Raven impact on waders – Shooting lobby disagrees with the RSPB10/03/2010 09:07:31One-eyed visionWildlife Extra believes that releases like this from the SRPBA does them a great disservice. It is so transparently not about their touching concern for lapwings and curlews. Wildlife Extra isn't against hunting in all its forms (Though posing beside a dead rhino or even zebra to show how big and tough you are is just so disgusting) as it provides essential income so some communities, and may be the only way to preserve some species. Shooting bleaters Impact of juvenile raven ‘gangs' is there for all to see says SRPBA Moorland Group Click here to see the RSPB report on Ravens March 2010. The Moorland Group of the Scottish Rural Property and Business Association (SRPBA) is disputing recent claims made by the RSPB that ravens do not impact on upland wader species. A recent study was co-funded by Scottish Natural Heritage to provide evidence or otherwise for raven licence applications. SRPBA argues however that it did not address the nub of the problem, the impact of growing flocks of sub-mature ravens, instead confining its findings to resident breeding pairs of ravens based on data 7 - 9 years old. The development of raven ‘gangs' has not been scientifically monitored. For example, in NE Scotland, raven numbers increased by over 400 per cent up to 2002, and that growth rate has continued(Editors note - Raven numbers decreased drastically according to government data between 1970 - 1990, so a subsequent increase isn't that surprising). In early spring, juvenile ravens congregate in highly mobile flocks of 200 - 300 birds and predate for food across wide moorland areas. Prime targets are the eggs of ground nesting birds such as curlew and lapwing(Editors note - Having looked at the SRPBA website, we note that the only 2 mentions of Lapwing and curlew are in relation to raven predation, and thus the control of ravens. Curiously grouse do not get a mention here.). The ravens panic the birds off their nests, take their eggs and then move on. By early summer the raven ‘gangs' have dispersed - the only evidence of their activity being a marked decline in numbers of the birds on which they predate. 'Vandals of the moorland' Science is inconclusive - But there is plenty of anecdotal evidence "We think that public funding should have been directed at measuring these impacts, and not on desk based historical analysis." Ron Macdonald, Head of Policy & Advice, Scottish Natural Heritage, says: "We recognise that there is a developing issue with large flocks of sub-mature, non breeding ravens and the potential negative impacts they may have on wild birds, and we are working with land managers to try and find practical solutions to these problems. Licences can be issued under section 16(1) of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 to control some wild predators for the purpose of conserving wild birds, subject to the guidelines which SNH have developed together with land and wildlife management organisations." Dr Adam Smith, Director Scotland, Game and Wildlife Conservation Trust, says: "Although it doesn't make headlines, this study indicated that at a biologically interesting level, increasing raven numbers were associated with decreasing lapwing and curlew numbers. Overall however this study had to use data from 2002 and before to try and inform policies in 2010 and beyond. It cannot provide a reliable basis for SNH to form policies on the need for licences to take ravens to protect wild birds. However, we can all agree that there is now evidence of increasingly large numbers of ravens in the same areas as poorly performing upland wader populations. Our research experience suggests that the licensed control of ravens and an assessment of the response of wader populations would be a constructive approach to this issue." SRPBA, with other industry organisations are working together to seek to have licences made available to allow limited numbers of ravens to be controlled in areas where specific problems are identified in order to scare the juvenile flocks away. The legal mechanism already exists for farmers to protect their livestock in this way. SNH has existing mechanisms to enable such licence applications to be granted, but there is concern that this study will be used against applicants as evidence that a problem does not exist.
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Read the comments about this article and leave your own comment
So Ravens are vandals of the moorland are they. Are you sure you wern't talking about yourselves.
Posted by: Amanda | 15 May 2010 18:28:35
Sadly the awesome sight of 200-300 ravens isn't appreciated by those fortunate enough to witness the same. Raising awareness is very important and of course reliable documentation of any perceived "criminality"! Ravens are incredibly difficult birds to understand but contacting world renowned experts ie Prof Bernd Heinrich who successfully stopped ravens being 'controlled' in Germany [accused of killing calves] simply by encouraging the government to stop compensating farmers for dead calves...the ravens were innocent of all 'crimes'. Also Dr Thomas Bugnyar-Konrad Lorenz Institute-Vienna who has spent many years now studying ravens in controlled conditions but also wild-principally cognitive ability. It is a credit that raven numbers have increased however most of the immature or unpaired have a tough life-of the many thousands of deer culled or died this winter hopefully they will find enough to eat....
Posted by: | 08 Apr 2010 18:46:04
Having watched what happens hear in England It seem to me many farmers/landowner who say they protect wildlife only see it in one form. That which they can make a profit from. All wildlife is exterminated and murder for the sake of a shoot. Be it weasel ravens or anything else that threatens there profit. Where they go out for there shooting day. Kill as many game birds as they can. Only to then bury them in a big hole because they can not get the price they want. The land scape is now barren and poisoned purely for profit. The land is poisoned by chemicals. And in Scotland the destruction of habitat by mass factory farming conifers is criminal. I think it is time the Law was changed as those landowner who are proved to be mismanaging the diversity and upkeep of wildlife. The land should be taken from them and returned to the community for community farming. I,m so feed up of this rich lot doing what ever they want. Bribing police or there nice little fund and once you accept a bribe your theres for ever because you dare not let that get out. I should know my father was a farmer. Corruption all the way up to the top.
Posted by: Phoenix Toliman | 13 Mar 2010 00:16:19
Not a surprise the shooting lobby disagree with the science they do not want any predator on the moors anything that may impact on grouse and other so called game they (shooting estates) and very very much a minority in this country no how much income they keep publicising should have all the public money withdrawn until they can prove that they will stop persecuting but this cannot happen as they need to remove all top predators to justify commercial shooting a sterile environment indeed.
Posted by: | 12 Mar 2010 19:44:33
It is instructive to read the SRPBA's consultation response to the draft Wildlife and Natural Environment Bill. Above all else, they question that the public interest can be represented by the Government of the day. By tieing the production of "public benefits" to their members, they imply that the the "public interest" is best served by that membership. Wildlife crime in Scotland is something that is against the public interest. Does anyone think it is likely that the SRPBA will be able to, or want to replace the Government 's role in preventing wildlife crime? Would its members let it?
Posted by: Mark Fisher | 11 Mar 2010 09:30:37