Floods are caused by the shooting industry

All things Hunting, Fishing, Wildlife and Conservation related.

Moderator: dromia

Forum rules
"The Dromia Rule"

Deer Stalking… reliable word of mouth recommendation from someone you know has undertaken such stalking being offered by a specific syndicate is best. Like other walks of life, stalking has its scammers. E.G., make sure there is deer, of the species sought, on the land being made available; that appropriate insurance is in place; that there is recourse for recompense if it all goes wrong. In addition, obtain and understand terms and conditions; consider the implications of allowing a syndicate leader to be a FAC mentor; make sure ‘coaches’ are suitably qualified; consider the quality of deer management, the construction & execution of a shooting plan and safety; determine if the land is over-shot.

If in doubt, contact BASC or similar.

http://www.basc.org.uk/

Anyone considered to be a scammer will be banned without warning.
Message
Author
User avatar
Alpha1
Site Supporter Since 2020
Posts: 8553
Joined: Fri Nov 12, 2010 8:27 pm
Contact:

Re: Floods are caused by the shooting industry

#31 Post by Alpha1 »

I have removed you in my settings so I will no longer be able to see any of your posts.
User avatar
Pete
Past Supporter
Posts: 2947
Joined: Tue Sep 15, 2015 8:48 am
Home club or Range: NRA Bisley
Contact:

Re: Floods are caused by the shooting industry

#32 Post by Pete »

https://www.gwct.org.uk/advisory/briefi ... -drainage/

And

https://britishbirds.co.uk/article/does ... -flooding/

One vested interest (shooting driven grouse) says no, and another non-shooting bird welfare organisation says well, yes..........

Seconds out, round one..............

Pete
"Tantum religio potuit suadere malorum" Lucretius
You're offended? Please explain why your inability to control your emotions translates into me having to censor my opinions....
User avatar
Pete
Past Supporter
Posts: 2947
Joined: Tue Sep 15, 2015 8:48 am
Home club or Range: NRA Bisley
Contact:

Re: Floods are caused by the shooting industry

#33 Post by Pete »

And before the trolls start, I'm totally opposed to shooting anything live unless it's A: For the table, and B: In moderation, which rules out driven grouse, pheasant, and anything else reared primarily to be killed for fun.

Pete
"Tantum religio potuit suadere malorum" Lucretius
You're offended? Please explain why your inability to control your emotions translates into me having to censor my opinions....
User avatar
Dark Skies
Posts: 2824
Joined: Tue Apr 22, 2014 11:02 am
Home club or Range: NRA
Contact:

Re: Floods are caused by the shooting industry

#34 Post by Dark Skies »

Alpha1 wrote:I have removed you in my settings so I will no longer be able to see any of your posts.
You know, until you mentioned this, I had no idea that the facility existed. So thanks for that.
"I don't like my job and I don't think I'm gonna go anymore."
Laurie
Posts: 650
Joined: Mon Dec 20, 2010 8:20 pm

Re: Floods are caused by the shooting industry

#35 Post by Laurie »

I know b*gg*r-all about the real technical ins and outs of heather moor ecology and drainage, but have followed a lot of commentary on it. Some things are either notable or irrefutable:

1) a lot of so-called scientific studies on ecological issues / environments are anything but objective these days in that they're commissioned by one side or the other and in such cases are often not put forward for peer review. So both end up claiming they have science on their side. I have read more than once though that there is only a single such peer-reviewed study that says grouse moor management adds to the problem; all others either say not or the evidence is so marginal they can't decide one way or the other. Everybody without an axe to grind though agrees that agricultural or forestry drainage works have accelerated run-offs. The 1950s/60s Min of Ag grants for 'grippage' to improve uplands for sheep grazing appears to have been particularly disastrous as well as failing in its primary objective. (I've many times seen 'grips' wrongly ascribed to grouse moor management, probably in some cases knowingly as misinformation.)

2. There have been huge changes in upland land management and grazing from WW2 onwards. Some years back, I read an article that said that sheep density on many uplands was still running at four times the immediate post-war level. Heavy grazing or over-grazing reduces plant cover and makes land more susceptible to erosion. I don't know if grazing density has since reduced.

