# General > Birdwatching >  More Birds Of Prey Poisoned

## Anfield

Two more Buzzards have been found on Strathspey Estate, killed in an agonising way by being poisoned  by the banned pesticide cabofuran. Story



The estate said it was shocked by the  poisoning.         A spokesman added: "_Considering the efforts made to enhance  the wildlife conservation and biodiversity on the estate, it is  inconceivable that any of our staff had any part whatsoever in the  laying of poisoned bait responsible for the deaths of two buzzards near  Boat of Garten._."


I wonder if his nose grew a couple of inches when he said this


The constant links to bird deaths, by poisoning and Estates is an embarrassment to the whole of Scotland

----------


## ducati

This is very close the Osprey nesting site. Not that I value one species above another, but you can be certain if any Osprey was poisoned the Police and press would persue an investigation.

I know they are not there now but if there are bird murders in the area.....

----------


## Walter Ego

> Two more Buzzards have been found on Strathspey Estate, killed in an agonising way by being poisoned by the banned pesticide cabofuran. Story
> 
> 
> 
> The estate said it was shocked by the poisoning. A spokesman added: "_Considering the efforts made to enhance the wildlife conservation and biodiversity on the estate, it is inconceivable that any of our staff had any part whatsoever in the laying of poisoned bait responsible for the deaths of two buzzards near Boat of Garten._."
> 
> 
> I wonder if his nose grew a couple of inches when he said this
> 
> ...


 
Why should his 'nose grow a couple of inches'?

----------


## spurtle

Many of these poisonings are people lacing rabbits to get foxes, how can you be sure it was intended for birds of prey, Buzzards are mainly scavangers, why would estates want them gone?

----------


## Anfield

> Many of these poisonings are people lacing rabbits to get foxes,


(1) The use of cabofuran is banned throughout the EU.  
(2) To kill any animal by poisoning is a most despicable practice. 
Some humans have come along way in the evolution chain but apparently not all




> how can you be sure it was intended for birds of prey, Buzzards are mainly scavangers, why would estates want them gone?


Employees, often with owners blessing, of so called  "sporting estates" kill any animal/birds  which threaten their target species.  If you look at the bottom of the page which I linked you will see some examples.

----------


## spurtle

I don't remember condoning the use of poison just pointing out the possible reasons. I think you would hate to be wrong in your pigeon holing , I don't think it would make a blind bit of difference to you who did it as long as you can blame the people you hate.

----------


## George Brims

What ticks me off about this is the term "target species". They are planning to kill something, then take out anything else that might (only might*) kill it first. What arrogance. 
*I know a woman who had her son shoot a sparrowhawk because it was near her hen house. The thing was tiny, totally incapable of harming anything as big as a hen, but there it was lying on the ground dead. Ignorance.

----------


## nirofo

> Many of these poisonings are people lacing rabbits to get foxes, how can you be sure it was intended for birds of prey, Buzzards are mainly scavangers, why would estates want them gone?


Why would they use banned and illegal substances if they were legit keepers etc, going about their business, carbofuran has been banned since 2001 and it's illegal to even have it in your posession.  Gamekeepers are supposed to be trained and skilled at doing what they do, they certainly know that these poisons are banned.  

So, if keepers are using illegal carbofuran they already know that the poison is indescriminate and will kill anything that eats the laced meat etc, they also know it will kill the bird or animal that then comes along and eats the bird or animal that was killed first.  This is exactly what they want and it's obvious they don't give a damn as long as they kill something with a hooked beak or a claw.

Here's a photo of a Golden Eagle poisoned with illegal Strychnine, an agonising death from a deadly poison that passes on and on down the food chain, extremely small amounts can cause death.

*Golden Eagle poisoned with Strychnine.*


*nirofo.*

----------


## spurtle

I was more suggesting farmers were doing it to get rid of foxes, and can I reiterate that at no point did I say poisoning is right.

