of egregious ignorance:

"The heart of the problem is that the RSPB's leadership appears to lack the courage to manage nature. Everyone who lives in the countryside knows that nature left to its own devices is a brutal place."

Well nature left to its own devices created the amazing beauty and staggering diversity of the natural world over billions of years well before Sir Ian's shooting fad came along. What's wrong with his simplistic notion is that he doesn't realise that simplifying nature by drastically reducing diversity is at the heart of the predator "problem" he sees. His grouse moor provides habitat in which grouse are unnaturally overcrowded. There are few other bird species and they exist in low numbers. Birds of prey are not suffered to exist. The vegetation is highly restricted as to species and is tailored for grouse only. It's no wonder that foxes see their opportunity. Grouse moors attract foxes for the same reason they attract shooters. They are full of grouse. Duh. So Sir Ian, in order to strengthen his case against the animal that spoils his shoot, lashes out in all sorts of other anti-fox directions. If foxes are "out of control" (which they are not), it's solely because we have created the conditions for that to happen. He's made his grouse moor into a very brutal place by NOT leaving it to its own devices. If you don't believe me, just imagine you're a grouse up there this afternoon, shot at by morons by day and threatened by the foxes that Sir Ian has encouraged by night. The one predator they should be scared of, the bird of prey, doesn't get a look-in. It might even be lying poisoned in a ditch. Now that's what I call mucking about with nature.

Subject: RE: BS: The (in)glorious 12th
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 13 Aug 17 - 09:39 AM

I still think that some of his points are fine but they are only part of the picture. It is the way these things are presented and all such articles should be taken with a good handful of salt. Nothing wrong with what he says as such but there are lots of things he doesn't say. That is fine, there are other people, such as yourself, who will rectify that and so there should be. It is how we learn.

Stu - Not read the book but refer often to snippets about the trophic cascade at Yellowstone once wolves were reintroduced. There is talk of lynx in Scotland but imagine the fuss the shooters will make then!

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: The (in)glorious 12th
From: Jon Freeman
Date: 13 Aug 17 - 09:40 AM

"Everyone who lives in the countryside knows that nature left to its own devices is a brutal place."

Odd. OK there are things that I don't find pleasant, and even once just in our garden (OK artificial), I can't pretend I enjoyed once seeing a sparrowhawk taking down and proceeding to eat a collard dove.. But the thing about nature in my own innocent/ignorant view is that it, left alone, will always find a balance. In that context, it is irrelevant whether I "approve" of every action a predator (which after all has a perfect right to exist and I believe forms part of the balance) may take. More nature has its ways that are perhaps not for me to question.

Foxes: sure we have kept chicken, ducks and geese in the past and I know what they can do. I don't go as far as blaming them for taking a ready made meal we could have taken better care of though.

Subject: RE: BS: The (in)glorious 12th
From: Stu
Date: 13 Aug 17 - 10:11 AM

" Everyone who lives in the countryside knows that nature left to its own devices is a brutal place"

A statement that manages to combine both staggering arrogance and ignorance.

Subject: RE: BS: The (in)glorious 12th
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 13 Aug 17 - 10:35 AM

Agreed, Jon. I'm not saying that we should always just manage the environment by leaving it alone (though that can be a good policy in some circumstances). Most of what we regard as our natural places are, in reality, semi-natural at best. That includes almost all of what we call our ancient woodland. The climax community has usually been deflected away from by our activities and, generally, the climax won't return even if we abandon the land, because we may have removed nutrients or altered the hydrology or degraded the soil or introduced alien species. In those circumstances, management for conservation and biodiversity may be the best policy. What wouldn't work is some ignorant berk with an agenda going out shooting at foxes, thinking he's restoring some kind of balance. He isn't, and he'll make things worse.

Incidentally, sparrowhawks are a native species whereas collared doves are recent aliens, dating back only to the early 1950s.

Subject: RE: BS: The (in)glorious 12th
From: Iains
Date: 13 Aug 17 - 10:45 AM

Shaw you are having a rant!
1) Botham may be former cricketer but does that mean he can only talk rubbish? If so he is in fine company. How about Albert Einstein:"There is not the slightest indication that nuclear energy will ever be available.It would mean that the atom would have to be shattered at will(1932)
or Lord Kelvin:"X rays will prove to be a hoax(1883)
or Hiram Maxim on the role of the machine gun in war:"It will make war impossible)
2)It is also worth pointing out that nature(in the widest sense) has given rise to some major extinction events throuhout the geologic record
3)There is only one dangerous predator-you see it each time you look in a mirror.

Subject: RE: BS: The (in)glorious 12th
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 13 Aug 17 - 11:03 AM

Don't talk such rubbish yourself. I didn't say he talked rubbish because he was a cricketer. And I absolutely can't see what "extinction events" have got to do with what we're talking about. And I'm not aware that anyone here is making predictions that may turn out to be bollix. You're lowering the tone. Was there a hidden bone in your roast chicken?

Subject: RE: BS: The (in)glorious 12th
From: Jon Freeman
Date: 13 Aug 17 - 11:12 AM

I certainly wasn't aware of tat re the dove, Steve and thanks for the other thoughts.

--
I see we are back to cricket... OT but I'm not convinced off hand that I really liked him, maybe a bit "anti cricket establishment" in playing days that was OK but often (to me) a bit pompous. My father disliked him so much that he stopped buying Shreaded wheat!

But I think the comment starting this was about his performance on the field. On that I don't think there is any doubt he was a fine all rounder and one (although I'd have chosen to bad like Viv Richards and bowl like Michael Holding, and probably in all round ability, Imran Khan was my favourite...) that people of my generation wanted to emulate as well as being a player that led other generations older and younger to look for the next England Botham.

That, the way I read it is just passing interest, not a statement as to whether or not being a cricketer qualifies or otherwise for making comment on the environment.

Subject: RE: BS: The (in)glorious 12th
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 13 Aug 17 - 11:36 AM

The bowler's Holding the batsman's Willey?

:D tG

Subject: RE: BS: The (in)glorious 12th
From: Jon Freeman
Date: 13 Aug 17 - 11:48 AM

Seems to be some doubt on that one, Dave although I'd think possible. One that can be verified is Lillee caught Willey bowled Dilley.

Anyway, someone needs to bring us back to topic...

Subject: RE: BS: The (in)glorious 12th
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 13 Aug 17 - 11:56 AM

i suppose theres no real difference between the posh git shooting birds for pleasure and the poor sod slitting their throats for Bernard Matthews - morally.

they both take life for their own reasons.

even if the posh git did a lot of good - i still wouldn't like him.
i'm not disagreeing with what you're saying Steve - i just think its an irrelevance.

the rich are all twats.

Subject: RE: BS: The (in)glorious 12th
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 13 Aug 17 - 12:48 PM

I don't think they are all twats, Al. Just a lot of them. If I was rich I would definitely be a twat (nothing new there then before you say it) but if my Mrs was rich, she would be OK. I suppose if I won the lottery I should give it all to her!

:D tG

Subject: RE: BS: The (in)glorious 12th
From: Jon Freeman
Date: 13 Aug 17 - 01:15 PM

"Anyway, someone needs to bring us back to topic... "

I'll try to keep to that after this but for Dave, maybe this is relevant. Sometimes we seem to have what I think of as the "Pugwash effect" where plausibility seems to override our own memories.

Subject: RE: BS: The (in)glorious 12th
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 13 Aug 17 - 01:25 PM

No good trying to keep on topic with me about anyway, Jon. I knew about the Pugwash thing but we still like to remember Seaman Stains and Roger the cabin boy anyway :-)

I got another look at Penyghent today. Never noticed before, driving back over the tops from Haworth, as Airedale opens up in front of you, there she is in all he glory beyond the next couple of lines of hills. Eeeeeh, happy for the next few hours at least :-)

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: The (in)glorious 12th
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 13 Aug 17 - 01:39 PM

Which bit was irrelevant, Al?

Subject: RE: BS: The (in)glorious 12th
From: akenaton
Date: 13 Aug 17 - 01:46 PM

To equate killing animals for fun and factory farming is a it disingenuous.....to feed our population I'm afraid factory farming has become a necessity....and don't dare say that is "tacit approval of the process", I have already been accused of that in the Nazification thread....and still have received no apology.

Subject: RE: BS: The (in)glorious 12th
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 13 Aug 17 - 02:07 PM

To equate killing animals for fun and factory farming is a it disingenuous.

Who the fuck has done that?

I'll have a pint of what he's on...

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: The (in)glorious 12th
From: Donuel
Date: 13 Aug 17 - 02:32 PM

Ake, I did.
Today we are all awash in false equivalencies DtG.

Subject: RE: BS: The (in)glorious 12th
From: punkfolkrocker
Date: 13 Aug 17 - 02:56 PM

I'm cooking pork chops, chips, leftover curried veg, and gravy..

How well would grouse go with that instead of pork chops...???

[pfr - grew up on a factory council estate eating affordable food out of tins and cardboard packets...]

Subject: RE: BS: The (in)glorious 12th
From: Jon Freeman
Date: 13 Aug 17 - 03:38 PM

Foul/fowl?

I don't think I've even had peasant or any of the game birds.

I have eaten woodpigeon though and rabbit back in a time when mum (a life long vegetarian) was open to cooking a bit more for her then meat eating husband and then (I' not sure who is and isn't now in the family...) carnivorous children and I've long been mostly veg, largely for convenience but seem to loose taste for meat, etc. I could waffle on a while there...

Those were probably reasonably "normal", at least my first time round in a small village in N Wales mid 60s and while, yes, dad was with the Abbey and mum a physio, I struggle to think of it all as being rich/poor. Except to say that where I once lived would be expensive property wise now - any property - the village moved from once "behind the times" to "highly desirable"

Subject: RE: BS: The (in)glorious 12th
From: punkfolkrocker
Date: 13 Aug 17 - 03:59 PM

.. errrrmmm.. so it wouldn't taste very pheasant...!!!??? 😜

[dedicated to Basil Brush - and all other maligned foxes...]

Subject: RE: BS: The (in)glorious 12th
From: Iains
Date: 13 Aug 17 - 04:01 PM

Surely grouse are a farmed species like many other creatures. You may not agree with the efficiency of the process,the restricted market it serves, or the method of slaughter, but it offers a far higher quality of life to the bird than that of a battery hen. Many acres of moorland has to offer more that being cramped in a cage with many others, in a factory farm.
   Perhaps we should raise them in a feedlot, so they may dine regularly. Perhaps off a table of astro turf.Then there would be no confusion over the artificiality of the environment they are raised in.

Subject: RE: BS: The (in)glorious 12th
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 13 Aug 17 - 04:08 PM

Take that up with Teribus, Iains.

From: Teribus - PM
Date: 12 Aug 17 - 02:59 PM

Grouse is not farmed, you are thinking of Pheasant.


I am still unclear what the difference is and why it makes and odds anyway.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: The (in)glorious 12th
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 13 Aug 17 - 04:11 PM

if you were a human being, and someone was shooting human beings and another bloke was cutting their throats...you wouldn't differentiate.

i bet if you were a bird, you wouldn't differentiate between Lord Muck with his shotgun, and the bloke with a razor blade at Bernard Matthews.

as far the bird is concerned they're both avian-cidal maniacs. characters from a nightmare.

whereas - its the aristocrat i don't like - because i'm not a bird.

Subject: RE: BS: The (in)glorious 12th
From: keberoxu
Date: 13 Aug 17 - 04:20 PM

Remember the time that Her Majesty went shooting for grouse,
and a falling grouse whacked her straight in the shoulder?

And in the peanut-gallery sections of the press,
they were hailing, in print,
"The Kamikaze Grouse! "

Subject: RE: BS: The (in)glorious 12th
From: Iains
Date: 13 Aug 17 - 04:29 PM

D the G "Red grouse, which are only found in Britain, cannot be reared artificially. They have a short life cycle and are susceptible to a number of diseases. They are famous for enduring hard winter weather, but their chicks are as fragile as any young bird."
Pheasants tend to be hatched and reared prior to release. Not all but probably most.
Whether you define farming as hatching and raising the chicks, or micro managing the moorland so it is conducive to grouse is probably an argument that can go round in endless circles. To an extent both points of view have merit.

