Wildlife charity killing wildlife

[Spurtle]

This month the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds is shooting large numbers of red deer on Bigmoor and surrounding areas. They would prefer the public did not know about this because they believe it’s a sensitive issue. There’s been no press information and no notices on the moors. A letter in today’s Sheffield Telegraph from Friends of Blackamoor draws attention to it for the first time.

 

You might think that a charity dedicated to wildlife would only kill wildlife after considering every possible option and when problems have become critical over a long time. But this is not so in this case. Just over a year before they decided to kill deer the RSPB senior manager told a meeting of conservationists and environmentalists that they were having to put cows and sheep on the moors because there were nowhere near enough deer to manage the vegetation the way they wanted. Now they are killing a large number while continuing to graze with cows.

 

They have deliberately kept this quiet, supposedly because they think the public is not mature enough to understand. Has that happened elsewhere recently?

[katkin]

...confused (it doesnt take much). For what reason exactly are the RSPB shooting and killing red deer?

[Spurtle]

It's good to be confused. It means you ask questions. To summarise the answers you're likely to get: the RSPB wants to manage the moors so certain things grow and other things don't - very like gardening. Animals that eat plants are a bit of an inconvenience. That's the way they see it. So they shoot the deer when they decide there are too many of them. Cows and sheep also eat the vegetation. But they are different because having them on the moor means you can call it agricultural land and that brings in lots of farming subsidies.

 

So why do they call this land wild, we may ask? Here I struggle.

[tinfoilhat]

It's good to be confused. It means you ask questions. To summarise the answers you're likely to get: the RSPB wants to manage the moors so certain things grow and other things don't - very like gardening. Animals that eat plants are a bit of an inconvenience. That's the way they see it. So they shoot the deer when they decide there are too many of them. Cows and sheep also eat the vegetation. But they are different because having them on the moor means you can call it agricultural land and that brings in lots of farming subsidies.

 

So why do they call this land wild, we may ask? Here I struggle.

 

The rspb do a lot of good things and this may be one of them. There may have been an extensive study with outside bodies and other conservation groups and, as it's the biggest in Europe, it's the rspb fronting it and it could very much be the right decision.

 

But, in my opinion, they don't always get it right.

[achorste]

I very much doubt the RSPB are doing this for jollies.

 

Have you troubled yourself to find out the reason why this is being done? There is most likely a sound conservation reason for a cull in deer numbers to maintain balance in these "wild" areas.

[Blackbeard]

Some interesting reading.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-21688447

http://www.forestry.gov.uk/PDF/fcpn6.pdf/$FILE/fcpn6.pdf

[Walkley0 Mum]

This month the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds is shooting large numbers of red deer on Bigmoor and surrounding areas. They would prefer the public did not know about this because they believe it’s a sensitive issue. There’s been no press information and no notices on the moors. A letter in today’s Sheffield Telegraph from Friends of Blackamoor draws attention to it for the first time.

 

You might think that a charity dedicated to wildlife would only kill wildlife after considering every possible option and when problems have become critical over a long time. But this is not so in this case. Just over a year before they decided to kill deer the RSPB senior manager told a meeting of conservationists and environmentalists that they were having to put cows and sheep on the moors because there were nowhere near enough deer to manage the vegetation the way they wanted. Now they are killing a large number while continuing to graze with cows.

 

They have deliberately kept this quiet, supposedly because they think the public is not mature enough to understand. Has that happened elsewhere recently?

 

It's good to be confused. It means you ask questions. To summarise the answers you're likely to get: the RSPB wants to manage the moors so certain things grow and other things don't - very like gardening. Animals that eat plants are a bit of an inconvenience. That's the way they see it. So they shoot the deer when they decide there are too many of them. Cows and sheep also eat the vegetation. But they are different because having them on the moor means you can call it agricultural land and that brings in lots of farming subsidies.

 

So why do they call this land wild, we may ask? Here I struggle.

 

 

 

I think it would be helpful (certainly to me) if you included citations for the source of the statements you make and are you speaking as a member or representative of any organisation that opposes or competes with the RSPB or other wildlife organisations in any way?

[geared]

Unfortunately due to the massive numbers of humans around there is no-more 'wild' areas in this country.

All other animals have been squeezed into un-natural pockets of land, most of which us humans have decided isn't that great to live on in the first place.

 

As such the environment and balance of animals is un-natural, this can lead to one species becoming dominant and negatively effecting others.

 

So we step in, and cull those getting out of control to try and maintain species diversity.

[holymoses]

So its a cull to keep the balance of wildlife, not the first one wont be the last.

They should be weeding out the old and weak animals making way for a healthy stock.

[Spurtle]

One thing I would warn against and that’s assuming any large organisation ‘must have a good reason for doing something’. Think Rotherham and CSE, think HSBC.

 

The safeguard should always be transparency and a healthy public scepticism.

In this case the RSPB did not want this to be public knowledge.

 

And I return to my original post here. Only when all else has been tried and the situation has become intolerable should a wildlife charity then consider taking up guns and shooting wildlife.

 

That cannot be the case when they were insistently saying in 2013 that there were nowhere enough deer on the Eastern Moors. People get things wrong and in this case I think they have. There’s a countryside culture of shooting wildlife and conservation charities should not be playing into it. Otherwise how do you maintain a consistent position on badgers and birds of prey?