Completely sitting on the fence here, but how many of us practice culling or control of our own?
How many gardeners will happily kill off aphids and greenfly (organically or otherwise), or how many have a can of flyspray. These might seem a bit obscure, but thats my point. How far down the line do you go? Killing aphids will be done purely to protect a gardeners plants, its an aphid but its the same principle as culling magpies or woodpigeons.
Unfortunately like Bill points out, its a complicated subject. Man has irreversibly altered population dynamics for numerous species through habitat destruction, introductions, even activities no one would ever have dreamed could have affected the natural world in the ways they have. The choice now is do we try to put right what we have affected?
There has long been a debate between conservationists about intervention and non-intervention management and it rages on. I believe that most of the time decisions to intervene or not are based around science and data and are honestly made in the best interests of the species/habitat being protected. Whether I agree with their final decision is a different matter. Some more 'one sided' organisations I think choose to act how they do more on an emotional basis.
I also believe it becomes more of an issue when you are 'close' to the species/genus affected. Most people will not even blink an eye if you said you where planning to eradicate American Signal Crayfish from our watercourses (personally I'd love it if someone could), but a number of TV Chefs would probably have a mild panic. Hence birders will always be more likely to find control of bird species abhorent, yet how many of us will oppose mink trapping, especially if its in a bird reserve?
I'll now get off the fence .... on one side or the other!
-- Edited by Craig Higson on Friday 2nd of April 2010 08:48:44 PM
__________________
No one on their death bed ever said they wished they'd spent more time at work. http://bitsnbirds.blogspot.co.uk
A very thought provoking thread. It is a tricky one to reply to without being political in any way though.
All the species listed thus far have very individual reasons for being culled and therefore cannot be easily cross-compared. For example corvids and farm yield threat set against ruddy ducks and white-headed duck hybridisation threat. Personally, my sympathies are the same as yours Ian with regards to the confusing situation with the unchallenged culling of truly native species (corvids) and opposition to the control of the escaped Ruddy Ducks.
Henry.
-- Edited by Henry Cook on Friday 2nd of April 2010 06:21:23 PM
The fact that no one has dared to stick their head above the parapet on this topic shows what a difficult, almost taboo, subject it has become - but one that's surely worth discussing?
If we agree that wildlife will by and large benefit from some management and I do, although many won't agree - isn't this one of the many reasons why we have properly constituted and funded bird conservation and bird research organisations and charities? To my mind, we have to let these professional organisations decide on what is the best way forward, based on current best practice, scientific research, etc., on what are at times very difficult and divisive topics. If these organisations say after careful study and consideration that for example if x is harming y and we need to do z to prevent it, then I for one will go along with that solution (although not always happily!) If the research results later turns out to be flawed or incorrect, then I'm afraid the damage may already be done but if it was done at the time in good faith, based on what appeared to sound scientific reasons, then I don't think these organisations should be blamed retrospectively. However, if mistakes have been made, these organisations must be open enough to admit to them and learn from them and try to make sure that similar mistakes don't happen again.
There has to be hard "science" involved in wildlife decision making and in my opinion we are best to leave it to the "boffins"! I'm not in any way discounting an individual's right to an opinion on a particular subject, most of which are worth listening to but opinions are just opinions, whilst facts are facts. Using a scientific approach and the analysis of data before making decisions regarding wildlife hopefully will at least give some solid justification to any course of action being taken, more so than all the varied and at times extreme opinions, sometimes with downright prejudices, that we may bring to all sorts of wildlife topics.
So theoretically that's the simple bit! Even though there might be hard scientific facts, getting all the relevant organisations - RSPB, WWT, DEFRA, etc - to agree on their "interpretation" and a common course of action isn't always as straightforward as it should seem! Plus there are always those who don't believe in any form of science anyway, regardless of what it may come up with - for example those global warming/climate change sceptics. But that's just opening up another can of worms!
Ok, this could be controversial but I'm quite a few thousand miles away from our county at the moment as so can't be clobbered with rocks thrown by disgruntled birders. And anyway, as always, I'm just sitting on the fence
I can't help thinking it slightly perplexing that some birders (just some mind) think it ok to cull Magpies, Woodpigeon, Cormorant etc but NOT our Ruddy Ducks . Leave the money side of things out of it with regards the Ruddy cull, but why do we get angry at culling a non-native species but not our old friend the Magpie? Not as pretty? Then look again and I think you'll find Magpies a much more beautiful bird when seen through non-opinionated glasses. I understand the whole 'over population' arguement etc but who are we to play God? Especially with species which should be here in the first place! Is it their fault if they profit from our impact on the enviroment?
So, simply, do we agree with selective culling for some some species but disagree with others? And if so then why.
Oh and remember, I have no opinion either way so it's not good having a go at me and let's keep a fair fight and to the point. There are allsorts of opinions out there no doubt and we should respect them all whether they follow ours or not.
On roughly the same subject but at a slight tangent there is an article by Magnus Linklater in todays (31/3) Times entitled "Controlling predators can save the Curlew".
Individuals dont have to apply for the licence but their actions must be covered by one of the licences - if that makes sense - so the avearge Pigeon shooter will not have his own licence but will need to operate under the requirements of the general licence. Many of the 'pest' or 'vermin' species are controlled under these licences - species such as Canada Goose, Woodpigeon etc. Hopefully the link to Ne or this one:
If the research results later turns out to be flawed or incorrect, then I'm afraid the damage may already be done but if it was done at the time in good faith, based on what appeared to sound scientific reasons, then I don't think these organisations should be blamed retrospectively. However, if mistakes have been made, these organisations must be open enough to admit to them and learn from them and try to make sure that similar mistakes don't happen again. 
I'm not in any way discounting an individual's right to an opinion on a particular subject, most of which are worth listening to but opinions are just opinions, whilst facts are facts. Using a scientific approach and the analysis of data before making decisions regarding wildlife hopefully will at least give some solid justification to any course of action being taken, more so than all the varied and at times extreme opinions, sometimes with downright prejudices, 
that we may bring to all sorts of wildlife topics. 
But that's just opening up another can of worms! 
. Leave the money side of things out of it with regards the Ruddy cull, but why do we get angry at culling a non-native species but not our old friend the Magpie? Not as pretty? Then look again and I think you'll find Magpies a much more beautiful bird when seen through non-opinionated glasses. I understand the whole 'over population' arguement etc but who are we to play God? Especially with species which should be here in the first place! Is it their fault if they profit from our impact on the enviroment?