Subject: RE: BS: The (in)glorious 12th
From: punkfolkrocker
Date: 13 Aug 17 - 04:46 PM

What do WE want..
When do we want it...!!!???

..genetically modified factory farmed grouse for the down trodden masses...

McWimpy Grouse Burgers...!!!

Subject: RE: BS: The (in)glorious 12th
From: akenaton
Date: 13 Aug 17 - 05:41 PM

The question is what motivates the shooters, not semantics about whether grouse are "farmed" or not. Iains remarks on wild grouse are correct, in this part of Scotland Red Grouse are the common species

I have always questioned the sanity of people who enjoy killing animals. I have seen magnificent wild beasts slaughtered as trophy by human many times inferior in every way.

Subject: RE: BS: The (in)glorious 12th
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 13 Aug 17 - 06:53 PM

Maybe I'll surprise y'all by saying that I'm not really "against" stuff like foxhunting or deer stalking or grouse shooting. I'm definitely not "for" any of it, and wouldn't be seen dead doing any of it, but would I ban it? Well, not really. We screw up the lives of millions of animals every year for food, subjecting them to horrible, unnatural conditions. That fox that was hunted down by hounds, or shot by one of Botham's ignorami, at least had a happy natural life before it was ruthlessly torn to shreds by the dogs of morons and then had its bloody tail wiped on the forehead of an eleven-year-old who was being groomed into the same stupidity. What's not to like! 😂 So let's avoid hypocrisy. What I don't like is the usurping of millions of acres of upland for "sport". That land is actually mine to begin with, just as much as it's theirs. Nobody ever made a square foot of land. These shotgun-toting arseholes have no right to shut off land for privileged twats like Botham to indulge their puerile idiocy. Nobody made the land. That bloody grouse moor is mine. So if you want to breed grice on it, that's great, but I might just want to walk across it on the 13th August if it's a nice day. And you can't stop me and you'd better not point your gun.

Subject: RE: BS: The (in)glorious 12th
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 14 Aug 17 - 01:44 AM

well if they pointed a gun, it would stop me.

Subject: RE: BS: The (in)glorious 12th
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 14 Aug 17 - 03:20 AM

Aaaarrrggghhhh! Will everyone stop going on about whether it is farmed or not. I could not give a flying fuck what you call it. The grouse care even less. Someone else brought up that piece of pedantry so take it up with them.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: The (in)glorious 12th
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 14 Aug 17 - 03:58 AM

Ok, Dave, we'll compromise. They're farmed. Ish. 😚

Subject: RE: BS: The (in)glorious 12th
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 14 Aug 17 - 04:02 AM

"well if they pointed a gun, it would stop me"

Take a photo and go straight down the cop shop.

I'm not saying it's never happened but I don't recall any cases of ramblers being shot by country "sportsmen."

Subject: RE: BS: The (in)glorious 12th
From: Iains
Date: 14 Aug 17 - 04:51 AM

"That land is actually mine to begin with, just as much as it's theirs." Arrant twaddle. a typical socialist response. The landowners own the land, hence their name.

The right to roam is not absolute.

http://www.thenorthernecho.co.uk/news/6949228.display/

Subject: RE: BS: The (in)glorious 12th
From: Mr Red
Date: 14 Aug 17 - 05:17 AM

Grouse is not farmed

Call me a pedant but:
Grouse is farmed, the moors are managed.

Grouse may be wild, but the environ is controlled much like a fence does a job in controlling stock.

A semantic, but apt distinction IMNSHO.

Subject: RE: BS: The (in)glorious 12th
From: Iains
Date: 14 Aug 17 - 05:34 AM

Another take on the subject(peripheral)

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/apr/28/britain-plutocrats-landed-gentry-shotgun-owners

Subject: RE: BS: The (in)glorious 12th
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 14 Aug 17 - 06:12 AM

I don't want an absolute right to roam. I've no right to trample all over a chap's field of wheat, for example, and I don't want the right to do it. I want to be able to wander over mountains and moorlands. Shooting grouse for sport is not the same as growing wheat. It's a trivial pursuit that benefits almost nobody. Nobody made those mountains. Landowner is just a word. Maybe his ancestor was a thief. Thief is another word.

Subject: RE: BS: The (in)glorious 12th
From: Iains
Date: 14 Aug 17 - 07:10 AM

Twat is another word

Subject: RE: BS: The (in)glorious 12th
From: Teribus
Date: 14 Aug 17 - 07:22 AM

Because of it's diet grouse cannot be "farmed"

Pheasant can - it was why they were introduced from China and released on sporting estates to be shot. The Pheasant is probably the daftest bird in creation.

Subject: RE: BS: The (in)glorious 12th
From: Jon Freeman
Date: 14 Aug 17 - 07:26 AM

Well you'd have to be quick to trample on "our" wheat field. There is a combine cutting it as I type. It might take them a bit longer this year as I only see one. There is usually 2 when they (I assume contractors) come to do the job. Quite dusty round the back atm...

Subject: RE: BS: The (in)glorious 12th
From: Teribus
Date: 14 Aug 17 - 07:43 AM

Nobody can "make" land? Utter rubbish Shaw. Ever heard of "Polders"? Much of the arable land in the Netherlands was "made". Same for lots of land in East Anglia - funnily enough "made" by the same people.

Oh and Iains is correct YOU do not own the land, it is not yours, if it was it would have degraded and eroded years ago through lack of the knowledge required to "manage" or "husband" it.

Funny that the Gnome doen't give a fuck as to whether they were farmed or not - especially after he specifically stated that they were and then someone else chipped in that they were so over-fed in this "farming" process that they could barely fly. The ignorance on the subject by those who cannot see through the ideological stereotypes they have been brainwashed into believing is astounding.

Subject: RE: BS: The (in)glorious 12th
From: Raggytash
Date: 14 Aug 17 - 08:06 AM

Strange isn't it, that this thread which has, up to this morning, been relatively pleasant and calm has now suddenly turned aggressive.

I wonder why?

Subject: RE: BS: The (in)glorious 12th
From: punkfolkrocker
Date: 14 Aug 17 - 08:09 AM

Why don't the toffs just shoot at chickens..
If the pleasure of the sport is killing something;
chickens are flightless and should be much easier targets for even the most inept shooters to pepper with scatter guns...???
Especially indoors at battery farms.

.. or why not turkeys, ostriches, and emus - flightless and much bigger targets....

..and can probably be farmed efficiently....

Or those bloody noisy show off crap at flying peacocks..
Toffs already have plenty of them on their front lawns....
and wouldn't even need to leave their verandas.

They could then let us have all that countryside back again for normal folks to ramble, go dogging, and have picnics and pagan rituals...

Subject: RE: BS: The (in)glorious 12th
From: Jon Freeman
Date: 14 Aug 17 - 08:30 AM

Oh, chickens can fly, although maybe it depends on the breed, with perhaps a bantam (which I have known roost quite high in a tree) finding things easier than a Rhode Island Red? I don't think any are particularly competent fliers though.

Subject: RE: BS: The (in)glorious 12th
From: Teribus
Date: 14 Aug 17 - 09:32 AM

Define "pleasant" Raggy. So far all I seem to have read is Shaw calling Sir Ian Botham names, accusing him of uttering arrant, ignorant nonsense. Other people calling others Twats (One accurately referring to himself as being such).

Subject: RE: BS: The (in)glorious 12th
From: Raggytash
Date: 14 Aug 17 - 09:48 AM

I rest my case.

Subject: RE: BS: The (in)glorious 12th
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 14 Aug 17 - 10:29 AM

Sir Ian Botham....love that!

Subject: RE: BS: The (in)glorious 12th
From: Iains
Date: 14 Aug 17 - 10:42 AM

http://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/news/environment/country-coast-lack-of-reverence-for-our-only-entirely-native-bird-1-8691740

Subject: RE: BS: The (in)glorious 12th
From: Iains
Date: 14 Aug 17 - 10:57 AM

"I've no right to trample all over a chap's field of wheat"
Reminds me of living in deepest sussex in the very early 50's. The monks from a nearby monastery used to walk three abreast down a public footpath. This originally ran down the side of a field, but the hedge was grubbed up and the two field became one and the footpath was ploughed up and wheat sown. The monks had no hesitation flattening the crop along the line of the footpath. This was a time of farming transition. One year a reaper and binder cut the crop and the sheaves were stooked before being dried and made into a stack. Later the thresher came round and the highlight was to see the rats trying to escape from the collection of terriers as the lowermost sheaves were removed and fed to the drum. Not nearly as much fun the following year when a big red combine bagged the crop and spat straw out the back.
Far less labour intensive though and another housing crisis for the rats.

Subject: RE: BS: The (in)glorious 12th
From: Jon Freeman
Date: 14 Aug 17 - 11:07 AM

"and the highlight was to see the rats trying to escape from the collection of terriers"

Before my memory but I guess that sums up differences in views. My mother's (b 1930s) highlight as a child was a ride on the cart after the days helping.

Subject: RE: BS: The (in)glorious 12th
From: Iains
Date: 14 Aug 17 - 11:15 AM

Even staddle stones did not always prevent depredation by rats. House and larder in one place would be Christmas day every day for them

Subject: RE: BS: The (in)glorious 12th
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 14 Aug 17 - 01:20 PM

The Pheasant is probably the daftest bird in creation.

Genius level compared to some on here I reckon.

Now, anyone coming for a sensible discussion is welcome. I cannot stop those coming just to argue but they can expect to be told to fuck off. If that means I lose, so be it :-)

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: The (in)glorious 12th
From: keberoxu
Date: 14 Aug 17 - 01:25 PM

ahhh, rats and terriers. neat change from birds and guns.

Subject: RE: BS: The (in)glorious 12th
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 14 Aug 17 - 01:32 PM

BTW

Funny that the Gnome doen't give a fuck as to whether they were farmed or not

Do I not, tezzer? I seem to recall that the phrase I used was

I could not give a flying fuck what you call it.

Call it farmed, call it managed, call it what you like. But do try to repeat what is actually said rather than what you thought someone said. Have you been taking lessons of someone?

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: The (in)glorious 12th
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 14 Aug 17 - 05:08 PM

"Nobody can "make" land? Utter rubbish Shaw. Ever heard of "Polders"? Much of the arable land in the Netherlands was "made". Same for lots of land in East Anglia - funnily enough "made" by the same people."

Fair dues to anyone who reclaims land from the sea. Fair dues also to people who improve the land by draining it, clearing the rocks from it or who improve its soil. If you've done that you've acquired the right to cultivate it and make a living from it without interference. I've never advocated land anarchy. Making moorland fit only for growing heather for grouse cover involves severe reductions in biodiversity. The burning is extremely destructive to wildlife and adds carbon dioxide to the atmosphere. These activities are carried out for sport and profit, benefitting very few people and damaging the environment. If you're seriously arguing that that kind of land use justifies ramblers being barred from wandering over thousands of acres of wild places, then I'm not with you. And, though you're not wrong to point out that land can be "made," let's keep it in proportion. The amount of land made by the methods you describe is a tiny fraction of one percent of all land.

"Oh and Iains is correct YOU do not own the land, it is not yours, if it was it would have degraded and eroded years ago through lack of the knowledge required to "manage" or "husband" it."

Well, apart from the fact that any large tract of land that is claimed to be owned was usurped for private gain and the impoverishment of ordinary people by the ancestors of the current landlord, your assumption that ownership somehow imbues you with the wisdom to be a good steward of that land is highly questionable. Bad land management has caused severe silting of rivers in the Somerset Levels and led to the flooding of villages. Cultivation of maize on sloping ground, a recent agricultural fad, has led to severe soil erosion. Look it up. Hundreds of thousands of miles of hedgerows removed has led to a loss of biodiversity and a severe threat to many songbird species, as well as butterflies, bees, wildflowers and small mammals. The use of land for winter wheat and barley has severely depleted habitat for ground-nesting birds. We endured years of watching the sheer vandalism of stubble-burning until legislation put a stop to it. Artificial fertilisers, gained at the expense of huge amounts of fossil fuel energy, result in polluted waterways and soil degradation. Farmers are using neonicotinoid insecticides on a huge scale in spite of the fact that it's well known that honeybee populations are being ravaged. Farmland that could be used for growing food is instead being used to grow Miscanthus grass for biofuel, which is low-maintenance, profitable and allows lazy "farmers" to become country gentlemen. "I'm stealing this land from you because I know how to look after it and you don't". Wow. What arrogance!