----------


## our_town_magazine

How sad that those majestic creatures should meet such an undignified end  ::

----------


## Anfield

> Why should his 'nose grow a couple of inches'


Have you not heard about Pinocchio?  If not I believe it is on in Caithness at the moment.  

By the way I am still awaiting your answer to the following:



> Can I ask you for your "balanced argument" on why,  and when,  it is necesary to dig a badger out of its sett, and set  several terriers onto it?


I think the fact that a person (pro hunting) started a thread about Hunting under the "Hobbies" section gives the game away, does it not




> I don't remember condoning the use of poison just pointing out the possible reasons. I think you would hate to be wrong in your pigeon holing , I don't think it would make a blind bit of difference to you who did it as long as you can blame the people you hate.


Err.. I "hate" people that kill animals

----------


## Walter Ego

> Have you not heard about Pinocchio? If not I believe it is on in Caithness at the moment.


Ah, the Disney thing, a work of fantasy I believe. And nothing to do with fact. Rather like your assumption that the Estate  wallah must automatically be lying. 

Blinkers on, shields up, fingers in ears...Avoid supplying evidence..





> By the way I am still awaiting your answer to the following:
> 
> 
> _ ...I ask you for your "balanced argument" on why, and when, it is necesary to dig a badger out of its sett, and set several terriers onto it?
> Is it for conservation, prevention of the "alleged" spread of TB or what?. Or is just an excuse for sick thugs to enjoy watching an animal ripped to bits.
> _


You'll not get an answer to a pathetically crude piece of thread manipulation. The thread was about legal 'hunting', not the illegal dragging out of badgers from their setts.






> I think the fact that a person (pro hunting) started a thread about Hunting under the "Hobbies" section gives the game away, does it not


No it doesn't say anything. 'Hunting' can be described as a 'hobby' if the participant does it in their spare time for enjoyment. 

The fact that you do not like it doesn't change anything. It was put in the right section.

----------


## ducati

Walter, you and Anfield would argue black is white. I appreciate you have crossed swords in the past on other issues. 

But do you really think poisoning birds of prey is a good idea?

----------


## nirofo

One thing I will say, what morals do the people have who use an illegal poison substance to indiscriminately kill anything that comes along and eats the poisoned bait, especially when that anything could be a legally protected bird of prey or even someones pet dog/cat. The old chestnut I only use it to kill vermin such as Foxes etc, just doesn't wash, especially when the poison substance is illegal in the first place. What else are these morally deficient people capable of. 

Regardless of who these people are, they are criminals who are working outside the law, I don't care if they are gamekeepers, estate workers, farmers, crofters, pigeon fanciers or whatever they like to call themselves, if they are killing protected Raptors and other protected wildlife with whichever method they choose, then they are criminals and should be brought to justice. What gives them the right to kill our protected birds of prey, if I or anyone went onto estate land and started shooting, trapping etc, the Pheasants, Partridge, Grouse, Deer and Salmon there, then we'd very soon be up in court for poaching and have the book thrown at us for crimes against the establishment, our guns and cars would be confiscated and we would be heavily fined or jailed or both. Should work both ways but it doesn't does it !!! 

SO WHAT'S THE DIFFERENCE ??? BOTH ARE ILLEGAL, why is it OK for them to do what they want with our protected wildlife and be virtually immune from the law. What's the point in making these laws if they don't apply to everyone; the chief constables, the sheriffs and the judges turn a blind eye when it suits them, and it certainly suits them when it comes down to upholding the so-called protected wildlife laws.

*Is this normal behaviour, gloryfying the kill by a wanton display of the hunters blood lust.*

*24 Foxes on a gibbet at Skelpick.*


*56 Hooded Crows on a keepers gibbet at Syre.*


*Moles on a gibbet at Skelpick.*



*I have many more like these.*

_nirofo._

----------


## Walter Ego

> Walter, you and Anfield would argue black is white. I appreciate you have crossed swords in the past on other issues. 
> 
> But do you really think poisoning birds of prey is a good idea?


