She needs to be stopped!!!

i did a unit in my uni access course on the conservation of red grouse in scotland and its effects and benefits. the arguments for and against and looking at numbers..

conservation depends on a lot of things (habitat loss, invasive species, pollution, human population and overhavesting)and the places that have the greatest thriving numbers of a certain species were on maintained moorland funded mostly through the sport of shooting. their numbers increeased seven times higher than normal, as well as after killing the numbers were still 5 times higher than normal unmanaged land.

whilst i do thing it is bad, you do have to pay a lot of money to kill these animals which for whatever reason she has managed to aquire..

i wont even hurt a spider if i dont have to, and take my time to take whatever pest be it fly or spider out the window rather than just killing it.
some people comment on her face smiling not caring about the animals, but that could be said to the people who slaughter the animals that are put on our plates.
some peopple just do not care about certain species unless it appeals for them to.

i also did a unit on extinction of animals, and atleast 1,000 things go extinct each year. trying to protect one species causes an inbalance in their ecosystem which affects other ecosystems and the overall biosphere as a whole, causing more extinctions when theyre faced against each other for food.


my conclusion of red grouse conservation
I have been asked to give my opinion on whether the red grouse requires conservation.

Red Grouse numbers are seven times higher than normal on maintained moorland, funded mostly through the sport of shooting and eating of game. This could be considered the reward which encourages the labour and resources to maintain and provide a heather rich moorland in which they thrive. Although shooting reduces numbers, it still brings the numbers five times higher than normal when unmanaged. Not only does this benefit the Red Grouse, but the long term future of the landscape in which Grouse Moor owners manage and care passionately about. Being heather rich, it also attracts a far wider range of animals and plants.

With shooting halted as a means to reduce grouse decline further, we have to consider if there will be enough funding and passion to continue to provide a habitat that is healthy enough for them. The most stable requires human intervention. If left unmanaged the moorland would quickly return to an area unsuitable to support large numbers of grouse.

Some would disagree in the need of such a barbaric blood sport as conservation. Is it our right to manipulate a landscape for a specific species against others such as foxes and other animals that are killed to protect Red Grouse numbers? It could be considered that you are refusing to allow nature to take care of itself.
Protection of Red Grouse also forms an unnatural imbalance. Large numbers of grouse and management of the landscape alter the community which come to share the same habitat.
This produces higher numbers of raptors based on the false number of Red Grouse in that area.
Measures to give supplementary food as a means to distract Raptors from the Red Grouse, only encourages their population growth and adds to the already existing problem.

As much as I disagree towards the killing of animals, especially as a sport. I am inclined to agree that some things can be a necessary evil, if the overall outcome is to benefit the greater self.
This is why I believe the Red Grouse should fall into conservation with the assistance of shooting. If not for its own populations but the greater community, its habitat and the presence it brings.
 
Jonnybmac said:
i did a unit in my uni access course on the conservation of red grouse in scotland and its effects and benefits. the arguments for and against and looking at numbers..

conservation depends on a lot of things (habitat loss, invasive species, pollution, human population and overhavesting)and the places that have the greatest thriving numbers of a certain species were on maintained moorland funded mostly through the sport of shooting. their numbers increeased seven times higher than normal, as well as after killing the numbers were still 5 times higher than normal unmanaged land.

whilst i do thing it is bad, you do have to pay a lot of money to kill these animals which for whatever reason she has managed to aquire..

i wont even hurt a spider if i dont have to, and take my time to take whatever pest be it fly or spider out the window rather than just killing it.
some people comment on her face smiling not caring about the animals, but that could be said to the people who slaughter the animals that are put on our plates.
some peopple just do not care about certain species unless it appeals for them to.

i also did a unit on extinction of animals, and atleast 1,000 things go extinct each year. trying to protect one species causes an inbalance in their ecosystem which affects other ecosystems and the overall biosphere as a whole, causing more extinctions when theyre faced against each other for food.


my conclusion of red grouse conservation
I have been asked to give my opinion on whether the red grouse requires conservation.

Red Grouse numbers are seven times higher than normal on maintained moorland, funded mostly through the sport of shooting and eating of game. This could be considered the reward which encourages the labour and resources to maintain and provide a heather rich moorland in which they thrive. Although shooting reduces numbers, it still brings the numbers five times higher than normal when unmanaged. Not only does this benefit the Red Grouse, but the long term future of the landscape in which Grouse Moor owners manage and care passionately about. Being heather rich, it also attracts a far wider range of animals and plants.

With shooting halted as a means to reduce grouse decline further, we have to consider if there will be enough funding and passion to continue to provide a habitat that is healthy enough for them. The most stable requires human intervention. If left unmanaged the moorland would quickly return to an area unsuitable to support large numbers of grouse.