Subject: RE: BS: The (in)glorious 12th
From: punkfolkrocker
Date: 14 Aug 17 - 05:21 PM

I grew up in a small industrialised market town surrounded by farming country...
The fields on the edge of the housing estate and nearby ponds and river bank were an amazing 'natural' playground back in the 60s
All sorts of animal, bird, insect, and plant life in abundance.

For the last 40 years it's been encroached on by property developers, and what's left, landscaped into a flat boring almost barren picnic and dog walking park;
with child safe skateboard facilities...

Oh well, at least I benefited from a proper semi rural childhood, but we were probably the UK generation to do so...???

Subject: RE: BS: The (in)glorious 12th
From: Jon Freeman
Date: 15 Aug 17 - 12:35 AM

I don't know pfr.

If it's of any interest, I'll give my own background. I was born 1960 in Shrewsbury. I don't really remember my time there or that much (except to say that on a much later in life visit I could still find my way to my first primary school, the church, the hall, etc.) about 3 miles out of town.
We moved to N Wales when I was 6 or 7. We then moved (dad's Abbey branch manage job again….) to a village near Tunbridge Wells where I started my 3rd year in secondary school. It's the Welsh one which I moved back to when I was 18 that I reflect most on.

That village was possible a little bit of an odd one given that it was only a few minutes by car to both Conwy and Llandudno but it could be viewed as a bit backward then. While there was a small C of E church, the village then was largely Welsh chapel and the majority of people were Welsh first language. All 7 (I'm discounting a couple that moved in my time) kids that I've just counted who were with a year of me (yes, it was that small and there was only one girl in my actual school year) spoke Welsh at home and all bar one lived on one of the small farms. There were a couple of short rows of houses but the village overall was quite spread out.

It was a pretty tight knit community with the good and bad (does anywhere ever match a romantic picture of the perfect happy village?) that I guess goes with it but pretty enterprising for a small population. It had a large village hall and I remember them booking a much older version of the here singing about a bluetit. Not that I ever learned to speak Welsh I enjoyed things like that and people from the surrounding area to the hall. Not really my thing but they had a gala and a procession with lots of other gala queens, etc. proceeding from the "green" to the playing field and hall. They even formed a football team (rumour has it helped by the manager also being the manager of a local brewery depot – supposedly one way to get a job…)

Coming back to us kids, miles to play in and we could do things like tracking or make dens as well as kick a ball around or cycle to another town/village but we could still get bored. For my part, I'm sure I never really saw what we had. My views have alternated over the years but really with my current 56yr old head, if I could re-run a time/place I lived, I'd pick there/then but with more appreciation of what was there/then. But times change and the village has changed. I'm not sure were you could find similar now.

Subject: RE: BS: The (in)glorious 12th
From: punkfolkrocker
Date: 15 Aug 17 - 01:11 AM

I see now another glaring typo..

should have read "at least I benefited from a proper semi rural childhood, but we were probably the last UK generation to do so"

Jon - I was born in 1958.

My mrs is just a bit younger than you, she grew up on a bleak hillside with miles of nothing else much around her small village in South Wales..
But enjoyed a similar 'real' adventurous outdoors childhood as us...

Subject: RE: BS: The (in)glorious 12th
From: Jon Freeman
Date: 15 Aug 17 - 01:36 AM

We were on a hill too although your wife's place sounds much more remote. The roads were fairly steep (one road had a section marked 1 in 4) and the bus (which couldn't navigate that one - it took another route turning round in the quarry) to Llandudno wouldn't turn up with the slightest hint of snow but not that far from other places.

Subject: RE: BS: The (in)glorious 12th
From: peteglasgow
Date: 15 Aug 17 - 03:42 AM

killing animals for fun? i'm against it

Subject: RE: BS: The (in)glorious 12th
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 15 Aug 17 - 06:02 AM

Killing for fun/sport will always be justified by the killers. The grouse will be eaten. Foxes must be "controlled." Deer must be "culled" to "maintain the strength of the herd," etc. But hypocrisy and unintended irony abound. Foxhunting country was deliberately made favourable for foxes by providing cover for them. After all, the last thing the hunts wanted was for the fox supply to run out. Odd that Botham hasn't spotted that one in his anti-fox rants, seeing as how the fox-hunters are, in effect and in sentiment, his brothers-in-arms. And let's see how a typical grouse might meet its end. First, it will be flushed out, terrified by a beater. Then it will endure a hail of thunderous shooting, adding to the terror. Then, if it hasn't been actually shot just yet, the fear will be compounded by vicious dogs charging through the flock. There's a good chance that you aren't killed quick and clean even if you do get shot. I wonder how many of those hooray-Henry shooters and hunters go to the pub that evening railing against the evils of halal... not a lot, probably, come to think of it. They won't know very much at all about what those "Muslim chappies" get up to. I've mixed with a few of these sporting types in my time in the rural pubs round here and they aren't usually the sharpest knives in the drawer, let's say.

Subject: RE: BS: The (in)glorious 12th
From: punkfolkrocker
Date: 15 Aug 17 - 06:10 AM

..of some tangential relevance to this thread, and interest to foodies and environmentalists...

The Bug Grub Couple

"As demand grows for a sustainable alternative protein to meat, Sarah and Andy believe bug grub is the way forward.
Insects need far less land and water than beef, they can feed off waste rather than edible arable crops
and don't contribute to climate change to the same degree as beef production does.
But has the day of the insect arrived? Are the UK ready for bug burgers and cricket cookies?"

Available to watch until 8 Sept 17.

Subject: RE: BS: The (in)glorious 12th
From: Iains
Date: 15 Aug 17 - 06:21 AM

" Farmland that could be used for growing food is instead being used to grow Miscanthus grass for biofuel, which is low-maintenance, profitable and allows lazy "farmers" to become country gentlemen."
More nonsense from Shaw. Farms are not charities. If the agricultural subsidy scheme encourages planting biofuel over other crops then that is what will be grown. Nothing to do with being country gentlemen at all, just sound economic practice.
Do I detect a whiff of socialism and envy?


miscanthus
You are correct about soil erosion, although recognising the severity and wide distribution of the problem has only relatively recently been acknowledged. Previously it was thought to be a problem of far more arid areas,but now is seen to be a cause for serious concern. Perhaps you could argue the problem should have been attacked 40 years ago when first recognised, but in any field detecting a problem, defining it and seeking a cure it does not happen overnight. The cure lies in the implementation of the EU water framework directive.


https://www.bgs.ac.uk/downloads/start.cfm?id=815

http://www.mdpi.com/2077-0472/3/3/418/htm

https://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/envir/soil_en

It is a fascinating field of study

Subject: RE: BS: The (in)glorious 12th
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 15 Aug 17 - 07:30 AM

I know I'm correct.


And I don't want "sound economic practice" to trump biodiversity and good stewardship of the natural environment. Agricultural land is not someone's factory floor. Economics is one aspect only of looking after this planet. Once we start doing everything with "sound economics" at the top of the priority list we end up with pollution, soil degradation, habitat destruction, animal cruelty, unnatural disasters such as foot and mouth and contaminated eggs and species loss on a massive scale, as we've seen with the onset of intensive agriculture since WWII. A very large percentage of land on this planet is given over to agriculture. If we allow landowners to become no more than money-grabbers who see nothing beyond "sound economics," we'll be well stuffed.

Subject: RE: BS: The (in)glorious 12th
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 15 Aug 17 - 07:49 AM

its fun eating animals.

really we should all put a red jacket on, blow a trumpet and shout tally ho! every tine you have a ham sandwich.

the bloke who killed the pig - killed it for my fun. i could have had cheese sandwich.

Subject: RE: BS: The (in)glorious 12th
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 15 Aug 17 - 07:59 AM

But he didn't scare it half to death first, or use a risky method that might have merely inflicted painful injuries as opposed to instant death, or have dogs carry it in their mouths, to him, dead or alive.

Subject: RE: BS: The (in)glorious 12th
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 15 Aug 17 - 08:40 AM

Was it a Halal pig? ;-)

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: The (in)glorious 12th
From: Iains
Date: 15 Aug 17 - 09:14 AM

" A very large percentage of land on this planet is given over to agriculture. If we allow landowners to become no more than money-grabbers who see nothing beyond "sound economics," we'll be well stuffed." As in well fed I presume you mean!
With soil erosion the problem first has to be accepted.As I previously stated it is a recent realisation that it is a problem in the UK. Sound economics goes beyond pure financial gain. The means of production must also be maintained and this would include accepting what is presumed to be best practise. No one would argue modern agricultural practise is perfect but inevitably change only comes in response to new knowledge. Sometimes this is to the good, sometimes to the bad. Soil compaction, erosion, using chemicals indiscriminately............... -legislation is slowly taking these factors into account. You may have an argument that change should occur faster in terms of reacting to new knowledge, but it is happening. Chemicals can no longer be used indiscriminately, operators of spray equipment have to be trained, chemicals previously used are banned. Upland areas are subjected to far more controls than was the case even 20 years ago. Agriculture is certainly not the free for all that you endaevour to portray.

Subject: RE: BS: The (in)glorious 12th
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 15 Aug 17 - 10:43 AM

It isn't a free-for-all but it's a damn sight easier for farmers to cheat. Agriculture routinely indulges in what it knows very well to be expediently bad practice until it is stopped by legislation. Soil erosion has been recognised as a time-bomb since well before I studied it at university in the 60s. As it happens, my personal tutor was one of the leading soil scientists in the world at the time. Soil accumulating at the bottoms of badly-ploughed fields (autumn ploughing followed by soil left bare in winter, or a failure to contour-plough), rivers and drains silting up causing flooding, straw and stubble-burning polluting the atmosphere and leading to loss of organic matter that should have been ploughed in, the stripping away of hundreds of thousands of miles of hedgerow (look at the legacy - miles and miles of sterile barley-prairies all over the southern half of England), crop rotation replaced by massive fertiliser and biocide input, hundred-acre, or much bigger, fields of depressing monoculture, all in the name of "economy of scale" (and much of the wheat and barley we grow is so piss-poor that it's fit only to be fed to animals, the poor sods). A five-hundred acre farm near me consists mostly of three or four huge fields. Recently he's been growing oilseed rape in them, a crop that can't survive without massive chemical input. After that he turned to linseed, a crop that nobody needs and which can be harvested only when weedkiller has killed and dessicated it. Have you SEEN what a linseed field looks like in September? Fortunately, the fad seems to have passed. Now we're on maize, just about the leading culprit in terms of soil erosion. Just for the tourists he has a "wildlife centre" behind an artificial pond. Sheesh. I walk across those fields occasionally and the only wildlife I see is the distant gulls flying over the beach, through binoculars of course. Bad practice caused the drains on the Somerset Levels to fill rapidly with silt. But guess who the farmers want to pay for dredging it out again...

Subject: RE: BS: The (in)glorious 12th
From: Raggytash
Date: 15 Aug 17 - 11:10 AM

At the risk of upsetting people Ian Botham needs Linseed. How can you oil a cricket bat without it.



I'll get me coat.

Subject: RE: BS: The (in)glorious 12th
From: Iains
Date: 15 Aug 17 - 11:34 AM

"and much of the wheat and barley we grow is so piss-poor that it's fit only to be fed to animals, the poor sods."
WRONG AGAIN!

