BS: The (in)glorious 12th

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?

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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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.