Absolutely not.

I don't even like the idea of poisioning rats and mice - I've always used humane traps to kill them rather than put down poison in the house and outbuildings - even though I'm sure it's less effective.


It's a rotten, indiscriminate way to die. I may disagree with vehemently Anfields 'anti' stance - but like many people who shoot and fish I have the greatest respect for my quarry and the countryside.

----------


## Kenn

I just don't understand the thinking of some people.
I am a farmer's daughter and my father never trapped or shot appart from the odd occasion for the pot.
We all see the damage that rabbits do,he took the view that as natural predators of them, foxes and buzzards were welcome pest controllers
The chicken house was kept well secured and fenced and I cannot remember an instance of wild animals ever causing carnage.He was also adamant that the then legal hunt was under no circumstances to ride his land.
Surely if you are breeding pheasants, grouse and the like you ensure that the rearing pens are fox proof and if they are not, then what are you paying a gamekeepers wages for?
Some folk need to take a long hard look at their predjudices and realise that by trying to eliminate the so called pests, they are tinkering with the balance of nature and therefore have no right to complain about the consequences.

----------


## Aaldtimer

Nirofo, may I ask when those disgusting photos were taken? ::

----------


## Ricco

This is a very old practice that was abolished many years ago.  Just goes to show that estates still employ the old, the thick and the law breakers to do their dirty work.  ::

----------


## nirofo

> Nirofo, may I ask when those disgusting photos were taken?


They were taken in the 90's and you're right they are disgusting, it just goes to show that some people have not evolved much further than the Neanderthals and still need to show off their prowess as hunter gatherers.

Here's another sickening photo, disgusting isn't it ?

*Keepers Gibbet.*


_nirofo._

----------


## Anfield

> "..but like many people who shoot and fish I have the greatest respect for my quarry and the countryside.."


So you "respect" a living thing,  then blast it to kingdom come!
I wonder what you do to animals you do not respect

----------


## Walter Ego

> So you "respect" a living thing, then blast it to kingdom come!
> I wonder what you do to animals you do not respect


I either shoot vermin - which are definitely causing a problem, not just shooting them because I can.

Or I eat what I shoot, sometimes this includes the vermin.

I enjoy the whole process of hunting, something which more primitive societies would still be in tune to. But many of us have lost the 'instinct' to hunt. So be it. If you don't 'get' the idea of respecting an animal and killing it at the same time, then you had better become a vegetarian.

BTW, there are no animals that I do not respect. More than can be said of many 'antis', they'll wail about cruelty and respect for the furry woodland folk and then go to the supermarket and buy some 'cheap' pork or an intensively reared chicken :: .

Are these people hypocritical or just dumb and ignorant? Or all three?

----------


## nirofo

> I either shoot vermin - which are definitely causing a problem, not just shooting them because I can.
> 
> Or I eat what I shoot, sometimes this includes the vermin.
> 
> I enjoy the whole process of hunting, something which more primitive societies would still be in tune to. But many of us have lost the 'instinct' to hunt. So be it. If you don't 'get' the idea of respecting an animal and killing it at the same time, then you had better become a vegetarian.
> 
> BTW, there are no animals that I do not respect. More than can be said of many 'antis', they'll wail about cruelty and respect for the furry woodland folk and then go to the supermarket and buy some 'cheap' pork or an intensively reared chicken.
> 
> Are these people hypocritical or just dumb and ignorant? Or all three?


 
By your own admission you have proved that you kill wildlife for pleasure, by pointing out the fact that your food requirements are available at the supermarket, you have negated any other reason for your wanton blood lust.  

I agree with you in respect to intensive rearing of animals for our food, but, unfortunately this has become a necessity born out by the huge amount of mouths it has to feed worldwide.  Not so the killing for pleasure or hatred of our scarce and in some cases extremely rare wildlife, no necessity there, just the neanderthal lust to kill something that can't fight back.  Just because you may be able to eat some of the wildlife you kill doesn't make it right, especially when you don't need to, you can buy all your food requirements pre-packaged in the supermarket.