Wheat is the most widely grown arable crop in the UK. On average, it covers around two million hectares of land and produces about 15 million tonnes each year. Wheat is a versatile crop and is used mainly for milling into flour for bread and starch - about 40% of annual production - and as an animal feed ingredient - around 50% - with most of the rest being exported. It is found in numerous food products, including bread, cakes, biscuits and breakfast cereals. (Barley prairies???)
Barley is grown on around one million hectares and produces an output of around five million tonnes. About 1.7 million tonnes are used in the production of malt - a key ingredient in beer and whisky. The remaining barley is mostly used in animal feeds or exported.

The majority of cereals are sown in the autumn, known as 'winter cereals' as the young plants have to survive the winter in the open fields. These cereals are usually higher yielding because of the longer growing period. The remaining cereals are sown in the spring.

Subject: RE: BS: The (in)glorious 12th
From: Jon Freeman
Date: 15 Aug 17 - 11:47 AM

I can't comment on the "piss poor bit" but I don't read a statement indicating much of our wheat goes for animal feed disagreeing with one that says 50% goes towards animal feed.

A bit confused here.

Subject: RE: BS: The (in)glorious 12th
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 15 Aug 17 - 11:59 AM

Thanks Jon. In fact, his figures reveal the situation to be even worse than I thought.

Subject: RE: BS: The (in)glorious 12th
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 15 Aug 17 - 01:55 PM

i think most slaughtermen i have talked to concede that the process of being slaughtered is frightening and stressful to the animal.

i can't really see your difficulty in just admitting that we hate rich people because we find them obnoxious. Even if they lured foxes with offers of a six week holiday, administered a pleasant sedative and played them their favourite movie - prior to killing them with kindness.

i still wouldn't like the rich!

Subject: RE: BS: The (in)glorious 12th
From: punkfolkrocker
Date: 15 Aug 17 - 02:25 PM

That TV program I linked to centers on making extremely protein rich flour from insects that require barely any land, water, resources to grow,
and the delicious nutricious foodstuffs that can be made from them...

..plus the cute lady scientist is a potential TV star along the lines of that science bloke who used to be a pop star...

Subject: RE: BS: The (in)glorious 12th
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 15 Aug 17 - 05:05 PM

"i can't really see your difficulty in just admitting that we hate rich people because we find them obnoxious."

I have no such difficulty. It's just that you've never asked me.

Subject: RE: BS: The (in)glorious 12th
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 16 Aug 17 - 02:17 AM

theres some really weird videos of people shooting rats on youtube. some of them have really expensive equipment, to see at night, and they hide behind dustbins. its not their job - they just do it to shoot rats for fun. surprising hobby for fairly middle class people - shooting rats!

that's a weird thing to do.

also theres a man whose dog kills tats. he's stood there beside a pile the size of a haystack.   you wouldn't believe there were so many rats.

can't imagine what they do with all the bodies. could they be recycled?

Subject: RE: BS: The (in)glorious 12th
From: punkfolkrocker
Date: 16 Aug 17 - 03:51 AM

Rats are a delicious roasted treat in some cultures...

Subject: RE: BS: The (in)glorious 12th
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 16 Aug 17 - 06:45 AM

Ratatouille?

:D tG

Subject: RE: BS: The (in)glorious 12th
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 16 Aug 17 - 07:17 AM

perhaps we should export our rats to the places where they are a rare treat.

just another glittering post Brexit opportunity!

Subject: RE: BS: The (in)glorious 12th
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 16 Aug 17 - 07:19 AM

when you think about it - we would be market leaders. we could charge more, because out rats are organic.

Subject: RE: BS: The (in)glorious 12th
From: Teribus
Date: 18 Aug 17 - 11:56 AM

Steve Shaw - 15 Aug 17 - 06:02 AM

From your above post Shaw you obviously know S.F.A. about how a grouse shoot is organised and conducted.

"let's see how a typical grouse might meet its end. First, it will be flushed out, terrified by a beater.

Or alternatively by Oiks such as Gnome or yourself, Shaw, obliviously clumping about exercising your "right to roam" irrespective of the damage you cause driving birds from their nests abandoning their eggs or chicks.

Then it will endure a hail of thunderous shooting, adding to the terror.

All depends upon which way they fly Shaw. If they are canny enough to stay on the ground they are perfectly safe.

Then, if it hasn't been actually shot just yet, the fear will be compounded by vicious dogs charging through the flock.

Ah Shaw where do these vicious dogs come from? On a grouse shoot the only dogs that are there are trained gun dogs who are trained to retrieve the birds and are all breeds known for having "soft mouths" so as not to damage the birds. What "flock" Shaw - grouse do not "flock"

I see you are still hammering your stereotypes Shaw:

I wonder how many of those hooray-Henry shooters and hunters go to the pub that evening railing against the evils of halal... not a lot, probably, come to think of it. They won't know very much at all about what those "Muslim chappies" get up to. I've mixed with a few of these sporting types in my time in the rural pubs round here and they aren't usually the sharpest knives in the drawer, let's say.

I take it that in referring to the "rural pubs round here" you are talking about Bude? Kernow? If so the those "Hooray-Henry's" of yours would be one fuck of a long way from any grouse shoot the nearest would have been Exmoor and that would have been 12 years ago as they went extinct down there in 2005.

Red Grouse a native species of these islands only exist because their habitat is looked after and managed left to the likes of Shaw, Gnome, pfr et al the birds would be extinct inside ten years.

Subject: RE: BS: The (in)glorious 12th
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 18 Aug 17 - 01:09 PM

Red Grouse a native species of these islands only exist because their habitat is looked after and managed left to the likes of Shaw, Gnome, pfr et al the birds would be extinct inside ten years.

There you go again, Tezzer. Flights of fancy (pun intended). Neither you nor I nor anyone else has any idea what would really happen if things change. There are too many variables to predict with any accuracy. The red grouse, a native species as you say, survived quite happily before the invention of grouse shooting. Did someone look after their habitat then? I think not.

Then again, you seem to believe that I was not born because my Dad died during the invasion of Poland. I suppose the imaginary extinction of a bird is small beer compared to that.

Oh, and going back to a posting I made earlier.

Fuck off.

:D tG

Subject: RE: BS: The (in)glorious 12th
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 18 Aug 17 - 01:10 PM

Oh, and I also "know S.F.A. about how a grouse shoot is organised and conducted". I am proud of that fact and would take it as a compliment.

D.

Subject: RE: BS: The (in)glorious 12th
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 18 Aug 17 - 01:54 PM

Hands up all those who thought that when I said "hunters and shooters" I meant just the grouse nuts. Clown.

As for a native species becoming extinct in ten years without our help in maintaining an entirely artificial habitat for them, well I wonder what all the other thousands of native species did to survive for all those thousands of years before we came along. What twaddle.

Subject: RE: BS: The (in)glorious 12th
From: punkfolkrocker
Date: 18 Aug 17 - 02:28 PM

"Red Grouse a native species of these islands only exist because their habitat is looked after and managed left to the likes of Shaw, Gnome, pfr et al the birds would be extinct inside ten years. "


Tessy - what do you mean...???

The wealthy landed gentry wield such almighty godlike power over life and extinction...???
We mere mortals may only cower and worship under their aristocratic holy benevolent radiance...

errrmmm.. bollocks...!!!

So the rich get to pick and choose which endangered species are truly worthy of continued existence in our country side...???

well I'll be badgered.... 🙄

Subject: RE: BS: The (in)glorious 12th
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 18 Aug 17 - 02:43 PM

The red grouse is not regarded as in any way an endangered species. As I said, twaddle from Teribus.

Subject: RE: BS: The (in)glorious 12th
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 18 Aug 17 - 08:23 PM

where you thinking about the rat shooters when you talked about the hunters and shooters.

I've got to admit - I'd never heard of these people with night vision goggles costing a couple of grand, and airguns the size of rocket launchers. i'm not sure how i feel about someone who would shoot rats for fun. a bit sad for them i suppose - although they seem happy enough.

i suppose theres no real danger of rats becoming extinct - worse luck! In my days as a an old peoples entertainer I remember talking to an old lady, whose husband had been a sewage worker an was killed by a rat bite.

i wonder if these shooters know how dangerous a bite from these animals can be.

Subject: RE: BS: The (in)glorious 12th
From: punkfolkrocker
Date: 18 Aug 17 - 08:39 PM

If the toffs would only shoot seagulls I'd might even doff my cap and volunteer to scare the feathery vermin shitbags up into the air for them...!!!

Subject: RE: BS: The (in)glorious 12th
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 18 Aug 17 - 08:50 PM

Couldn't they shoot these bastard mozzies that have been eating me all summer? Jethro Bodine could shoot flies off a wall at a hundred yards. I know the toffs are only a tenth as intelligent as Jethro, but I'm sure they could be trained...

Subject: RE: BS: The (in)glorious 12th
From: Teribus
Date: 18 Aug 17 - 09:12 PM

Steve Shaw - 18 Aug 17 - 01:54 PM

Hands up all those who thought that when I said "hunters and shooters" I meant just the grouse nuts. Clown./I>

Tell us then Shaw why is it that you and Gnome find it so difficult to state exactly what you mean. Why are you both so shy about giving us your opinions on things.

Your so called "hooray-Henry's" are a figment of your imagination. You told a story and were caught out on it. Tell me you pretentious prick, what hunting/shooting parties you have met and conversed with down in your "beloved Kernow".

Subject: RE: BS: The (in)glorious 12th
From: Teribus
Date: 18 Aug 17 - 09:19 PM

Steve Shaw - 18 Aug 17 - 02:43 PM

The red grouse is not regarded as in any way an endangered species. As I said, twaddle from Teribus.

Really?

"The British{GROUSE} population is estimated at about 250,000 pairs with around 1–5,000 pairs in Ireland. Numbers have declined in recent years and birds are now absent in areas where they were once common. Reasons for the decline include loss of heather due to overgrazing, creation of new conifer plantations and a decline in the number of upland gamekeepers."

Now then Shaw tell me what we have had in the UK that they have NOT HAD in Ireland.

Subject: RE: BS: The (in)glorious 12th
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 18 Aug 17 - 10:06 PM

i dunno. Jethro Tull....? He owns Scotland And the queen, she's got a bit.

meanwhile ...your never more than nine feet away from a rat...
you're never alone with a strand,,,,cos theres a rat lurking somewhere near.


http://i2.ytimg.com/vi/k4Fzglep9ng/mqdefault.jpg

Subject: RE: BS: The (in)glorious 12th
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 19 Aug 17 - 03:09 AM

For thousands of years before the gun was invented the grouse happily made our uplands its habitat. Then people decided it was fun to shoot it so they had to employ gamekeepers to make sure it did not become extinct. And your argument, tezzer, is that if we stopped 'managing' grouse moors it would become extinct. Is that right? Would it not be a lot easier to stop shooting it, stop employing gamekeepers and stop pissing about with its natural habitat?

As to why is it that you and Gnome find it so difficult to state exactly what you mean. I have no such issue. What do you want my opinion on?

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: The (in)glorious 12th
From: Iains
Date: 19 Aug 17 - 04:07 AM

" The population is declining, perhaps linked to diseases and the loss of heather moorland."From the RSPB.
Depending on how you define endangered, the grouse population already is, or if the situation remains unchanged, it will be. This decline has also occurred in Ireland .

https://www.npws.ie/sites/default/files/publications/pdf/2013_RedGrouse_SAP.pdf

Bracken spreading at up to 3% a year also encroaches on habitat. It does not help the situation that the most effective spray for bracken is banned in the EU and only allowed in 2017 by emergency authorisation. Also in Ireland the perceived overstocking on commonage led to compulsory destocking that in turn led to under grazing. For many commonages grazing and burning are the only management tools available. No animals like old woody heather and in certain areas gorse will encroach if grazing is inadaquate. Areas of older heather do supply cover and nesting.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/letters/11123483/The-spread-of-bracken-is-bad-news-for-everyone.html

Subject: RE: BS: The (in)glorious 12th
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 19 Aug 17 - 05:39 AM

A large bird with a population in the hundreds of thousands is not endangered. There has been a decline over the long term, but the population has been actually been increasing over the last decade. Shooting of grouse has declined dramatically in popularity over the last century. The consequence of that is that large areas formerly managed in order to maximise red grouse populations have been abandoned (so that old, woody heather unsuitable for grouse, or scrub and/or or bracken have taken over) or planted with conifers. Fewer gamekeepers means that there are more natural predators around (which is precisely how it should be - shhh, don't tell Sir Ian), which prevent populations from staying artificially high as they are on those carefully-managed grouse moors. So can we please have a bit less of the Daily Mail-style hyperdrama and a bit more of sticking to the facts. There are plenty of red grice in Britain and always will be as long as suitable natural habitat remains available.

