Been doing a bit of research on this Chris Packham issue and the claim that crows are responsible for lamb deaths. I found the following, which was a proper analysis of lamb deaths on hill farms in Scotland:
The Effect of Hooded Crows on Hill Sheep Farming in Argyll, Scotland:
Hooded Crow Damage to Hill Sheep:
(1) Crows are blamed by sheep farmers for killing lambs and, to a lesser extent, for attacking the eyes of trapped ewes.
(2) Crow damage to `couped' or trapped ewes caused only slight economic damage.
(3) Crow predation on lambs was evaluated in comparison with other causes of lamb mortality. A survey of the causes of death, excluding crow predation, showed that out of 297 lambs found dead on the hill the major causes of death were starvation (48%), still-birth (22%) and disease (9%).
(4) Crows attacked 48% of lambs found dead on the hill. Examination of the wounds showed that only 17% of these lambs were alive when attacked. The body condition of the latter showed that in most cases the lambs had exhausted their fat reserves and were on the point of starvation before being attacked. Crows did not select healthy lambs, and the range of body condition of lambs attacked was similar to lambs dying without being attacked.
(5) In most cases crows killed only lambs that would die anyway. About one in 850 lambs born were healthy lambs which would-probably have survived had there not been a crow attack.
That’s a 0.1% mortality to crow predation. Unless you're actually present to see an attack from corvids, it's impossible to attribute the cause of death to them, yet that seems to be exactly what those who report them as corvid deaths do. It's a convenient excuse, especially for the Countryside Alliance. A creature attacking another living creature carries a risk of being hurt in the attack. The risk is mitigated by going for things which are already dead - afterbirths and dead lambs - which is why crows and ravens are called carrion birds rather than birds of prey. The next best thing is to attack something that's on its last legs, is about to die from some other cause and can't fight back.
We live deep in the heart of sheep country and, except for the period of the pheasant season, we don't hear the constant rapport of shotguns during lambing season. Farmers generally are too busy to be shooting crows anyway.
Now Chris Packham’s legal case has not changed the law, as many complainants seem to believe it has – it has merely clarified the existing law. The ruling is that the general licence is illegal. This does not stop farmers applying for an individual licence on proving that there is indeed a problem, which the analysis above would seem to indicate is not as big a problem as is claimed. Granted, the ravaging of crops by, for example, pigeons or Canada geese is more serious and can be directly attributed- simple photographic evidence of this is easy to generate.
If the Countryside Alliance is genuinely aggrieved, what they should be doing is lobbying Parliament for a change to the law, providing evidence to support their case. The NFU is a very powerful farming lobby and using it, rather than resorting to puerile antics that will alienate them from the general public, is the more grown-up strategy.
Packham is an ecologist and is firmly on the side of wildlife, as one would expect. The Countryside Alliance is firmly on the side of allowing the slaughter (a loaded word, but how else can one describe an organisation that supports hunting foxes with dogs for sport and pleasure under the guise of pest control) of wildlife on the flimsiest of evidence. Expecting Packham to be impartial is like asking the Pope to preach atheism. Calling for him to be sacked by the BBC is misguided at best and plain idiocy at worst – there is no other word for it. As a strategy, it's unlikely to endear them to the general public. The Countryside Alliance is fast becoming our version of the NRA.
Corvids can be predated by raptors, but birds of prey are disappearing and under threat as game keepers illegally shoot or poison them to protect their game birds. Thus it can be seen that the argument becomes circulatory. Kill the birds of prey and the corvids will proliferate. Since the RSPB’s audits began in 1990 till 2017, its records have listed 166 individuals convicted of crimes against raptors and more than two-thirds of them were gamekeepers. If malpractice involves only a few rogue elements, as the shooting fraternity contends, then it is a remarkably persistent element in their midst.
I did a Google search on Countryside Alliance + conservation and came up with the following results on the first 2 pages:
It would appear from this that the Countryside Alliance's take on conservation, by its own admission, is remarkably weighted toward breeding animals and birds with the express intent of shooting the hell out of them at every conceivable opportunity, excusing it as culling, and fighting bans on killing certain forms of wildlife.
The last search result maintains shooting generates some £2bn a year. At one time slavery produced more than that in today's terms and helped create some of our National Trust properties. Is that an argument for keeping slavery?