3. It's the sinks, dips, holes, ponds, ditches etc on the moors and their complex mix of sphagnum mosses that provide a great deal of the sponge effect that is regarded as desirable to slow run-offs and soak up short-term heavy rain. Man made activity whether agricultural or industrial has done a great deal of damage here through drainage, repasturising, forestry, or industrial effluents. The moors to the east / north east of Greater Manchester became ecological disaster zones because of 150 years of acid rain from coal burning factories and mills. An EU, National Trust, landowners regeneration project around the top sections of the M62 recently finished to restore the moors' acid levels and reseed moss spores - using chemical treatments and then immature mosses spread over large areas by helicopter. Much moorland has a low water retentive capacity as you have a shallow layer of grasses / heather over peat or soil on top of rock. Anybody who has shot on Diggle Ranges will have noticed how quickly rills on the valley sides turn into torrents flowing into the Diggle Brook, but equally quickly run-off after the rain stops. I asked about this once and was told that you can hardly put a spade fully into the valley slopes before hitting rock. (Trees have been recently planted above and either side of the range as part of the Mersey to Humber 'forest' project- it'll be interesting to see if they change this situation.)

3) Many academics specialising in upland ecosystems say that it's essential to strip-burn heather on 'grouse moors' to avoid disaster. This has nothing to do with their ability to support grouse, rather reducing fire risk. The Saddleworth Moors fires a few years ago which threatened residential areas on the west side of Grtr Manchester and nearly became a pollution and ecological disaster were ascribed entirely by several academic experts to land management that had stopped burning. For PR reasons, Utd Utilities which owns these moors had contracted the management job out to the RSPB which a) stopped grouse shooting and b) left the moors to grow unchecked for around 12 years prior to the fires. When dry / dead heather growth reaches a given height / density it becomes a greater fire hazard and also - the real risk, once alight it generates high enough temperatures for long enough to ignite the peat soils underneath during a drought. In this case, the landowners's employees - including far more from neighbouring grouse [shooting] moor tenants (the RSPB's 'benign neglect' employing few people) , fire services and Army finally put the fires out and avoided a long-running, near permanent ground / underground fire, but it was reportedly a near-run thing. Two things reflecting on the state of public information and debate on such issues arose indirectly out of this incident. First (and ludicrously) a number of anti blood sports / eco commentators / organisations jumped into print and online to say - look at the dangers / horrors of grouse moors being burned to increase bird numbers, before they rapidly retracted when it was pointed out the land was managed by the RSPB / had been deliberately been left unburned; secondly, the independent environmental academic criticisms of the policy received little coverage and if you Google these fires today, the whole tenor is one of it being a 100% symptom / result of 'climate change', not moorland management change.

4) Grouse moors above Bradford (i/c Ilkley Moor with or without 'at') were bought by the council (BDC) a few decades back with the express purpose of stopping this nasty activity (grouse shooting). Do some research on what has happened to the moor since - a wilderness now of rough grasses and even more so out of control bracken. Around 12 or 15 years ago BDC became so concerned about the state of the moor it brought in environmental consultants who said the moor was close to terminal decline and permanent ruination (which are legal / international failures under our obligations to conserve heather uplands >80% of which are in this country). Either BDC and its community charge payers would have to spend ~£1m pa on regenerating / managing it properly or it was 'finished' within a few years .... or relet the moors to the grouse shooters with the lease insisting on them doing it. BDC did the latter (against ferocious local and national opposition from anti-blood sports organisations none of whom offered to take the job or cost on though), but I have a feeling that may have since been revoked after a change of local governing party. The point here is that 'somebody' ultimately has to pay to keep these environments in good condition @Pete might not like driven grouse shooting - I don't myself particularly - but until now rich game shooting types (from around the world, also putting lots of money into other rural businesses such as hotels and restaurants) have just about provided the dosh. Arguably, once we're completely out of the EU, there will be even fewer grants for relatively esoteric land management and restoration projects and I don't see the residents of East Lancs / West Yorks ringing up BoJo or his chancellor anytime soon and saying, "Look Boris, moorland restoration / upkeep without grouse shooting is a higher priority than improved education, housing, upgraded Trans-Pennine rail electrification / HS3 etc, etc.)

Grouse moors are only a small part of river catchments and water control. Instead of ploughing lots of money into flood walls around Pickering Beck in the town itself, the EA and landowners of the North Yorks Moors upland stretches that feed this stream are investing in upland swamps / ponds create overflow catchments, building artificial 'beaver-type' dams, tree planting on key run-off slopes to slow water movement and doing lots of other things. This appears to be working so far. In all the recent debate / letter-writing George Monbiot type 'informed' pieces on lower level catchments / value of ditch and river drainage, I saw a very interesting comment of the effects from changes to or destruction of hedgerows and how much water they soak up and disperse. Figures were quoted for what a single mature elm drank before Dutch Elm came along - not much use now in February I suppose having more trees in field boundaries, but very valuable for storms during the growing season.