By the way, upland mismanagement by way of bad grazing practice is entirely responsible for bracken spread. That's very unfortunate, as bracken is next to useless as far as biodiversity is concerned.

Subject: RE: BS: The (in)glorious 12th
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 19 Aug 17 - 05:57 AM

"Your so called "hooray-Henry's" are a figment of your imagination. You told a story and were caught out on it. Tell me you pretentious prick, what hunting/shooting parties you have met and conversed with..."

The pub I've done much of my drinking in in the last thirty years is the foremost hunting pub round here, the place where the hunts start off from. So I do indeed know plenty of those people, thank you very much. I also met many parents and pupils who were keen hunters and I often had to bite my lip. It would be very nice if you would refrain from coming out with insults based on your sour-grapes ignorance. I live in dyed-in-the-wool hunting country here, I live on a farm which is pro-hunting along with all the other farms round here and I've been here for thirty years, OK? I also know the area around Exford on Exmoor, where stags are hunted and the barroom walls are festooned with stags' heads à la Manuel. I once got embroiled in a rather threatening row with a bunch of hunters in the Exford Arms. It wasn't of my making, rather that of the bloke I was sinking a few bevvies with, who was stridently anti-hunting, getting a bit aerated. I did try to tell him that it was a great idea in that pub... it did show up the hooray-Henrys at their very worst, however.

I've never met and conversed with any "hunting/shooting parties" and I never said that I did.

Subject: RE: BS: The (in)glorious 12th
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 19 Aug 17 - 05:58 AM

That it WASN'T a great idea is what I meant.

Subject: RE: BS: The (in)glorious 12th
From: Teribus
Date: 19 Aug 17 - 06:03 AM

Your experiences and conversations with those figments of your imagination ("Hooray-Henry's) cannot be elaborated on Shaw?

Seen any flocks of red grouse down there in Kernow Shaw? You know the ones Shaw the ones that are farmed and are so over-fed that they can barely fly.

No signs of those packs of vicious dogs?

Still no explanation for why 250,000 pairs in certain parts of the UK but only 1,000 to 5,000 pairs in the whole of Ireland. I would suggest that it has something to do with the fact that in the parts of the UK where you do find red grouse their habitat is looked after while in other parts of the country where it has not been looked after and in Ireland where it has not been looked after the populations have gone, or are in rapid decline.

Subject: RE: BS: The (in)glorious 12th
From: Iains
Date: 19 Aug 17 - 06:38 AM

" bad grazing practice is entirely responsible for bracken spread."
A bit of a simplification. Upland grazing density is largely controlled by EU diktat. This led to compulsory de-stocking in the past and some argue grazing quality diminished as a result. In Ireland a minimum stocking density on commonage is required to comply with commonage framework plans.
If you cannot spray bracken, or access an area with machinery, stock trampling is the only tool left. On a free range upland no animal is going to look for grazing under a sterile stand of bracken. Therefore the bracken runs rampant apart from odd tracks made by sheep wandering from one gourmet grazing to another.
Uplands are completely artificial landscapes in the UK. The highland clearances and enclosure acts ran off all the smallholders and cottagers or their equivalent and sheep took over. They have largely monopolized the uplands ever since and the vegetational types present are directly controlled by the grazing regime. Without grazing the moors would be transformed within 2 generations.

randd.defra.gov.uk/Document.aspx?Document=BD1226_3897_FRA.pdf

Subject: RE: BS: The (in)glorious 12th
From: Teribus
Date: 19 Aug 17 - 06:45 AM

Hunting Bude companies: Check prices and get the best deals through the best companies in Hunting activities Bude as terriers, lurchers, falconry, ferrets, hounds & beagles, shooting, trapping and much more!

WOT No Grouse!!!! Where on earth did Shaw gain all his expert knowledge from?

What you are looking at there Shaw is rabbit, hare, foxes, pheasant and partridge.

Exford, Exmoor you have to leave the county you live in, drive clean through another and enter a third accompanied by some "wind-up" merchant to have an aeriated and heated discussion with "hunting types"? Yet you claim to "live" in the heart of hunting country. When it comes to subjects like this Shaw, pity you don't "bite your lip" a bit more. But rest assured Shaw, what would I know about hunting? Apart of course from being someone who hunts pheasant, duck, Roe Deer, Sika Deer, Red Deer, Elg, Wild Boar in the UK, Canada and Europe - I mean none of that actual hands on experience would match your ideologically driven myths and fairy-tales would it?

Subject: RE: BS: The (in)glorious 12th
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 19 Aug 17 - 07:04 AM

Uplands above 3000 feet are generally natural habitats in the UK. Below that most upland would have been wooded. To that extent it is a deflected climax vegetation type but it isn't correct to say that it's completely artificial. Steep rocky slopes, cliffs, rock ledges and ravines, as well as rivers, streams, mires and tarns are generally less impacted by human interference and there are pockets of natural vegetation in places. Abandoning upland is unlikely to result in reversion to the original climax. Invasion by bracken and soil leaching and erosion as a consequence of deforestation would see to that.

"Your experiences and conversations with those figments of your imagination ("Hooray-Henry's) cannot be elaborated on Shaw?"

I've elaborated and you can take it or leave it, clown.

"Seen any flocks of red grouse down there in Kernow Shaw? You know the ones Shaw the ones that are farmed and are so over-fed that they can barely fly.

No signs of those packs of vicious dogs?"

I have no idea what any of this has got to do with what we're supposedly talking about. I certainly haven't said anything about Cornish grice.

"Still no explanation for why 250,000 pairs in certain parts of the UK but only 1,000 to 5,000 pairs in the whole of Ireland."

You haven't asked me. Look it up for yourself, stop guessing and stick to the facts. They are available.

Subject: RE: BS: The (in)glorious 12th
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 19 Aug 17 - 07:08 AM

Yeah, sure, I believe every word of that. You're far too ancient for a start. . 😂😂😂

Thing is, I'm a biologist. Still, I'm sure you'll find all the facts you want in the Daily Mail or somewhere.

Subject: RE: BS: The (in)glorious 12th
From: akenaton
Date: 19 Aug 17 - 08:39 AM

Red Grouse are indeed very scarce in this part of Scotland and Teribus is correct in pointing out that draining and afforestation have killed off almost all the heather that used to cover the hills here.
As the grouse need heather to survive they are now an endangered species.

Subject: RE: BS: The (in)glorious 12th
From: Raggytash
Date: 19 Aug 17 - 08:56 AM

An endangered species with 230,000 of them?

RSPB Red Grouse

Subject: RE: BS: The (in)glorious 12th
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 19 Aug 17 - 09:17 AM

There's plenty of heather and they're not endangered. Dunno how many times you need telling. Of course, you can always look it up instead of making it up.

Subject: RE: BS: The (in)glorious 12th
From: akenaton
Date: 19 Aug 17 - 10:21 AM

Steve...in the West of Scotland huge areas of land(mainly hillsides for drainage) are given over to afforestation with quick growing Sitka Spruce, whenever these forests are reasonably mature 20/30 years, they are immediately replanted.....nothing grows there but trees. In my youth all these hills were covered with beautiful purple heather and grazed by flocks of sheep, there was grouse a plenty and ptarmigan on the high tops. My Grandfather used to carry his beehives up onto the hillside among the heather so that the bees could work it.
I haven't seen a wild red grouse for many years and heather only grows in tiny clumps by the roadside.
My work takes me in around a fifty mile radius and almost all the high ground is Spruce forest.

Subject: RE: BS: The (in)glorious 12th
From: punkfolkrocker
Date: 19 Aug 17 - 11:08 AM

Wot a strange world - hunters complaining that grouse are endangered...!!!???

I seem to recall hunting is considered a primary factor in species extinctions since the ice age...???

Subject: RE: BS: The (in)glorious 12th
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 19 Aug 17 - 11:30 AM

That's your relatively small area. It doesn't mean that red grouse is an endangered species in general. Like all species, it's vulnerable to habitat change. In this case that means the abandonment or afforestation of areas previously used to encourage artificially high populations. As I said, grouse shooting has dramatically fallen in popularity. Overall numbers would have to plunge dramatically below 250,000 pairs, that is half a million birds, before it could be remotely described as endangered. Plenty of information available on all this. No need to take my word for any of it.

Subject: RE: BS: The (in)glorious 12th
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 19 Aug 17 - 11:44 AM

Before human intervention and deforestation the trees growing below the tree line were of the broad-leaved deciduous type. A lot of these were lost to farming and 'management'. Subsequently the forestry commission have planted needle leaved evergreens which, although being able to grow at a slightly higher altitude that the prior deciduous forests, have nowhere near replaced the lost forests of Great Britain. Saying that open moorland has been lost to forestation is misleading as in general there is now more open land than forest. Re-foresting is merely trying to get redress the loss of forest and is fighting a losing battle.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: The (in)glorious 12th
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 19 Aug 17 - 12:01 PM

' But rest assured Shaw, what would I know about hunting? Apart of course from being someone who hunts pheasant, duck, Roe Deer, Sika Deer, Red Deer, Elg, Wild Boar in the UK, Canada and Europe'

you see Steve.....he keeps schtum when you mention rats....bit of a dilettante, i reckon. probably has a pith helmet and a couple of native bearers...Ernest Hemingway would have drunk him under the table.

Subject: RE: BS: The (in)glorious 12th
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 19 Aug 17 - 12:16 PM

Steve,
There's plenty of heather and they're not endangered. Dunno how many times you need telling. Of course, you can always look it up instead of making it up.

RSPB say different.

"Red grouse depend on heather for food and cover. A major cause of their decline has been the destruction, fragmentation and deterioration of heather moorland. This has reduced the plant food for adults, while drainage has reduced the boggy plants and insects on which grouse chicks depend. In Scotland, 4,165 km2 (23%) of heather was lost between the 1940s and 1980s, while an even greater proportion (27%) was lost in England.8 The loss was substantially greater in some areas, such as 48% of heather from Langholm Moor between 1948 and 1988.11 A further 510 km2 (3.6%) of heather was lost from the UK between 1990 md 1998.9 There is broad agreement that grazing by sheep and deer is responsible for much of this loss. Sheep numbers more than doubled to 40 million animals between 1950 and 1990 and there are 500,000–750,000 deer in Scotland alone, the most at any time since the last Ice Age.
https://www.rspb.org.uk/Images/birdofprey_redgrouse_tcm9-188710.pdf

Subject: RE: BS: The (in)glorious 12th
From: Teribus
Date: 19 Aug 17 - 01:36 PM

Good heavens Keith don't confuse our "biologist" with facts - they contradict and disprove his myths and fairy-tale version of the world.

Too ancient for what Shaw? Too ancient to know what Shaw? You certainly know S.F.A. about the subject under discussion.

Surprised at this though:

"I have no idea what any of this has got to do with what we're supposedly talking about. I certainly haven't said anything about Cornish grice."

Your local - in Bude, Cornwall, sorry Kernow, where you have lived, "biting your lip" for thirty years in the heart of hunting country you say?

You were certainly talking about hunters and shooters and grouse when you posted this:

Steve Shaw - 15 Aug 17 - 06:02 AM

"let's see how a typical grouse might meet its end. First, it will be flushed out, terrified by a beater.

Then it will endure a hail of thunderous shooting, adding to the terror.

Then, if it hasn't been actually shot just yet, the fear will be compounded by vicious dogs charging through the flock.

I wonder how many of those hooray-Henry shooters and hunters go to the pub that evening railing against the evils of halal... not a lot, probably, come to think of it. They won't know very much at all about what those "Muslim chappies" get up to. I've mixed with a few of these sporting types in my time in the rural pubs round here {Bude} and they aren't usually the sharpest knives in the drawer, let's say.