Some would disagree in the need of such a barbaric blood sport as conservation. Is it our right to manipulate a landscape for a specific species against others such as foxes and other animals that are killed to protect Red Grouse numbers? It could be considered that you are refusing to allow nature to take care of itself.
Protection of Red Grouse also forms an unnatural imbalance. Large numbers of grouse and management of the landscape alter the community which come to share the same habitat.
This produces higher numbers of raptors based on the false number of Red Grouse in that area.
Measures to give supplementary food as a means to distract Raptors from the Red Grouse, only encourages their population growth and adds to the already existing problem.

As much as I disagree towards the killing of animals, especially as a sport. I am inclined to agree that some things can be a necessary evil, if the overall outcome is to benefit the greater self.
This is why I believe the Red Grouse should fall into conservation with the assistance of shooting. If not for its own populations but the greater community, its habitat and the presence it brings.
Click to expand...

Well written. I do however think the majority of the problem lies with the mind set of the public who have become so disconnected from the reality of how their food is produced and how the country side is managed to provide this.

The public easily forget that our beautiful countryside is the way it is because of farming.
 
CREATIVE!11 said:
718dfcb820016f7492890a58aa4d860065cf46ca887dc9bc9e2fcac3ae24e296.jpg
Click to expand...

let's face the facts the ones posting those comments about her not being attractive are likely the ones who are normal people.

the ones who come in defending her are most likely the types of people as shown in your picture
 
OhEsEcks said:
She was on a legal hunting safari, I doubt there's any legal recourse. It's not like she was marching about the bush in a pith helmet, blunderbuss in hand massacring everything. Conservation, shock horror, involves controlling numbers. That means they occassionally need to kill animals.
Click to expand...


It's not conserving anything though.

pointless to artificially keep species alive if their time is up.
 
jas72 said:
It's not conserving anything though.

pointless to artificially keep species alive if their time is up.
Click to expand...

I think you'll find it is resulting in conservation though as has been stated time and time again.

Many species of animals are managed by culling, deer are just one in UK.
 
arknor said:
let's face the facts the ones posting those comments about her not being attractive are likely the ones who are normal people.

the ones who come in defending her are most likely the types of people as shown in your picture
Click to expand...

Do you class yourself as a normal person?
 
I'm not sure if anyone has mentioned it yet, but a good point for the anti-hunt posters is that there are 160 farms specifically breeding lions for hunting.

So in reality it has overstepped pure conservation into a business catering for second rate hunters with no balls.

I'd still support the idea overall, as commercialisation of animals is still better than the alternative of letting them all die because you want the land for farming, but this shouldn't be the end point for conservation, merely the least worst option.
 
bitslice said:
I'm not sure if anyone has mentioned it yet, but a good point for the anti-hunt posters is that there are 160 farms specifically breeding lions for hunting.

So in reality it has overstepped pure conservation into a business catering for second rate hunters with no balls.

I'd still support the idea overall, as commercialisation of animals is still better than the alternative of letting them all die because you want the land for farming, but this shouldn't be the end point for conservation, merely the least worst option.
Click to expand...

There are no other options, there isn't the money for other options.
 
So for those who are jumping to conclusions thinking she's a cold hearted killer:

*Taken from her FB Page*
Ok I'm gonna explain for the 53567544th time. The rhino was a green hunt, meaning it was darted and immobilized in order to draw blood for testing, DNA profiling, microchip ping the horn and treating a massive leg injury most likely caused by lions. People try to say that lions will not attack a hippo, rhino or elephant, quiet the contrary. Lions attack and kill the young of these species. The adults try to fight the lions off and are regularly successful, but do get injuries in the process. As for the lion that I shot with my bow, it was within a 45,000 acre fence with other lions and plains game. It's in S Africa, so yes it was within a fence, but 45,000 acres is the equivalent to 70 square miles and considered fair chase. Lions that have come in and taken over a pride, not only kick the older lion out, but will also kill all of his cubs so that the lioness will come into heat again. Controlling the male lion population is important within large fenced areas like these in order to make sure the cubs have a high survival rate. Funds from a hunt like this goes partially to the government for permits but also to the farm owner as an incentive to keep and raise lions on their property. If there was no value, the farmers would kill all of the lions to have a higher survival and breeding rate in their plains game populations. Lions take a toll on plains game, thus farmers need money to purchase plains game and change out bloodlines within their lion prides to prevent interbreeding. Now to the leopard, this was a free ranging leopard in Zimbabwe on communal land. The money for the permit goes to the communal council and to their village people. Within this area of approximately 250,000 acres, 107 head of cattle was killed in a single year due to leopard kills. Leopard populations have to be controlled in certain areas. So yes, my efforts do go to conservation efforts and are all fair chase, not canned hunts. In fact these are very mentally and physically challenging hunts, on foot tracking and walking miles and miles a day.
Click to expand...

Do you really think this kind of act would go on in a protected reserve???
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom