In the wild:-

 

Lions kill cows (Wildebeest) to live.

 

Dogs kill Cows (Wildebeest) to live.

 

Cats kill birds to live.

 

Big fish eat little fish to live.

 

Given half a chance, they'll all eat people to live.

 

As to the Birds of Prey being killed by the Gamekeeper, there has to be a balance between some Birds of Prey and their prey species. Too many B of P and smaller birds will decline.

 

There's a difference between "control" and complete extermination of B of P and poisoning like that should have resulted in a harsher sentence.

Given half a chance, they'll all eat people to live.

 

 

I knew there was a reason why People invented "Guns"..........It just slipped my mind, until you reminded me.

The food chain is an integral part of nature which is why I suggest trusts like the RSPB should aid both the predator and the predated. The only defence( if it can be described as such) for the gamekeeper using poison is if his employers demand a ridiculously high cull rate on birds purchased. In that case the land owner should face prosecution as well rather like an employer who inadvertently falls foul of H&Safety regs.
It's interesting that landowners so often claim to be stewards of our countryside, makes me wonder if they are as knowledgable as they claim to be.

Gamekeepers are responsible for a good shoot his budget is dependent on it for the next season part of his job is to keep the vermin down to protect his birds, however poison can & does kill any carrion eating animals who are passing so it's not & never was a good method, I agree this was not a severe enough punishment he should have known better& he also knew it was very wrong to use poison!

Naturally his boss knew nothing about this:

 

"There is no evidence that the owner of the prestigious Stody Estate, Charles MacNicol, knew about the poisonings. He wouldn't tell BBC News whether he knew, or whether he condemned the killings"

 

Of course those Do-Gooders had to stick their oar in:

 

."The RSPB is also calling for the Stody Estate to be stripped of government grants it has received for promoting wildlife"

 

Something tells me he'll sit up and take notice now

 

Maybe we should go with the Scottish system - the landowner is also responsible for the actions of their staff ,since this was enacted there had been a drop in poisoning incidents

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-29931463

I'm sure you are right about the landlord, however it was the keeper who chose to break the law by using it!. I wonder how they found out about it? Did the birds fly away & were found by a member of the public or even the ringed ones were picked up on & that sparked an investigation?

I'm in favour of the scottish system too, the Landlord must be responsible in part because ultimately they make the rules and judge their charges. The Stody estate is but one example in England huge suspicion surrounds Abbeysteads Country seat of the Duke of Westminster, if anyone could afford to sustain Hen Harriers it's him.

As to the Birds of Prey being killed by the Gamekeeper, there has to be a balance between some Birds of Prey and their prey species. Too many B of P and smaller birds will decline.

 

And if the small birds decline there will be less for predators to catch  which is how the balance is maintained, given there are no outside influences which upset the balance.

 

The number of creatures in the wild, as indeed was man in the past, are always subject to available food supply.

 

Unfortunately there are still some keepers who regard all predators as needing to be killed regardless whether or not they are proected or have a significant effect on their birds.

 

 

 

 

Hunting mink with two or more dogs is illegal - laying down poison is in most cases illegal apart from the danger to other wildlife - trapping can injure as well as being non-discriminatory by nature.

 

Mink are a predator but just because they wipe out another species in the area, (e.g. water vole), doesn't mean their numbers decrease - they move onto the next one, water fowl, pheasants, wild birds, squirrels even domestic animals.  They are a far bigger pest in this area than rats and cause far more damage.

 

Prior to the hunting ban the local farmers had got them pretty much under control now they are once again rampant.  What do those who say all animals should be protected from the human species suggest should happen?

Before the ban they did have mink hounds on a river I fish though it seemed to me only the huntmaster took it seriously, the followers appeared just to be enjoying a ramble and the dogs having the time of their lives romping in and out of the river.

 

The bailiff has gone along with his gun but he admitted he had little chance, whenever I've seen one it's only been for a few seconds, you get a better look at otters.

 

My personal view is that you don't get rid of natural predators (mink are not natural), you improve the evironment for the prey species to enable them to thrive.

No mink are not natural , ive seen them in action they will kill anything they can catch including stout , they can & do kill in deep water.
Take eggs & nestlings & the parent birds if they stay around!.the pity of it is quite a few were released from captivity by the very people who are now complaining about the keepers & farmers who were trying to rid the countryside of them.

I remember as a lad being paid to shoot Coypu, people were frightened of them because they thought they were big rats, they are in fact herbivores again imported to farm from South America, they too were released mainly in East Anglian where they ravaged the riverbanks and broads, they were culled and officially declared extinct here I think in the eighties. There are still a few sightings which could be coypu but the riverbanks are returning to normal while the reeds are once again being cut for thatched roves.
Mink are smaller smarter and the ultimate predator, they eat anything they cagey there paws on. I had one trot past me one day with a water foul egg in its mouth pushing another with its nose. They are relatively easy to catch if you know what you are doing and can be euthanised humanely. In North America where they belong they themselves are predated but there is no natural predator here.
Activists released many of them into the wild which was stupidity but now someone has to tackle the problem.

Mink are easy to trap as they are extremely inquisitive - the problem is that if you use a humane trap you then have a mink to cope with!

 

It is illegal to release it and illegal to keep it alive yet the only legal way to kill it is with a gun which means that on farms the farmer, (the only one likely to have a gun), has to personally go round the traps and can't delegate the work to a farmhand.

 

If you use a 'killing' trap then you can end up killing other wild mammals.

 

 

There must be a legal way to trap and cull. You are correct about them being impossible to handle but mink traps are humane , you simply put the trap in a sack or box, the dark calms them I wonder what stance the RSPCA would take on this one.

A spokesman said: "The RSPCA is as a general principle against the culling of wild animals, but accepts that in the case of some mink eradication projects there may be strong scientific grounds to support one.

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-12323300

RSPCA......................"Cruelty" being the operative word in that title.

How about this for a change then?:-

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-manchester-29951094