Care to mention where it was that you picked up all this information on "how a typical grouse might meet its end" - Let's say that when it comes to hunting you and your pals aren't the sharpest knives in the drawer - Clown.

Subject: RE: BS: The (in)glorious 12th
From: punkfolkrocker
Date: 19 Aug 17 - 01:47 PM

My favourite uncle knew all about hunting, he had dogs, ferrets, shotguns, and a transit van...

Many's the time he'd come home from an opportunistic drive around the country lanes of south west England
with meat to supplement our family's low income as small market town factory workers...

He was a genuine old world roguish country man so beloved by middle class folklorists...

Subject: RE: BS: The (in)glorious 12th
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 19 Aug 17 - 02:26 PM

Go and boil your head, Teribus. You too, Keith.

Subject: RE: BS: The (in)glorious 12th
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 19 Aug 17 - 02:31 PM

As ever you resort to abuse when your ignorance is exposed.
Just abuse. No substance.

Subject: RE: BS: The (in)glorious 12th
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 19 Aug 17 - 02:34 PM

Whatever. Just bugger off and do us all a favour.

Subject: RE: BS: The (in)glorious 12th
From: punkfolkrocker
Date: 19 Aug 17 - 02:45 PM

All this talk about heather reminds me..
I used to go out with a girl called Heather, I was 17 she was 15 or 16...
Very fit young lady..
We never actually did 'it' but I'll have to check my old notebook to remember just how far we went...
oh, I digress....

Right now back on to the topic of killing for pleasure and trophies...

Subject: RE: BS: The (in)glorious 12th
From: Greg F.
Date: 19 Aug 17 - 04:25 PM

probably has a pith helmet and a couple of native bearers...

Absolutely- what else would be appropriate for Colonel Blimp?

Subject: RE: BS: The (in)glorious 12th
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 19 Aug 17 - 06:06 PM

"Care to mention where it was that you picked up all this information on "how a typical grouse might meet its end" - Let's say that when it comes to hunting you and your pals aren't the sharpest knives in the drawer".

and i suppose you took a census, asked the typical grouse in the street how he felt about being harried and shot down.

Subject: RE: BS: The (in)glorious 12th
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 20 Aug 17 - 03:43 AM

Funny how a perfectly reasonable thread becomes toxic when certain people arrive isn't it. Now it has been shit on it has become an unpleasant place so it is probably time it was closed. I dare say this means I 'lose'.

C'est la vie.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: The (in)glorious 12th
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 20 Aug 17 - 03:47 AM

Hi Maggie

Probably about time This thread was closed as the rot has now started.

If it is any help, I started the thread and I am quite happy for you to do the honours.

Cheers

Dave

Subject: RE: BS: The (in)glorious 12th
From: akenaton
Date: 20 Aug 17 - 04:02 AM

"The (in)Glorious 12th."    Starting a thread with a title like that is inviting contradictory views, don't complain when you get them.

The MO is typical of you.

Subject: RE: BS: The (in)glorious 12th
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 20 Aug 17 - 04:12 AM

I don't mind contradictory views at all as shown by it lasting nearly 150 posts before going sour. It is just when certain members get involved it is a known fact that the thread will degenerate into a exercise in point scoring and tedium.

It has just got even worse and I don't think I have anything further yo add.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: The (in)glorious 12th
From: Teribus
Date: 20 Aug 17 - 04:21 AM

Oh good heavens, the "Usual Suspects" have had their ignorance, misrepresentations and myths exposed on another thread so comprehensively that they now are reduced to personal insult, so the Gnome who opened the thread is now pleading for it to be closed to save them from further embarrassment.

- "Farmed" Grouse
- Over-fed until they can barely fly
- "Harried" and "terrorised" by beaters (who basically just walk in a line across a section of moorland - just as walkers and ramblers do)
- packs of vicious dogs rampaging about amidst
- "flocks" of grouse
- "Hooray-Henry" shooters (That it would appear no-one has spoken to)
- Shooting for pleasure (All birds are gathered, sold and eaten - economically it is a business worth between £106m and £115 each year to the UK, in Scotland alone £30m is paid in wages)

The thread was opened as a vehicle whereby the "Usual Suspects" could take a pop at one of their mythical ideological stereotypes - Tell you what Gnome, it failed spectacularly.

Subject: RE: BS: The (in)glorious 12th
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 20 Aug 17 - 04:23 AM

So it was OK for Rag to partially quote RSPB on the issue, but not for me to quote them properly.
That "soured" the discussion.

It appears you only want one side put, and would rather close a thread than allow your preconceptions to be challenged.

Subject: RE: BS: The (in)glorious 12th
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 20 Aug 17 - 04:56 AM

I refer you to my posing of 14 Aug 17 - 01:20 PM and comment that this has gone far from sensible discussion.

It is a known fact that once some people decide they just want to argue the thread will go rapidly downhill. I am not going to add to it. No skin off my nose if it is closed or not but I think, as I was the initiator of the thread, I do have some say over the direction it should go. The moderation team may disagree and I will respect their decision but once a place has been shit on, it becomes unpleasant to visit.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: The (in)glorious 12th
From: Iains
Date: 20 Aug 17 - 05:23 AM

New tactic from the gang. Instead of babbling about weeds and cheap wine from tesco when they are bored, now the argument is to close the thread because they do not like the direction it is going.
If you make a provocative post, it ain't no surprise you get provocative answers. I detect only one insulting person retaliating against his ridiculous posturing being exposed for the sham it is.

What a joke!

Subject: RE: BS: The (in)glorious 12th
From: Raggytash
Date: 20 Aug 17 - 05:28 AM

"So it was OK for Rag to partially quote RSPB on the issue, but not for me to quote them properly.That "soured" the discussion."

Rubbish Professor, if you look at my post I asked a question, you can tell this because it had a question mark after it.

I then linked to an RSPB website that people could read and decide for themselves.

Subject: RE: BS: The (in)glorious 12th
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 20 Aug 17 - 05:52 AM

i'm sorry for any toxicity i introduced.

but as rat hunters are the only ones to have three magazines on the stands at most supermarkets, i think its an interesting modern phenomena. hundreds of folksongs have been written about hunting. just not hunting for rats.

your middle class predjudices are showing!

Subject: RE: BS: The (in)glorious 12th
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 20 Aug 17 - 05:59 AM

If you make a provocative post, it ain't no surprise you get provocative answers.

Agreed. Now, point out where the premise of the thread was provocative. To save you looking it up, here is the opening question -

Carry on shooting by all means but can we not make sure it is managed in a way that is better for all concerned? Including the grouse!

The thread was based on trying to find a better way of doing things. Instead it has turned into yet another muscle-flexing, point scoring, petty exercise in how to turn a friendly question into an mindless argument. Carry on by all means but I want no part of it.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: The (in)glorious 12th
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 20 Aug 17 - 06:01 AM

The insults started, Iains, when Teribus started to put his oar in. Your detective skills need honing, old chap. And the best cheap wine comes from Asda, Morrisons and Sainsbury's, not Tesco. Tsk. I note that Dave has engineered Morrisons Nero D'Avola back down to five quid. I'll raise a glass to that. The recipe for today is Delia's one of pork chops baked with cream and mushrooms, with new potatoes and runner beans straight from me veg plot. Mmm.

Gorgeous boy sparrowhawk sat on the fence post right next to my bird feeders ten minutes ago. Needless to say, the little birdies stayed in hiding. Good job none of them thar gamekeepers were around. I once saw two peregrines working as a team to bring down a wood pigeon at Northcott Mouth, quite a spectacle, and once, right by Stratton Church, I saw a kestrel bring down a collared dove in full flight. A few years ago the hooray huntin' Henrys in all their silly regalia, horns a-hootin', were on the far side of the field between us and Widemouth Bay..Meanwhile, a lovely big girl fox was foraging around just under our garden in the same field, occasionally glancing nonchalantly up at the fools with the hounds a couple of hundred yards away. I concluded that the cunning little vixen had more brains than all those dogs and men in red put together. Very heartening!

Subject: RE: BS: The (in)glorious 12th
From: Iains
Date: 20 Aug 17 - 08:24 AM

Your feeble attempts to patronize me fail miserably. You cannot realistically expect anyone to take anything you say seriously when you tried to lend your arguments an additional seal of authenticity by claiming to be a biologist. You are confusing science with ideology.
Even when your science has a faint air of credibility you present it in such a way that no counter view is tolerated. Only the pope claims infallibility and science claimed the earth was flat for centuries.
If you infuse a tad of humility in your postings the responses would be more tempered. The accepted science of today may well be turned on it's head tomorrow. Plate tectonics is accepted today as a given. Wegener's preceding theory of continental drift made him a laughing stock for decades until advances in petrophysics proved him right and laid the groundwork for subsequent plate tectonics. In the 70's global cooling was the accepted mantra-today it is global warming aka climate change.It is a clever boy that can model today's climate and put it in context with all the underlying cylic changes and construct a convincing outcome. Fuzzy logic and fuzzy data sets inevitably give fuzzy outcomes.

Subject: RE: BS: The (in)glorious 12th
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 20 Aug 17 - 08:29 AM

I kept thinking of grouse wearing Orange Sashes when I saw the title of this thread
Teribus's Billy-Boy Bullying assured me I was not far off the mark
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: The (in)glorious 12th
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 20 Aug 17 - 09:18 AM

He's always grousing about something just for the sake of it, Jim.

And what are you burbling on about now, Iains? By the way, I'm not "claiming" to be a biologist.

Yours truly, Steve BSc ARCS (Imperial College, University of London)

Subject: RE: BS: The (in)glorious 12th
From: Iains
Date: 20 Aug 17 - 09:29 AM

I am sorry you feel the need to quote post nominals at us all. I prefer to judge by the merits of the argument, be it a professor or dustman.

Subject: RE: BS: The (in)glorious 12th
From: punkfolkrocker
Date: 20 Aug 17 - 09:55 AM

"- Shooting for pleasure (All birds are gathered, sold and eaten - economically it is a business worth between £106m and £115 each year to the UK, in Scotland alone £30m is paid in wages)"

yeah - gathered sold and eaten after the rich pricks enjoyed the pleasure of killing them...???


PFR..

grade B Biology O Level,
Marksman rifleman grade excellent at Barry Island fair ground shooting gallery
[won a toy fluffy elephant for the mrs]

Experience:
Country Skills
Age 7 or 8 - apprentice poacher and piglet rustler

Subject: RE: BS: The (in)glorious 12th
From: Teribus
Date: 20 Aug 17 - 11:16 AM

"gathered sold and eaten after the rich pricks enjoyed the pleasure of killing them...???

So I take it from that pfr, being the consummate, professional, complete and utter gold standard Oik that you undoubtedly are that you would prefer that the grouse be "gathered sold and eaten" LIVE

By the way "biologist" Steve - the moorland habitat of the grouse was, and in some places still is, 100% natural - the UK contains 75% of the natural heather moorland left on the planet.

Floods? In the area where I was born and grew up the factor that has been most detrimental with regards to flooding has been forestation. As a boy during the summer holidays if there was a large rainfall the local rivers used to stay in "spate" for about three or four days after the rain stopped (Great for fishing). Then in the 1970s and 1980s someone came up with a great wheeze for Radio DJ's, pop stars and footballers that would be a great investment opportunity and tax break - forestry - plant conifers on what others considered as "useless" moorland. First part of that process was to improve drainage up on the moors as they were too wet to grow trees - land that used to absorb water and hold it back now spewed water into streams and rivers in a 24 hour cascade - ruined the rivers and the fishing - flooding has got very little to do with the "management" of a grouse moor.

Another little fact for the Gnome - 90% of all grouse shooting in England and Wales is carried out in AONB and National Parkland.

Anyone looking back through this thread will note that when I dipped my oar in, as Shaw puts it, it was to point out that Grouse is not "farmed". Teacher Shaw's objections are based on someone correcting either himself or one of his mates - teacher must always be right eh Shaw? Only thing is Shaw what you and your pals have come out with on this thread has needed quite a bit of correcting hasn't it.

