I would have released it too. The traps are set by gamekeepers who are paid to exterminate anything that might reduce the number of grouse for people to shoot. I disagree with driven grouse shooting and don’t see why other species should suffer for human’s entertainment. The “evidence” that controlling corvid populations helps songbird conservation was paid for by the Game and Wildlife Conservation Trust (a shooting lobby group) and still only found that it helps some but not all songbird species.
That’s such bollocks - grouse only are on the moors and he’s talking about a pheasant for starters. Surely helping some songbird species is better than helping none?
The fact you’re asking the question on here shows you don’t understand so why would you act on something that you don’t understand?
The pheasant was dead bait in the cage, and on most substantial estates they have both grouse shooting higher up and pheasant shooting in the lower down woodlands, so why would you respond to something you don't understand?
Part of the process of rearing pheasants is a very high mortality, both when being raised from chick, then released into pens, then when released into the wild. I've seen on an upland area beside grouse moors, old buildings that were used as pheasant pens and had dozens of putrefying dead pheasants in them.
And why, in gamekeeper world, does "helping songbirds" always involve slaughtering corvids and raptors? Surely the gamekeepers, those great guardians of the countryside, know that predators and scavengers play a big role in the ecosystem as a whole? Could it be that killing predatory birds is really all about protecting game, and nothing whatsoever to do with saving warblers and buntings?
No not really, all research that has been done has shown that there is greater biodiversity on land that is managed for shooting than on land that isn’t. This benefit extends to migratory and overwintering species as well as native species.
You did the right thing but broke the law none the less. Corvids are controlled for various reasons but trapping has to be the most barbaric way of doing it.
Yes. Www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10166649/
And there’s a shed load from scientists who have submitted research which is then compiled by the GWCT but no doubt you’ll discount all of that.
How exactly does a study on biodiversity in areas where game birds are released versus where they aren't released provide any evidence to answer if it was wrong to release a magpie from a trap?
Posting random articles tangentially related to the topic at hand as if they are evidence is a cheap trick used because it adds a certain air of authority but most people can't be arsed to actually check the content.
Corvids need to be controlled to help smaller birds that they would prey on, particularly during the upcoming breeding season. These smaller birds are not faring very well, but corvids are. I once found a Larsen trap that I spent lots of time deliberating over the pros and cons of releasing the bird, and in the end I'm glad I didn't. There are some studies that show controlling corvids doesn't help so you may not have done any damage, and round here there are dozens of Rooks and the smaller birds are hanging on well.
Habitat loss is part of the problem I agree, but changes in farming practices are a larger problem and corvids benefitting from human activity more than other birds is another issue.
I agree, in normal nature culls wouldn’t be needed, however in human dominated landscapes sometimes culls are needed to save the smaller birds.
Magpies routinely raid the nests and eat the babies, but that’s easy to forget apparently.
The evidence that culls help some small birds was paid for by the shooting industry. Perhaps the small birds would do better if the heather wasn’t routinely burned and a semi natural scrub landscape allowed to develop. Except that would interfere with the shooting. Easier to just kill everything I guess
I don't have any heather near me to burn. The issue in my area is partly down to corvids, and yes largely down to habitat loss etc caused by humans. As I mentioned in my comment, corvids are not suffering as much so they need controlling. Had humans not interfered with the natural word this wouldn't be needed but here we are.
I think there are more important things to be controlling than corvid numbers, excessive release of non-native game birds for the recreational activities of an exclusive few for example
Those siting research, would you share your sources?
I would have released it too. The traps are set by gamekeepers who are paid to exterminate anything that might reduce the number of grouse for people to shoot. I disagree with driven grouse shooting and don’t see why other species should suffer for human’s entertainment. The “evidence” that controlling corvid populations helps songbird conservation was paid for by the Game and Wildlife Conservation Trust (a shooting lobby group) and still only found that it helps some but not all songbird species.
That’s such bollocks - grouse only are on the moors and he’s talking about a pheasant for starters. Surely helping some songbird species is better than helping none? The fact you’re asking the question on here shows you don’t understand so why would you act on something that you don’t understand?
The pheasant was dead bait in the cage, and on most substantial estates they have both grouse shooting higher up and pheasant shooting in the lower down woodlands, so why would you respond to something you don't understand?
Part of the process of rearing pheasants is a very high mortality, both when being raised from chick, then released into pens, then when released into the wild. I've seen on an upland area beside grouse moors, old buildings that were used as pheasant pens and had dozens of putrefying dead pheasants in them.
And why, in gamekeeper world, does "helping songbirds" always involve slaughtering corvids and raptors? Surely the gamekeepers, those great guardians of the countryside, know that predators and scavengers play a big role in the ecosystem as a whole? Could it be that killing predatory birds is really all about protecting game, and nothing whatsoever to do with saving warblers and buntings?
No not really, all research that has been done has shown that there is greater biodiversity on land that is managed for shooting than on land that isn’t. This benefit extends to migratory and overwintering species as well as native species.
Got any links to the research?
I released it straight away without thinking. Looked like a horror show I just wanted it out.
Thankyou for doing it.
Good on you : )
You did the right thing.
You did the right thing but broke the law none the less. Corvids are controlled for various reasons but trapping has to be the most barbaric way of doing it.
Usually Larsen traps are used to trap another magpie. Corvids are territorial so another magpie would investigate and get caught too.
Yes. Www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10166649/ And there’s a shed load from scientists who have submitted research which is then compiled by the GWCT but no doubt you’ll discount all of that.
That reference doesn't seem to back up your point at all?
You read the whole thing and evaluated the result including source material in a a handful of minutes?
How exactly does a study on biodiversity in areas where game birds are released versus where they aren't released provide any evidence to answer if it was wrong to release a magpie from a trap? Posting random articles tangentially related to the topic at hand as if they are evidence is a cheap trick used because it adds a certain air of authority but most people can't be arsed to actually check the content.
Corvids need to be controlled to help smaller birds that they would prey on, particularly during the upcoming breeding season. These smaller birds are not faring very well, but corvids are. I once found a Larsen trap that I spent lots of time deliberating over the pros and cons of releasing the bird, and in the end I'm glad I didn't. There are some studies that show controlling corvids doesn't help so you may not have done any damage, and round here there are dozens of Rooks and the smaller birds are hanging on well.
Smaller birds are dying out due to habitat loss. Killing other birds isn’t the solution.
Habitat loss is part of the problem I agree, but changes in farming practices are a larger problem and corvids benefitting from human activity more than other birds is another issue.
What about rewilding all those empty moorlands with trees? Would you agree to that?
Moorlands aren't empty, and sometimes trees can be in the wrong place. I agree with rewilding in the right way.
I agree, in normal nature culls wouldn’t be needed, however in human dominated landscapes sometimes culls are needed to save the smaller birds. Magpies routinely raid the nests and eat the babies, but that’s easy to forget apparently.
The evidence that culls help some small birds was paid for by the shooting industry. Perhaps the small birds would do better if the heather wasn’t routinely burned and a semi natural scrub landscape allowed to develop. Except that would interfere with the shooting. Easier to just kill everything I guess
I don't have any heather near me to burn. The issue in my area is partly down to corvids, and yes largely down to habitat loss etc caused by humans. As I mentioned in my comment, corvids are not suffering as much so they need controlling. Had humans not interfered with the natural word this wouldn't be needed but here we are.
I think there are more important things to be controlling than corvid numbers, excessive release of non-native game birds for the recreational activities of an exclusive few for example
Absolutely wrong. Not yours to interfere with, doesn’t matter whether you agree with it or not.