Grouse season starts - Royal Family shoot

[antelopevalley]

Grouse shooting season starts. People who get fun out of killing birds largely bred to be shot for fun.
The Royal Family take part in grouse shoots and controversially George was present at a grouse shoot at only five years old.
Is this really a suitable leisure pursuit for the Royal Family? To shoot birds for fun?

www.msn.com/en-gb/lifestyle/travel/controversial-royal-family-summer-holiday-tradition-starts-today-but-they-ve-been-urged-not-to-include-prince-george/ar-AA10B485?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=3ba1e30265144c75c5e573a3fa41a20e

I can’t say I’d use the RSPB as a reliable source regarding grouse moors. They are notoriously critical and their report was quite biased.

The RSBP don’t mention that studies have shown species like hen harriers are actually more prevalent on grouse moors as they benefit from pest control by game keepers than similar land managed by organisations such as the RSPB.

www.spectator.co.uk/article/shooting-does-more-to-protect-wildlife-than-the-rspb

The RSPB would refute those figures!
Again, the driver for good management of our uplands should be biodiversity, carbon storage and sequestration, water management and air quality, not rich people killing birds for fun.

I have never seen anyone before suggest the RSPB are an unreliable source!
I am quite sure the RSPB do not mention studies where the methodology is very dodgy. They are a respected organisation that works hard to be very scientifically accurate. The report is very critical, that is because there is a lot to criticise.

And the jobs argument just reminds me of big tobacco arguing against the no smoking indoors in public spaces on the same grounds.
We cannot accept extremely harmful environmental practices because of the argument of jobs.

Quick on the reporting button too I see!

When all I said was you’d started yet another royal family thread. Statement of fact and not against talk guidelines

I said yesterday I was fed up with Royal Family supporters constantly making personal attacks and that I was going to start reporting them.

It’s not a personal attack to note you start a lot of threads

And since your comment was deleted, it was clearly against guidelines.

@antelopevalley

Don't blame you. I do not understand why posters have to get personal. FFS just comment on the content of the post, not the poster herself. Why is that so hard?

I've been asked 'why are you here again?' regularly , accused of commenting too much, of needing to get a life, of being a shill, of being some sad old grey retired woman with too much time on her hands, of being paid to post, of working for SunshineS, of being Doria, etc etc.
No, I just keep my name, you recognise me and that makes me an easy target to have a poke at! Water off a ducks back, heard it all before.

The one thing I know is... when a poster gets personal, they know they are losing the argument.

@rous It is clear they are losing the argument.
Start reporting personal attacks. I am going to keep reporting them now. I have not in the past as it seemed petty. But the number of personal attacks has been growing too much.

What argument are ‘they’ losing? Who’s ‘they’?

The argument at the time when posters on here (they) get personal about other posters on here. I did explain it!

I'm not sure it can be perceived as a personal attack if posters are questioning why someone continually starts threads against something or someone, whether that be the royal family, government, bananas, Strictly or any other subject.

It leads people to assume the poster has some sort of agenda, and I think it's good to question what that agenda might be.

But I wasn’t asking you?

Lots of people criticise the RSPB, particularly literally anything Chris Packham comes out with.

This is a great summary by the Guardian: amp.theguardian.com/environment/2012/aug/12/why-claws-are-out-for-royal-society-for-protection-of-birds

It also summaries research by Natural England that shows that grouse moors are more bio diverse than RSPB reserves and what happened at Langham Moor when gamekeepers were removed.

Is this comment directed at me?

It would make life a lot easier if you quoted the poster you want to answer. It's hard to establish who you are asking if you don't. And you will get others answering. Like now. (but really not sure if this post is directed at me, who knows)

We pay these people £100 million quid and several castles because their long dead ancestor conquered Britain while our schools and hospitals are barely holding it together and millions are struggling with energy bills.

I think the fact they enjoy killing animals is actually fairly low on the list of things wrong with this setup.

@fyn that is a disgraceful article. It is a landowners defence and full of opinion stated as fact, and vague supposition. Claiming grouse moors are better for wildlife because one bird has done better on some moors.
I read scientific papers for my work and this article is such a load of nonsense I am tempted to make a written complaint to the Guardian.
I am against shooting birds for fun. But if grouse moors were better for the environment than natural land, I would support them. They are not.

@rous It is clear they are losing the argument.

@antelopevalley What argument are ‘they’ losing?

There you go @Roussette - better?

I mean crap like this.

"More recently, when Defra, the government department that deals with rural affairs, sought to tackle the population explosion among buzzards which was causing severe problems on pheasant shoots in England, and suggested that some nests might be relocated, the RSPB sprang into action. Instead of talking to farmers and landowners about how the problem might be managed, it branded any interference as "appalling" and immediately issued research of its own saying that buzzards pose little harm to young pheasants."

The complaint was about RSPBs actions harming pheasant shoots. This is not their job to protect! The pheasant population is kept artificially high. If buzzards kill some young pheasants that is not a problem.

@fyn

Thank you, that was a really interesting and insightful article.

And I was clearly replying to Rousette who had explained clearly the issue you are questioning.

Of course it's better. You can't rudely tell people off for answering a post when you haven't quoted who you want to answer! Or stipulated others shouldn't answer!

You can use the quote feature, it's much easier.