Must go outside now and drive those "flocks of farmed grouse" off my lawn before those packs of "vicious dogs" get to them - Right Shaw?

Subject: RE: BS: The (in)glorious 12th
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 20 Aug 17 - 11:20 AM

Well, Iains, you claimed that I "claimed" to be that wot I actually am. Stop being such a big girl's blouse.

When I was about eight I accidentally shot down a sparrow with my poggie. I wasn't even aiming for it. I've never wielded an offensive weapon since that day.

Subject: RE: BS: The (in)glorious 12th
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 20 Aug 17 - 11:24 AM

Little if any heather moorland in the UK is natural vegetation. I suggest, Teribus, that you grab yourself a biology textbook and find out what "natural climax vegetation" really is. Perhaps you could also find a book on how to be civil while you're at it.

Subject: RE: BS: The (in)glorious 12th
From: Teribus
Date: 20 Aug 17 - 11:43 AM

"A few years ago the hooray huntin' Henrys in all their silly regalia, horns a-hootin', were on the far side of the field between us and Widemouth Bay..Meanwhile, a lovely big girl fox was foraging around just under our garden in the same field, occasionally glancing nonchalantly up at the fools with the hounds a couple of hundred yards away. I concluded that the cunning little vixen had more brains than all those dogs and men in red put together. Very heartening!"

A tale from the keyboard of "Biologist" Shaw from the heart of Kernow's hunting heartland just outside Bude.

Ehmmm Shaw, hate to point his out to you but the situation you describe has got nothing whatsoever to do with the brains, or lack of them, of any of the participants - more to do with wind and weather conditions at the time and the topography of the field in question. My guess would be that the vixen was down-wind of the hunters and the topography of the field was such that the fox could not be seen. The vixen wasn't "occasionally glancing nonchalantly up at the fools with the hounds a couple of hundred yards away." she was scenting them as they were up wind of her - no movement on their part, so no need for her to interrupt what she was doing.

Give you an idea:

1: Roe Deer - sitting on post while hunting Elg in the eastern part of Norway a mature Doe crossed and stood 3 metres away from where myself and the land-owner were sitting - because of the wind direction she had absolutely no idea that we were even there.

2: Elg - Posted by what was obviously a well used track I had a young elg cow and two calves pass me so close I could have reached out and touched them - because of the wind conditions they had no idea that I was there.

3: Dog Fox (rural) - came and sat 10 feet away from me. I could tell he was uneasy about something but he couldn't figure it out to identify what was causing him his unease. He shifted to about 20 feet away this whole process lasting about 20 to 30 minutes, when having rested he wandered off into the forest - In all that time he hadn't a clue that I was there. When asked by a couple of farmers in the hunting team why I hadn't shot him, my reply was "Why? I can't eat him and he was only out there engaged in exactly the same activity as myself."

Subject: RE: BS: The (in)glorious 12th
From: punkfolkrocker
Date: 20 Aug 17 - 11:48 AM

So I take it from that pfr, being the consummate, professional, complete and utter gold standard Oik that you undoubtedly are that you would prefer that the grouse be "gathered sold and eaten" LIVE"


Tezz - if you weren't such a patronising arrogant obnoxious egotistical old chap I wouldn't find you any where near as entertaining...

But for all your apparent intellect and wisdom,
your lack of imagination and empathy, and obsessive hostility, is your weakness and downfall.
You are hilarious in your predictable inability to understand a broader perspective...

So grouse can only be sold to market, and end up on posh dinner plates if it's been shot out the air by affluent plank heads...???
Like there's never been or ever could be any other alternative...??
It's the natural god given order.... 🙄

..and I still don't know if I'd like the taste of grouse,
even if it could be factory farmed and affordable at Tesco...

Subject: RE: BS: The (in)glorious 12th
From: Teribus
Date: 20 Aug 17 - 12:03 PM

"Little if any heather moorland in the UK is natural vegetation."

Really Shaw? Who introduced and planted it and when Shaw?

Your perception of "natural climax vegetation" presumes that you start with rock and finish with mature forest which of course is complete and utter bollocks as not all ground is suitable for that to be uniform.

Heather requires acid soil it grows in places that may allow part of the "natural climax vegetation" process to occur but seeds from shrubs and trees cannot survive.

We are talking about the same plant here aren't we "Bio" Steve?

Calluna vulgaris (known as common heather, ling, or simply heather) is the sole species in the genus Calluna in the flowering plant family Ericaceae. It is a low-growing perennial shrub growing to 20 to 50 centimetres (7.9 to 19.7 in) tall, or rarely to 1 metre (39 in) and taller, and is found widely in Europe and Asia Minor on acidic soils in open sunny situations and in moderate shade. It is the dominant plant in most heathland and moorland in Europe, and in some bog vegetation and acidic pine and oak woodland. It is tolerant of grazing and regenerates following occasional burning, and is often managed in nature reserves and grouse moors by sheep or cattle grazing, and also by light burning.

Not natural my foot - another correction for you Shaw to pack away with your flocks of farmed grouse and packs of vicious dogs. I cannot believe that you ever actually qualified to teach anything. Perhaps that is why you moved about so much, so far and so often.

Subject: RE: BS: The (in)glorious 12th
From: Teribus
Date: 20 Aug 17 - 12:15 PM

But pfr you have told us all in the past that you revel in your "Oikishness", you are proud of it and wave it like a flag.

I merely tell you what happens to the birds once they have been shot.

Very few if any "poach" grouse - it is just simply too much like hard work for the reward. Pheasant on the other hand is dead easy - as previously stated, they are the daftest birds in creation.

Not fussed whether you would like them served on a diner plate or not.

Love to know what this broader perspective is with regard to grouse shooting pfr - neither you, nor any of your leftie-class-warrior usual suspect pals have got the foggiest notion about the subject judging by the stream of corrections that have been supplied by myself and others to some of the utter nonsense that you and your pals have posted on this thread so far - none of you have been able to argue these weaknesses you speak of - so far the only downfall noted has been that of this thread's creator.

Subject: RE: BS: The (in)glorious 12th
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 20 Aug 17 - 12:56 PM

I haven't moved for 31 years. Your italicised description has nothing to do with natural ecological processes that lead to climax communities. You are arguing from ignorance. I did suggest that you look it up but I see you merely sought out a source that you think confirms your preconceptions. The vixen was at our end of the field, the eastern end, whereas the hunt was to the west edge, the seaward end. The incident occurred on a dull, dry afternoon with a light westerly airflow. I've kept a weather diary, with little interruption, daily since I was fourteen years old and can pinpoint individual days and events quite easily. I have said nothing in any of my posts about farmed grouse. As pfr says, unless you're being a rude, aggressive and pig-ignorant man you'd be very boring with all your nonsense. And I take it that your constant attacks on my teaching career, which you can't actually know a dickie-bird about, are the upshot of your own personal unfortunate encounters in your own schooling, or lack of it. Perhaps you like me to think that you have a degree in Common Sense obtained from the University of Life. I know quite a few people like that.

Subject: RE: BS: The (in)glorious 12th
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 20 Aug 17 - 01:00 PM

The word "me" in tbe penultimate sentence is superfluous.

Subject: RE: BS: The (in)glorious 12th
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 20 Aug 17 - 01:01 PM

Come over here lads and lasses. I hope it will be much pleasanter.

This thread is doomed and was since people took it as an excuse to flex their virtual muscles. My fault. Mea Culpa. Probably should have made clear from the start that I was not going to get on that downward spiral again.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: The (in)glorious 12th
From: punkfolkrocker
Date: 20 Aug 17 - 02:36 PM

Interesting....

Recalling a recent debate [now closed]...

We considered that one reason why humane quick death for animals should be paramount
is because reduced stress levels at point of death results in better quality meat.

An account for the 'aquired taste' flavour of game meat for 'refined' palates suggests...

"... I've been told (by a biochemist who also hunted) that the gamey flavor is mostly lactic acid, a metabolite produced in muscles that are working hard. An animal that was killed after a long chase will have much more lactic acid in its muscles than one that was loafing around the stockyard. If you're talking about a slight sour taste, lactic acid is a good candidate. (With a pinch of other metabolites like pyruvic acid, malic acid, etc.)"

Beating grouse out of cover and frightening them into flight
to be painfully shocked and peppered with pellets,
before plummeting to earth whilst probably still conscious may not necessarily be best meat 'industry' practice...???

Subject: RE: BS: The (in)glorious 12th
From: Teribus
Date: 21 Aug 17 - 02:40 AM

Well you see pfr, the species homo sapiens sapiens is not a primary predator we never have been. Way back in the old days we would let primary predators bring down large game then we would as a group drive them away from their kill. Over the course of time we learned to trap game and we also improved the tools (Weapons) we used to kill.


We are, fortunately, omnivores and as such we get no value out of freshly killed meat. For us to get the best value out of it and for us to properly digest it, it has to have been around a bit before we have a go at it.

For example:

1: Beef we normally hang for a minimum of 15 days

2: Large game such as Red Deer that has to hang for what they describe as 40 degree days (i.e. hang in an unrefrigerated place for the number of days it takes for daily recorded temperatures to accumulate to 40 degrees)

Any stockman at an abattoir where the vast majority of the meat we eat is slaughtered will tell you that the animals definitely know what fate is about to befall them, they come through the gates panicked and terrified with the smell of blood in their nostrils. Compare that to a grouse, who gets "scared" into flight may times a day every day of its natural adult life, who then quite unexpectantly gets shot - it has no idea what is happening, or what is going to happen, it has lived all it's life in total and perfect freedom up until it meets it's death - unlike our "domestic" animals whose diets we mess around with and some forced to live in some really bizarre conditions.

Subject: RE: BS: The (in)glorious 12th
From: punkfolkrocker
Date: 21 Aug 17 - 07:58 AM

Teribus -
That generally covers the kind of points some of us were tying to raise before the other thread was derailed and closed,.
That we meat eaters need to understand and accept the complexities and contradictions, and pragmatics raised by such emotive issues.
You might be surprised I am mostly in accord with your post.

I value contributions from others more experienced and knowledgeable, that inform and advance a discussion.
What better way is there to debate, understand, and potentially reach agreement.

We all need to be aware of any deficiencies and hypocrisies in our thinking,
To be rigorously challenging our lazy misconceptions and preconceptions.

I've said to you before in recent years, If only all your posts were of this helpful quality and level of civil discourse.
It's surely mutually beneficial for us all to take each other more seriously, with respect
than habitually resorting to antagonism and abuse...

[though perhaps less gleefully transgressive fun...???
well.. we're only human.. I'm certainly no utopian...]

Nothing wrong with a bit of rough and tumble matey banter, but there must be sensible self restrained limits.

Thank you.

Subject: RE: BS: The (in)glorious 12th
From: Teribus
Date: 21 Aug 17 - 09:20 AM

That was a bit rich coming as it does from the self-confessed "oik" who has intimated previously on this forum that the only reason and objective in him contributing here is to "Take the Piss".

To inform and/or, be informed, is the very last thing on your mind pfr.

Your references to "toffs" and "landed gentry" demonstrate the leftie-"working-class"- wannabe you are, and like your other "usual suspect" pals when you rather clichéd ideological stereotypes, myths and misrepresentations are shown up for what they are you get the hump. Like all bullies, you and your pals are damn good at dishing it out but not so good when it comes to the point when you yourselves are on the receiving end of this "rough and tumble" and "banter".

Subject: RE: BS: The (in)glorious 12th
From: Stu
Date: 21 Aug 17 - 09:58 AM

"Well you see pfr, the species homo sapiens sapiens is not a primary predator we never have been."

Well, there are two schools of thought on this and the answer isn't cut and dried. There is little doubt that we are now an apex predator, living at the top of a food pyramid because of our use of technology. Based on studies of human trophic levels in natural systems and where humans fit in the evidence suggest we might well be apex predators. However, some think we're lower level omnivores that don't occupy the apex position; personally I think it's likely they're both right.

In the past, we would have been apex predators in some environments but not others, as is the case now. Go walking in Yellowstone with nothing but a bag of butties and a pointy stick you're not at the top of the food chain. Go walking on the South Downs and you are.