That said Natural England's 3 day notice to the change in their rules is somewhat short and bound to cause tensions and a backlog.
The Effect of Hooded Crows on Hill Sheep Farming in Argyll, Scotland:
Hooded Crow Damage to Hill Sheep:
(1) Crows are blamed by sheep farmers for killing lambs and, to a lesser extent, for attacking the eyes of trapped ewes.
(2) Crow damage to `couped' or trapped ewes caused only slight economic damage.
(3) Crow predation on lambs was evaluated in comparison with other causes of lamb mortality. A survey of the causes of death, excluding crow predation, showed that out of 297 lambs found dead on the hill the major causes of death were starvation (48%), still-birth (22%) and disease (9%).
(4) Crows attacked 48% of lambs found dead on the hill. Examination of the wounds showed that only 17% of these lambs were alive when attacked. The body condition of the latter showed that in most cases the lambs had exhausted their fat reserves and were on the point of starvation before being attacked. Crows did not select healthy lambs, and the range of body condition of lambs attacked was similar to lambs dying without being attacked.
(5) In most cases crows killed only lambs that would die anyway. About one in 850 lambs born were healthy lambs which would-probably have survived had there not been a crow attack.
That’s a 0.1% mortality to crow predation. Unless you're actually present to see an attack from corvids, it's impossible to attribute the cause of death to them, yet that seems to be exactly what those who report them as corvid deaths do. It's a convenient excuse, especially for the Countryside Alliance. A creature attacking another living creature carries a risk of being hurt in the attack. The risk is mitigated by going for things which are already dead - afterbirths and dead lambs - which is why crows and ravens are called carrion birds rather than birds of prey. The next best thing is to attack something that's on its last legs, is about to die from some other cause and can't fight back.
We live deep in the heart of sheep country and, except for the period of the pheasant season, we don't hear the constant rapport of shotguns during lambing season. Farmers generally are too busy to be shooting crows anyway.
Now Chris Packham’s legal case has not changed the law, as many complainants seem to believe it has – it has merely clarified the existing law. The ruling is that the general licence is illegal. This does not stop farmers applying for an individual licence on proving that there is indeed a problem, which the analysis above would seem to indicate is not as big a problem as is claimed. Granted, the ravaging of crops by, for example, pigeons or Canada geese is more serious and can be directly attributed- simple photographic evidence of this is easy to generate.
If the Countryside Alliance is genuinely aggrieved, what they should be doing is lobbying Parliament for a change to the law, providing evidence to support their case. The NFU is a very powerful farming lobby and using it, rather than resorting to puerile antics that will alienate them from the general public, is the more grown-up strategy.
Packham is an ecologist and is firmly on the side of wildlife, as one would expect. The Countryside Alliance is firmly on the side of allowing the slaughter (a loaded word, but how else can one describe an organisation that supports hunting foxes with dogs for sport and pleasure under the guise of pest control) of wildlife on the flimsiest of evidence. Expecting Packham to be impartial is like asking the Pope to preach atheism. Calling for him to be sacked by the BBC is misguided at best and plain idiocy at worst – there is no other word for it. As a strategy, it's unlikely to endear them to the general public. The Countryside Alliance is fast becoming our version of the NRA.
Corvids can be predated by raptors, but birds of prey are disappearing and under threat as game keepers illegally shoot or poison them to protect their game birds. Thus it can be seen that the argument becomes circulatory. Kill the birds of prey and the corvids will proliferate. Since the RSPB’s audits began in 1990 till 2017, its records have listed 166 individuals convicted of crimes against raptors and more than two-thirds of them were gamekeepers. If malpractice involves only a few rogue elements, as the shooting fraternity contends, then it is a remarkably persistent element in their midst.
I did a Google search on Countryside Alliance + conservation and came up with the following results on the first 2 pages:
It would appear from this that the Countryside Alliance's take on conservation, by its own admission, is remarkably weighted toward breeding animals and birds with the express intent of shooting the hell out of them at every conceivable opportunity, excusing it as culling, and fighting bans on killing certain forms of wildlife.
The last search result maintains shooting generates some £2bn a year. At one time slavery produced more than that in today's terms and helped create some of our National Trust properties. Is that an argument for keeping slavery?
That said Natural England's 3 day notice to the change in their rules is somewhat short and bound to cause tensions and a backlog.
No comments:
Post a Comment