As for being hypocritical, dumb or ignorant, some maybe, but then, not all of us.  Many of us can see the carnage and devastation that's being heaped on our wildlife and the environment by the so-called 'sporting men' who think nothing of producing Pheasants, Partridge and Grouse in such unnaturally large numbers that the normal eco system cannot support them without interference from man.  They then sytematically destroy everthing with an hooked beak or a claw in the bigoted belief that they have the right because they are a threat to their artificially supported game birds.

This may well have been the common practice in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, but this is the 21st century and the Victorians died out over a hundred years ago.  A very large majority of us want to see the birds of prey prosper unmolested and unpersecuted, we deplore your archaic blood sport, especially as you think the only way you can sustain it is by killing off all the magnificent birds of prey.  Although we don't like it, many of us would probably tolerate it if you weren't so hell bent on exterminating the predators, in particular the rare and so-called protected Raptors. 

_nirofo_.

----------


## Walter Ego

> By your own admission you have proved that you kill wildlife for pleasure, by pointing out the fact that your food requirements are available at the supermarket, you have negated any other reason for your wanton blood lust.....


"My wanton bloodlust...."

 ::  





> I agree with you in respect to intensive rearing of animals for our food, but, unfortunately this has become a necessity born out by the huge amount of mouths it has to feed worldwide.....


No argument from me there.




> .....Not so the killing for pleasure or hatred of our scarce and in some cases extremely rare wildlife, no necessity there, just the neanderthal lust to kill something that can't fight back. Just because you may be able to eat some of the wildlife you kill doesn't make it right, especially when you don't need to, you can buy all your food requirements pre-packaged in the supermarket.......


And I suppose the slaughtermen apologise to every individual animal before smashing its' skull in with a captive bolt or electrocuting it? Maybe they weep into ther pillows every night too.

As for food being on a supermarket shelf negating the 'need' to shoot for food, I believe I can righly assume that you are of the belief that meat is a mere commodity to be processed in factory conditions for the 'consumer'. 

At least the animals I kill have lead a free and natural life with a swift end in their own surroundings. Not penned up in an alien environment after being shipped God knows how many miles in cramped conditions after a life of being 'processed' for maximum meat return.

I'd say your stance comes from one of NIMBYism - you're happy for people to process and kill animals in a dubious fashion...as long as it is done well away from you and enables you to buy your meat 'guilt free', neatly packaged and without anything that might trouble your sanctimonious conciensce. Far easier for you to target 'them' when your hands are blood free, isn't it?

You know jack all about this subject, that's for sure.






> As for being hypocritical, dumb or ignorant, some maybe, but then, not all of us.


Please see above.




> Many of us can see the carnage and devastation that's being heaped on our wildlife and the environment by the so-called 'sporting men' who think nothing of producing Pheasants, Partridge and Grouse in such unnaturally large numbers that the normal eco system cannot support them without interference from man. They then sytematically destroy everthing with an hooked beak or a claw in the bigoted belief that they have the right because they are a threat to their artificially supported game birds.


Sweeping generalisations are always a pretty dumb card to play. It's like saying all Scousers wear shellsuits.

In any group there will always be those who are on the fringes or outside of the law. This applies to Estates as much as it does Antis'. I know many Estates work tirelessly to improve the habitat of their land to benefit biodiversity on a scale that hasn't been seen before. they put up their own money and labour to help something that is of no direct commercial value whatsoever.




> .......This may well have been the common practice in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, but this is the 21st century and the Victorians died out over a hundred years ago. A very large majority of us want to see the birds of prey prosper unmolested and unpersecuted, we deplore your archaic blood sport, especially as you think the only way you can sustain it is by killing off all the magnificent birds of prey....


There you go again with sweeping and unsustainable statements.




> .....Although we don't like it, many of us would probably tolerate it if you weren't so hell bent on exterminating the predators, in particular the rare and so-called protected Raptors. 
> 
> _nirofo_.


Who? Me personally? Or anyone who carries a gun or runs an estate? I've never killed a bird of prey in my life. In fact I can honestly say I've never met anyone who has. As for predators - foxes I've shot, yes. But only when I've had a definite problem with one. Stoats and weasels, never.

----------


## Leanne

> I agree with you in respect to intensive rearing of animals for our food, but, unfortunately this has become a necessity born out by the huge amount of mouths it has to feed worldwide.


Actually it has come about from the public's demand for cheap meat...

----------


## northener

> By your own admission you have proved that you kill wildlife for pleasure, by pointing out the fact that your food requirements are available at the supermarket, you have negated any other reason for your wanton blood lust. 
> 
> I agree with you in respect to intensive rearing of animals for our food, but, unfortunately this has become a necessity born out by the huge amount of mouths it has to feed worldwide. Not so the killing for pleasure or hatred of our scarce and in some cases extremely rare wildlife, no necessity there, just the neanderthal lust to kill something that can't fight back. Just because you may be able to eat some of the wildlife you kill doesn't make it right, especially when you don't need to, you can buy all your food requirements pre-packaged in the supermarket.
> 
> As for being hypocritical, dumb or ignorant, some maybe, but then, not all of us. Many of us can see the carnage and devastation that's being heaped on our wildlife and the environment by the so-called 'sporting men' who think nothing of producing Pheasants, Partridge and Grouse in such unnaturally large numbers that the normal eco system cannot support them without interference from man. They then sytematically destroy everthing with an hooked beak or a claw in the bigoted belief that they have the right because they are a threat to their artificially supported game birds.
> 
> This may well have been the common practice in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, but this is the 21st century and the Victorians died out over a hundred years ago. A very large majority of us want to see the birds of prey prosper unmolested and unpersecuted, we deplore your archaic blood sport, especially as you think the only way you can sustain it is by killing off all the magnificent birds of prey. Although we don't like it, many of us would probably tolerate it if you weren't so hell bent on exterminating the predators, in particular the rare and so-called protected Raptors. 
> 
> _nirofo_.


Hmmmm.

You seem to be accusing everyone who shoots, fishes, owns an estate or even works on one of killing raptors. As Walter says, using a scattergun approach just makes a mockery of your own argument.

I can't be arsed to get dragged back into the whole 'Estate good/bad' argument again, I've made my feelings clear before on this subject.

But...Nirofo, seeing as you appear to view all those who shoot and fish for pleasure as nothing more than satisfying their 'blood lust' (made me laugh too), could you place the following chappie in the good or bad camp for me? You see, he's a bit of a role model for me and I'd like to know what the 'Anti' stance is regarding him:

Hugh Fearnley-Whittingstall.

----------


## ducati

> Hugh Fearnley-Whittingstall.


Yep, Psychopath  ::

----------


## Anfield

> could you place the following chappie in the good or bad camp for me? You see, he's a bit of a role model for me and I'd like to know what the 'Anti' stance is regarding him:  Hugh Fearnley-Whittingstall.


Cannibal as well

His fame or infamy increased a hundred fold in 1998 when he cooked a  human placenta on TV Dinners . He made it into a pâté that was much  enjoyed by the baby's family and friends. But it caused huge outrage in  Daily Mail -reading circles who seemed to equate it with cannibalism.. Article

----------


## nirofo

> Hmmmm.
> 
> You seem to be accusing everyone who shoots, fishes, owns an estate or even works on one of killing raptors. As Walter says, using a scattergun approach just makes a mockery of your own argument.
> 
> I can't be arsed to get dragged back into the whole 'Estate good/bad' argument again, I've made my feelings clear before on this subject.
> 
> But...Nirofo, seeing as you appear to view all those who shoot and fish for pleasure as nothing more than satisfying their 'blood lust' (made me laugh too), could you place the following chappie in the good or bad camp for me? You see, he's a bit of a role model for me and I'd like to know what the 'Anti' stance is regarding him:
> 
> Hugh Fearnley-Whittingstall.


 
You miss the point, I have no objection to the general shooter who has a keen interest in the well being and protection of wildlife, in particular the Raptors who suffer extensively at the hands of the organised shoots and estates.  I was brought up in a hunting, shooting and fishing fraternity and know first hand the devastation that a well organised keeper can wreake on anything with a hooked beak or claw.  My uncle was head keeper on one of the best grouse moors in the country for years, I've seen the logs he kept of the long list of Raptors killed just so that the so-called peers of the realm etc, can shoot more Red Grouse.  I've seen them use just about any method they can get away with to ensure the protected Raptors are removed from 'their' land, and they seem to get away with most things one way or another.

I never said all the estates are 'bad' as you put it, I know a few are doing great work in helping the Raptors and other wildlife prosper and do well.  Unfortunately they appear to be in a very small minority judging by the huge amount of persecution the Raptors are facing elsewhere.

Satisfying their blood lust, as I said previously, not all of them, but when you see a line of guns blasting away at a covey of partridge, or a flight of Red Grouse, or a group of Pheasants that have been purposely beaten out of cover and forced to fly terrified against their natural instincts over the waiting guns, and to be killed in huge numbers, well, YES.  This is what the majority of the estates and sydicates do.

As for Hugh Fearnley-Whittingstall, never heard of him until you mentioned him, however in brief, Wikipedia has him as a TV chef who moved from London to the country, bought a share in Tescos and started a campaign to stop battery produced chickens being sold in Tescos.  Didn't stop him killing chickens for food and using them on his TV shows however! 

In summary: 
I don't object to the general shooter who respects wildlife and protects Raptors, I do object vehemently to the estates and keepers who persecute our legally protected birds of prey.  

I don't personally like battery farming but appreciate it's a necessity in this day and age, too many people, too little food to go round.

I detest organised driven shoots where there are Red Grouse on the moors and hand reared partridge and Pheasants bred for release to the guns, they are the biggest culprits of Raptor persecution and engender the 'blood lust' among the shooters.

Finally, I have no thoughts whatever on Hugh Fearnley-Whittingstall, I've never watched his TV program and have no interest in doing so.  I wish him good luck on his endeavour to bring an end to battery chicken farming however. 

_nirofo_.

----------


## Kenn

Please don't let this thread turn into another me versus you.
I am aware of estates that promote good management and are even making money out of those who hunt with a camera, I am also aware of those that break the law.
There are always two sides to any aguement and whilst I can admire the skill of marksman or a fly fisher, neither appeals to me but that is my personal feeling.
What really annoys me is the attitude of some who seem to think they are above the law.
What really worries me is the attitude that I have the right to do what I like irrespective of the law and the lack of wild life protection officers to enforce it.

----------


## taylor

I am feeling sorry for the birds. I personally feel that it is high time that the police interfere and put an end to the barbaric practice of killing innocent birds. All game keepers who use Carbofuran should be put behind bars at least for 5 years. That is the only remedy for this problem.

----------


## dafi

Its interesting reading the back and forth.

I think there is little support from the constabulary, we are lucky and have a keen wildlife officer however we have little comercial shooting and no problem with this sort of crime. I think it is a different story across the water on the big land south.

Taylor is right there should be a five year term for offenders that release deadly poisons in to the enviroment with the intent of damaging the flora of fauna of the biosphere. It is a situation that is ramping out of hand and getting worse rather than better.

I posted this articall on my blog the other day. It makes sobering reading!

http://www.robedwards.com/2011/01/re...ng-fields.html

----------


## HowardM

Anyone out there interested in raptors should read the following site: http://raptorpolitics.org.uk/.

----------