I live on the Yorkshire Ouse flood plain my house less than half a mile from the river that regularly floods on this stretch. Right now, the village Facebook Community Group page is full of angst and a bit of blame-calling. However, we've lived in this village since the mid-80s and over those 35 years, I'd guess two thirds of front gardens in the village are now paved or have gravel above a non water permeable barrier, all to accommodate residents' second and third cars because their drives couldn't accommodate more than one (or did, but needed lots of shunting depending on which was to be used first next morning). Back gardens have acquired decking, paved areas for barbecues, etc etc. Perhaps many people - including those at risk of flooding themselves - need to look in their mirrors - or at their own houses to see what materials they're made of - before they start throwing stones at others.
TRG-22
Posts: 365
Joined: Tue Jan 14, 2020 5:41 pm
Home club or Range: Make me an offer.
Location: West London

Re: Floods are caused by the shooting industry

#36 Post by TRG-22 »

Laurie wrote:I know b*gg*r-all about the real technical ins and outs of heather moor ecology and drainage, but have followed a lot of commentary on it.
Be careful - it's not unknown for those advocating doing things like that rather than stopping following commentary or stopping reading things or ignoring and shouting at people who have different opions, get accused of trolling.
Tory voters. Next election. Stay at home. Protect the NHS. Save lives.
User avatar
dromia
Site Admin
Posts: 19964
Joined: Sat Nov 06, 2010 4:57 am
Home club or Range: The Highlands of Scotland. Cycling Proficiency 1964. Felton & District rifle club. Teesdale Pistol and Rifle club.
Location: Sutherland and Co Durham
Contact:

Re: Floods are caused by the shooting industry

#37 Post by dromia »

Laurie is simply explaining his view and why he holds it not proselytising his "method" for arriving at such a view.

There is a difference which might be helpful to you on here, in the main I enjoy your posts but taking a view on things requires a bit more that just evidence weighing, opinion and experience also get involved and if applied circumspectly aids getting to a view.

You must remember that these forums are more like a domestic sitting room that a formal debating chamber and as such many of us are well know to each other both in real life as well as on here so much of the current discussion is just the tip of an ongoing iceberg with much of the substance that drives opinions here having been well covered here over the years and "evidence" considered in detail.

The other issue for many of us having seen over the decades how "evidence" is created around these topics not for the benefit of the environment, or wildlife, or the climate, or aunty Nelly's piles but as vehicle to purely ban legal gun ownership so a certain cynicism about evidence is only natural, especially collateral evidence. Combine that with Laurie's very pertinent point about lack of robust peer review, the pure money making agenda of academia and research and getting reliable evidence is difficult add to that the sheer volume of "research" available and getting a meaningful evidence based view is fraught to say the least, so we all have to fall back on opinion and experience to help us.

Many years ago when Tory Blair came to power he set away Policy Action Team initiatives, The PATs, I worked on a couple of them and and the object was to try and create evidence based policy around specific issues. After about eighteen months, reports being published, presentations being made and dummies being spat most of these initiatives had withered on the vine mainly because there was enough evidence out their to agree and policy no matter how diametrically opposed, at the end of the day the decision makers had to decide how much value they placed on the evidence being used and it interpretation, at the end of the day opinion, experience, including bias, and agenda all played the part in the policy development.

Even after all this Blair never learned and went forward with his shoddy Iraqi dossier to give us an evidence base for war.

Interesting how politicians never look for evidence about the success of their polices herein being one of the failings of modern politics, politicians and civil servants considered the policy the outcome rather than the success of the policy in achieving what it was intended to do as the outcome.

You have had a rough couple of days on here but don't let that put you off and bring out pique which doesn't do you any service, hold onto your views but also respect other peoples opinions even if arrived from different and perhaps not understood routes, many on here have been alive a long time and have seen many things come and go, to go back to the sitting room analogy to fit in you must take the people whose hearth you are at with some lee way, disagreement is absolutely fine but to be honest in this small community fitting in always helps. Many of us have professional lives and coming here sometimes is a release from those shackles so language, hair and sometimes quality of debate go down but at the end of the day the most important thing here is that people have fun.

You have spent a bit of time reading here by the looks of things and I would suggest that as well as the subject matter evidence you look at the evidence of the interactions them selves which could be insightful to you.

One thing that has always struck me about the majority of our members here is their integrity and responsibility and that is something that should be remembered when reading posts, which is what they are here, not learned theses.

Unless of course you are Laurie Holland. :good:
Image

Come on Bambi get some

Imperial Good Metric Bad
Analogue Good Digital Bad

Fecking stones

Real farmers don't need subsidies

Cow's farts matter!