"Way back in the old days we would let primary predators bring down large game then we would as a group drive them away from their kill"

This statement is meaningless and misleading. When and where are you actually talking about? Humans are very effective predators and we certainly actively hunted prey from very early on after the appearance of our species; in fact the vast majority of the last 200,000 years anatomically modern humans have been on the planet we have been hunters.

There is school of thought that suggests we are persistent hunters. Check out this fantastic and profoundly beautiful sequence from The Life of Mammals: Human Mammal, Human Hunter - Attenborough

Subject: RE: BS: The (in)glorious 12th
From: punkfolkrocker
Date: 21 Aug 17 - 10:07 AM

well I tried...

..and less of the 'oik'.. over educated respectable working class if you don't mind... 😜

The pfr persona, out of sheer perserverance and exasperation, takes the piss out of old miseries.
It's fun play-acting up to their prejudices and giving them enough rope...
Real me might sometimes prefer a more positive but less entertaining approach...

However, not all are as thick skinned as us;
mudcat community would be a far happier and functional place without all the constant gratuitous aggro.......


Btw Tezz, I don't seek or need pals, I'm too asocial.
I'm not one for ever joining gangs or organised campaigns..
Why must you insist on lumping your perceived foes together under one simplistic cliched grouping...???

Paradoxically, I might have found a suitable disciplined place in the military if conscription hadn't ended.
The inner sardonic c@@t in me would have thrived.
I'd might even have made an effective training corporal or sergeant...
I'd definitely have enjoyed firing weapons.

See people are far more complex... we might have much more in common that you credit..

Subject: RE: BS: The (in)glorious 12th
From: Teribus
Date: 21 Aug 17 - 11:51 AM

1: "There is little doubt that we are now an apex predator, living at the top of a food pyramid because of our use of technology."

With the greatest respect, no we are not Stu. We gave up on being "hunter/gatherers" thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of years ago. We feed ourselves and have done since that time by farming and fishing that is where the thrust of our brain power and use of technology has taken us. We do, and did not, develop weapons purely in order to hunt for food we developed them for fighting one another.

Enjoyed the short piece in the link you supplied - the San, or Bushmen of the Kalahari are only existing now by having turned to farming between 1950 and 1990. Their world population is now estimated to be ~90,000 spread across Botswana, Namibia, Angola, Zambia, Zimbabwe, Lesotho and South Africa.

2: "Go walking in Yellowstone with nothing but a bag of butties and a pointy stick you're not at the top of the food chain. Go walking on the South Downs and you are."

Not if you meet up with one of Paul McCartney or the late Linda Eastman's pigs your not - an aggressive wild boar or sow with young would make short work of you, regardless of your pointy stick, which would only annoy the animal - your best defence would be to feed it your butties and hope you can run fast enough and far enough while they are being eaten.

Tip given to all who hunt in Africa - Never be on your own, and always assume that while you are tracking and hunting your prey, something will be tracking and hunting you. If you are in territory inhabited with Cape, or Water Buffalo irrespective of what you, as the "hunter", are hunting there must always be someone with you carrying a gun that can put one of these beasts down (0.458" or 9.3mm preferably double barrelled - these guns would kill an Elephant). The Hippo is the animal that has killed most people in sub Saharan Africa, followed closely by the Cape/Water Buffalo, who for appearing to be just large cows that eat grass they are stone killers and extremely aggressive if the mood takes them.

So no Stu, the species homo sapiens sapiens is not, and never has been, a primary predator - our use of technology has made us extremely effective "killers" but that has got sod all to do with hunting.

Subject: RE: BS: The (in)glorious 12th
From: Greg F.
Date: 21 Aug 17 - 01:57 PM

Guess its not Col. Blimp after all - its Bwana T.

Subject: RE: BS: The (in)glorious 12th
From: Iains
Date: 21 Aug 17 - 03:47 PM

Interesting paper on the origin of vegetation in NW Scotland from
the Holocene to present. Not only an area of often complex geology, but also geomorphology, both having an impact on soil development and type, hence influencing vegetational types. Also since the Holocene the climate has undergone some fairly radical shifts of varying intensity and duration. Between the influence of geology, geomorphology, climate, herbivores and humans it rather calls into question the whole concept of climatic climax vegetation, as this is dependant upon periods of stability. Also using such tools as palynology to determine past vegetational patterns only has an assumed accuracy-it may well be frequently erroneous. Peat bogs and sediments providing the pollen are not ubiquitous and what is preserved may be due to vagaries of wind, and pollen morphology may well influence the aerodynamic behaviour and hence distribution. The science of constructing past patterns of vegetation has more than a few gaps   preventing too many assertive statements to be made.
It is a lot like carbon dating- there are a lot of variables to be thrown in the mix to obtain accuracy and the learning curve is probably not yet completed.


http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/17550870802260624?scroll=top&needAccess=true

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_periods_and_events_in_climate_history

Subject: RE: BS: The (in)glorious 12th
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 21 Aug 17 - 06:49 PM

"With the greatest respect, no we are not Stu. We gave up on being "hunter/gatherers" thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of years ago. We feed ourselves and have done since that time by farming and fishing..."

If you really wanted to accord the greatest respect to Stu you would have tried a damn sight harder to get your facts right. The last glaciation ended a mere ten thousand or so years ago. Before that, hunting, gathering and scavenging were the only means of subsistence for all species of Homo, including Homo sapiens. For several millennia after the end of the last Ice Age, humans still relied entirely on hunter-gathering, only beginning the gradual transition, in many but not all cultures, to settled agriculture and animal husbandry in the last few thousand years. Your "hundreds of thousands" is plain nonsense.

Subject: RE: BS: The (in)glorious 12th
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 21 Aug 17 - 06:55 PM

Well now, Iains, palynology was one of my specialist studies at university, unfortunately for you. Your post consists largely of ignorant, superficial, unfocused bullshit, I'm afraid. The baby has truly gone down the plug with the bathwater.

Subject: RE: BS: The (in)glorious 12th
From: Teribus
Date: 22 Aug 17 - 02:43 AM

Ah Shaw, on the subject of showing respect by way of trying "a damn sight harder to get your facts right" Have you got any further down the track regarding:

- those who planted all that "unnatural" heather?
- those who "farm" grouse?
- where "flocks" of grouse can be seen?
- where "rampaging packs of vicious dogs" feature in any grouse shoot?

Thanks for your confirmation of what I stated regarding the time scale, which I was unsure of, which is why I stated the following:

We gave up on being "hunter/gatherers" thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of years ago."

So my "thousands" was perfectly accurate - 10 to be exact according to you - TRUE?

Subject: RE: BS: The (in)glorious 12th
From: Teribus
Date: 22 Aug 17 - 02:55 AM

Steve Shaw - 21 Aug 17 - 06:55 PM

Waz up Biologist Steve? Too arrogant to detail why you believe that the information supplied by Iains and in the links provided is "ignorant, superficial, unfocused bullshit". Nonetheless, very pleased to hear that you did specialise in something while at University, even if you are so reticent with regard to demonstrating your self-claimed knowledge on the subject.

Subject: RE: BS: The (in)glorious 12th
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 22 Aug 17 - 04:06 AM

Steve,
The last glaciation ended a mere ten thousand or so years ago. Before that, hunting, gathering and scavenging were the only means of subsistence for all species of Homo, including Homo sapiens

Glaciation only affected the temperate regions.

Before that, hunting, gathering and scavenging were the only means of subsistence for all species of Homo, including Homo sapiens.

Except for the majority of them, because they inhabited tropical regions!

Subject: RE: BS: The (in)glorious 12th
From: Stu
Date: 22 Aug 17 - 04:28 AM

" We gave up on being "hunter/gatherers" thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of years ago"

You do know there are still hunter-gatherer societies now?


"We do, and did not, develop weapons purely in order to hunt for food we developed them for fighting one another."

I'd check the literature T, and also reference modern studies on tool use in other animals, including primates. Humans have hunted for over 2.5 million years, and I don't think there's much evidence that new technologies were developed during the vast majority of that time to pursue warfare, hunting was the primary driver of the development of these technologies, at least until we settled into communities and farmed.

Subject: RE: BS: The (in)glorious 12th
From: Iains
Date: 22 Aug 17 - 05:42 AM

"ignorant, superficial, unfocused bullshit," It might have been your specialist field of study but apparently it did not extend to utilising the data.
Having spent a number of years using micropalaeo data in the commercial environment, I suspect I have a better appreciation of what can and cannot be done with what is essentially statistical stratigraphic data and the limitations of trying to use the pollen of a statigraphically defined unit in order to reconstruct the climax vegetation of that same period. There are numerous levels of complexity that need to be considered as the ecological niche being reconstructed becomes more and more constrained(i.e. NW Scotland) Many factors impact the content of a stratigraphic horizon and many questions can be raised when extrapolating the data to derive past conditions. As the immediate environment becomes more complex more and more questions demand answers- often times requiring more statistical gyrations with no guaranteed outcomes. The NW of Scotland offers a complex mosaic of niches of limited extent. Using a blanket approach in the Great Plains(a moderately uniform landscape)may offer high degrees of precision for reconstructing past vegetation, In the area under discussion I seriously doubt it.

I am merely trying to point out that the concept of climatic climax vegetation is probably a figment of imagination rather than the reality, as external factors constantly generate a state of flux thereby mitigating against the stability required for climax to be reached.
Also pollen analysis may well be 100%accurate, but using that data to generate vegetation patterns of the past in a complex landscape is beset with difficulties, diminishing the accuracy. Further There are inherent assumptions that the material on a slide is truly representative whereas anyone with the slightest knowledge of stratigraphy realizes that the content of any specified horizon is the outcome of a lottery or blind chance with the additional assumption it is not a reworked deposit being studied.

http://geomorphology.org.uk/sites/default/files/geom_tech_chapters/4.1.4_PollenAnalysis.pdf

http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0959683616683256
(may offer moderate accuracy in simple cases but accuracy takes a hike as complexity is introduced. Therefore for NW Scotland definitive reconstructions are a bit iffy.)


http://cdn.intechweb.org/pdfs/26767.pdf

Subject: RE: BS: The (in)glorious 12th
From: Teribus
Date: 22 Aug 17 - 06:02 AM

And what evidence do you have Stu to state that "hunting" was the primary drive?

Between your early date of 2.5 million years ago to 10,000 years ago our species and those we evolved from were scavenging omnivores. We are not, nor have we ever been apex predators, certainly not in the period you indicate, you've even said it yourself in your reference to our position in the food chain if we happened to find ourselves in Yellowstone Park armed only with a pointy stick and bag of butties. The fight for mankind throughout that period was the one for survival. Before I mentioned that "Fortunately, homo sapiens sapiens is an omnivore" - we could survive without having to be great hunters, we did not and never have relied on one food source. Throughout the period you mention are you trying to say that competing groups of humans did not fight over territory? They did not attempt to defend what they had or what they had acquired?

As the subject of the San has been raised - one of the hunter/gatherer groups still in sort of semi-existence - before they were directed towards farming in the Government programmes of the 1950s to 1990s I can remember watching a documentary on them shown on the BBC which predicted that they would be extinct as a race before the end of the century unless something was done.

Subject: RE: BS: The (in)glorious 12th
From: Stu
Date: 22 Aug 17 - 07:01 AM

"And what evidence do you have Stu to state that "hunting" was the primary drive?"

You want me to give references? Read the literature, I gave you advice where to start (especially relevant are other primates). It's very easy to get hold of, but I'm not doing it for you T. Also, you might find there are no absolute answers out there, science is an ongoing process.


"Throughout the period you mention are you trying to say that competing groups of humans did not fight over territory? "

Strawman.


"Between your early date of 2.5 million years ago to 10,000 years ago our species and those we evolved from were scavenging omnivores"

This simply isn't true. Humans were active hunters for that entire time and still are. Every predator scavenges (who'd turn a free meal?), but we were and are very active hunters.


Anyhow, what has this got to do with toffs popping off countless farmed grouse, slaughtering hares, foxes and rare birds of prey?