For fine firearms and requisites visit

http://www.pukkabundhooks.com/
TRG-22
Posts: 365
Joined: Tue Jan 14, 2020 5:41 pm
Home club or Range: Make me an offer.
Location: West London

Re: Floods are caused by the shooting industry

#38 Post by TRG-22 »

Pete wrote:And before the trolls start, I'm totally opposed to shooting anything live unless it's A: For the table, and B: In moderation, which rules out driven grouse, pheasant, and anything else reared primarily to be killed for fun.
I'm with you on (A), as long as it ends up on somebody's table, and not doused in magic fire water and destroyed.

(B) I'm more conflicted over. Is it literally the fun of killing at is going on? I doubt it. Is it taking pleasure and pride in your skills? Probably more like it. I admit I'm uncomfortable with some of the more egregious examples of "trophy hunting", but AFAIK there isn't much big game to make trophies in the UK. A a slaughterman may have professional pride in his ability to despatch an animal quickly and painlessly and without distressing it without it being said that he is killing for fun, so why not some banker on a Scottish hillside?

Having animals reared or managed for hunting purposes has been going on since mediaeval kings and lords started having deer parks, but in principle is it any worse than sheds full of chickens, pigs reared indoors, etc? I think not.

To what extent it counts as "hunting" when it's deliberately made, if not easy, then at least easier by having too many deer per square km, or large numbers of reared and driven birds is another matter. I've seen Americans claim that they go "hunting bear" when what they mean is they sit in an elevated platform waiting for a bear to approach a feeding station. But however much they delude themselves about being the mighty hunter, that bear will have had a better life than a factory chicken, or a feed-lot cow. And if they eat the thing instead of Chicken McNuggets, or if someone eats the pheasant/grouse/venison which some rich guy has paid to shoot at, isn't the overall balance of animal welfae improved? And is that improvement to be disregarded if the shooting has been tilted towards being easier than "true" hunting?
Tory voters. Next election. Stay at home. Protect the NHS. Save lives.
User avatar
Blackstuff
Site Supporter Since 2015
Posts: 7709
Joined: Sun Nov 07, 2010 1:01 pm
Contact:

Re: Floods are caused by the shooting industry

#39 Post by Blackstuff »

Laurie wrote:

I live on the Yorkshire Ouse flood plain my house less than half a mile from the river that regularly floods on this stretch. Right now, the village Facebook Community Group page is full of angst and a bit of blame-calling. However, we've lived in this village since the mid-80s and over those 35 years, I'd guess two thirds of front gardens in the village are now paved or have gravel above a non water permeable barrier, all to accommodate residents' second and third cars because their drives couldn't accommodate more than one (or did, but needed lots of shunting depending on which was to be used first next morning). Back gardens have acquired decking, paved areas for barbecues, etc etc. Perhaps many people - including those at risk of flooding themselves - need to look in their mirrors - or at their own houses to see what materials they're made of - before they start throwing stones at others.
Following the floods of 2007 planning law was changed so that a person requires planning permission to pave over, repave or otherwise create a hardstanding over 5sqm in area to the front of their property if it is not constructed of permeable/porous materials or some kind of soakaway system created that retains the surface water on their property and not feed into the existing drainage system. If you were daft enough to apply for planning permission for something that didn't have a responsible means of coping with the water the application was supposed to be refused out of principal. This was done to encourage people to take responsibility for their contribution to localised flooding.

1/ 12 years since implementation 99% of people don't know anything about it. 2/ There has been no effort by central or any local government (that i'm aware of) to tell joe public. 3/ Of the few paving companies that know about it, 99% ignore it. 4/ Even when people do find out about it they don't take it seriously, think they're being 'victimised' for being made to take responsibility for their contribution to flooding on housing estates. 5/ Enforcement of it has been lacklustre to say the least. Ah, humans. 8-) teanews
DVC
User avatar
dromia
Site Admin
Posts: 19964
Joined: Sat Nov 06, 2010 4:57 am
Home club or Range: The Highlands of Scotland. Cycling Proficiency 1964. Felton & District rifle club. Teesdale Pistol and Rifle club.
Location: Sutherland and Co Durham
Contact:

Re: Floods are caused by the shooting industry

#40 Post by dromia »

Aye the policy was the outcome not actually installing permeable paving.

Politicians can say they have done their job and nothing changes.
Image

Come on Bambi get some

Imperial Good Metric Bad
Analogue Good Digital Bad

Fecking stones

Real farmers don't need subsidies

Cow's farts matter!

For fine firearms and requisites visit

http://www.pukkabundhooks.com/
Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests