Packham Nicked

[The one 8,507]

I was hoping they would keep him in till his trail but thats today but when hes convicted will the bbc stand behind another convicted presenter so soon after saville if they dont be seen to publicly dump him the old bbc is going to look rotten to the core

[Born Hunter 17,809]

 

You haven't answered my question either though, do except hunting can have a negative effect? Or are you just too biased as a hunter to except that?

I honestly don't know much about this Packam case, but the chances that they over hunt in Malta is quite high. A good falconer friend was out there about 8 months ago, they have falconry there & I believe a club? But fcuk all to hunt. They actually buy pheasants at £15 a go to fly there falcons at. It's been over hunted there. Obviously I'm only to talking about game species, not migratory birds, but it adds up?

Of course I haven't got scientific papers for you born, I'm just taking a common sense approach.

 

 

That's because I found the question a bit insulting tbh..... No no of course you can't over hunt something, you can literally kill ever member of the species, but they'll just breed more the following spring, duh! LOL LOL

 

I haven't specifically commented on this Malta issue because I don't know the answer to the important question. I just felt it important to state how I believe we should approach these politically sensitive conservation/hunting issues. A friendly and civilised response to how KES2 felt we should approach them.

Edited April 20, 2017 by Born Hunter

[Accip74 7,112]

 

 

 

You haven't answered my question either though, do except hunting can have a negative effect? Or are you just too biased as a hunter to except that?

I honestly don't know much about this Packam case, but the chances that they over hunt in Malta is quite high. A good falconer friend was out there about 8 months ago, they have falconry there & I believe a club? But fcuk all to hunt. They actually buy pheasants at £15 a go to fly there falcons at. It's been over hunted there. Obviously I'm only to talking about game species, not migratory birds, but it adds up?

Of course I haven't got scientific papers for you born, I'm just taking a common sense approach.

That's because I found the question a bit insulting tbh..... No no of course you can't over hunt something, you can literally kill ever member of the species, but they'll just breed more the following spring, duh! LOL LOL

 

I haven't specifically commented on this Malta issue because I don't know the answer to the important question. I just felt it important to state how I believe we should approach these politically sensitive conservation/hunting issues. A friendly and civilised response to how KES2 felt we should approach them.

My point is sometimes common sense must prevail, otherwise where do you draw the line on proof? Maybe one piece of evidence will not be excepted, so perhaps we need multiple independent studies over more years etc etc etc & in the mean time we say "fcuk you, I'm going to crack on killing all I can......."

 

....& don't be so sensitive! Haha...

[DogMan85 722]

 

 

 

 

You haven't answered my question either though, do except hunting can have a negative effect? Or are you just too biased as a hunter to except that?

I honestly don't know much about this Packam case, but the chances that they over hunt in Malta is quite high. A good falconer friend was out there about 8 months ago, they have falconry there & I believe a club? But fcuk all to hunt. They actually buy pheasants at £15 a go to fly there falcons at. It's been over hunted there. Obviously I'm only to talking about game species, not migratory birds, but it adds up?

Of course I haven't got scientific papers for you born, I'm just taking a common sense approach.

That's because I found the question a bit insulting tbh..... No no of course you can't over hunt something, you can literally kill ever member of the species, but they'll just breed more the following spring, duh! LOL LOL

 

I haven't specifically commented on this Malta issue because I don't know the answer to the important question. I just felt it important to state how I believe we should approach these politically sensitive conservation/hunting issues. A friendly and civilised response to how KES2 felt we should approach them.

My point is sometimes common sense must prevail, otherwise where do you draw the line on proof? Maybe one piece of evidence will not be excepted, so perhaps we need multiple independent studies over more years etc etc etc & in the mean time we say "fcuk you, I'm going to crack on killing all I can......."

 

....& don't be so sensitive! Haha...

I think it's pretty obvious that killing things will have a negative impact on such creatures numbers.

 

The million dollar question is does the conservation efforts by hunters have a positive affect on numbers despite their hunting because let's face it man doesn't just wipe out animals due to hunting them.

Edited April 20, 2017 by DogMan85

[Accip74 7,112]

 

 

 

 

 

You haven't answered my question either though, do except hunting can have a negative effect? Or are you just too biased as a hunter to except that?

I honestly don't know much about this Packam case, but the chances that they over hunt in Malta is quite high. A good falconer friend was out there about 8 months ago, they have falconry there & I believe a club? But fcuk all to hunt. They actually buy pheasants at £15 a go to fly there falcons at. It's been over hunted there. Obviously I'm only to talking about game species, not migratory birds, but it adds up?

Of course I haven't got scientific papers for you born, I'm just taking a common sense approach.

That's because I found the question a bit insulting tbh..... No no of course you can't over hunt something, you can literally kill ever member of the species, but they'll just breed more the following spring, duh! LOL LOL

 

I haven't specifically commented on this Malta issue because I don't know the answer to the important question. I just felt it important to state how I believe we should approach these politically sensitive conservation/hunting issues. A friendly and civilised response to how KES2 felt we should approach them.

My point is sometimes common sense must prevail, otherwise where do you draw the line on proof? Maybe one piece of evidence will not be excepted, so perhaps we need multiple independent studies over more years etc etc etc & in the mean time we say "fcuk you, I'm going to crack on killing all I can......."

....& don't be so sensitive! Haha...

I think it's pretty obvious that killing things will have a negative impact on such creatures numbers.

Well you would assume it's a contributing factor! Haha....

[Born Hunter 17,809]

 

 

 

 

You haven't answered my question either though, do except hunting can have a negative effect? Or are you just too biased as a hunter to except that?

I honestly don't know much about this Packam case, but the chances that they over hunt in Malta is quite high. A good falconer friend was out there about 8 months ago, they have falconry there & I believe a club? But fcuk all to hunt. They actually buy pheasants at £15 a go to fly there falcons at. It's been over hunted there. Obviously I'm only to talking about game species, not migratory birds, but it adds up?

Of course I haven't got scientific papers for you born, I'm just taking a common sense approach.

That's because I found the question a bit insulting tbh..... No no of course you can't over hunt something, you can literally kill ever member of the species, but they'll just breed more the following spring, duh! LOL LOL

 

I haven't specifically commented on this Malta issue because I don't know the answer to the important question. I just felt it important to state how I believe we should approach these politically sensitive conservation/hunting issues. A friendly and civilised response to how KES2 felt we should approach them.

My point is sometimes common sense must prevail, otherwise where do you draw the line on proof? Maybe one piece of evidence will not be excepted, so perhaps we need multiple independent studies over more years etc etc etc & in the mean time we say "fcuk you, I'm going to crack on killing all I can......."

 

....& don't be so sensitive! Haha...

 

 

LOL, my post wasn't comprehensive enough to include what to do if the question of effect can't be answered. Clearly then you have to consider cautionary actions.

 

And while we're on the subject of caution, it should be applied to the use of common sense too! I've seen too often how a 'common sense' approach has been proven to be harmful. It would have been common sense not to allow hunting of South Africa's white rhinos when the population stood at only 1000. Fortunately there was a bit more thought applied than merely common sense.

 

I wasn't being sensitive, lol, I just don't answer questions that imply I'm stupid.

[Born Hunter 17,809]

 

 

I think it's pretty obvious that killing things will have a negative impact on such creatures numbers.

Well you would assume it's a contributing factor! Haha....

 

 

That's a straw man argument. You've replaced hunting practices with simply killing. In some circumstances they are equal but in most they are not. The question and approach I posed would take that into account. Alternatively, taking the view of "hunting is killing and common sense says killing is bad for conservation" is incredibly ignorant, only applicable to a small number of cases and actually harmful to the conservation of many species, some of which would be put at greater risk of becoming extinct.

Edited April 20, 2017 by Born Hunter

[Accip74 7,112]

 

 

 

 

 

You haven't answered my question either though, do except hunting can have a negative effect? Or are you just too biased as a hunter to except that?

I honestly don't know much about this Packam case, but the chances that they over hunt in Malta is quite high. A good falconer friend was out there about 8 months ago, they have falconry there & I believe a club? But fcuk all to hunt. They actually buy pheasants at £15 a go to fly there falcons at. It's been over hunted there. Obviously I'm only to talking about game species, not migratory birds, but it adds up?

Of course I haven't got scientific papers for you born, I'm just taking a common sense approach.

That's because I found the question a bit insulting tbh..... No no of course you can't over hunt something, you can literally kill ever member of the species, but they'll just breed more the following spring, duh! LOL LOL

 

I haven't specifically commented on this Malta issue because I don't know the answer to the important question. I just felt it important to state how I believe we should approach these politically sensitive conservation/hunting issues. A friendly and civilised response to how KES2 felt we should approach them.

My point is sometimes common sense must prevail, otherwise where do you draw the line on proof? Maybe one piece of evidence will not be excepted, so perhaps we need multiple independent studies over more years etc etc etc & in the mean time we say "fcuk you, I'm going to crack on killing all I can......."

....& don't be so sensitive! Haha...

LOL, my post wasn't comprehensive enough to include what to do if the question of effect can't be answered. Clearly then you have to consider cautionary actions.

 

And while we're on the subject of caution, it should be applied to the use of common sense too! I've seen too often how a 'common sense' approach has been proven to be harmful. It would have been common sense not to allow hunting of South Africa's white rhinos when the population stood at only 1000. Fortunately there was a bit more thought applied than merely common sense.

 

I wasn't being sensitive, lol, I just don't answer questions that imply I'm stupid.

Imply you are stupid?? I normally have re-read your posts 4 time before attempting a reply! Haha

[Accip74 7,112]

 

 

 

 

I think it's pretty obvious that killing things will have a negative impact on such creatures numbers.

Well you would assume it's a contributing factor! Haha....

That's a straw man argument. You've replaced hunting practices with simply killing. In some circumstances they are equal but in most they are not. The question and approach I posed would take that into account. Alternatively, taking the view of "hunting is killing and common sense says killing is bad for conservation" is incredibly ignorant, only applicable to a small number of cases and actually harmful to the conservation of many species, some of which would be put at greater risk of becoming extinct.

Yes I understand all that, I'm not stupid! But it can't be ruled out in this case. Sometimes it's just simply too much.

[sandymere 8,263]

 

 

 

Packham has made a 'stand' against the shooting of migratory turtle doves. Shooting in Malta is very tightly controlled in areas of shooting, species and numbers. Packham is a very strange animal himself and not above bending the truth or causing outrage.

He is a total nut, depressive and untruthful but sadly he uses his BBC publicity and personna to pursue his own agenda. I have written to the BBC about precisely this point - they are not remotely interested and say he is doing nothing wrong. The BBC are not the organisation they once were sadly.

 

However, we do need to be front-line conservationists. BASC or CA should be liasing with other international shooting groups and seeing what can be done to preserve species whilst accomodating some shooting. More importantly they should be publicising it, to counteract idiots like Packham. We need to be the front-line in the preservation of our sport and to do that we have to protect wildlife and their various habitats. Who could complain about a group which protects endangered wildfowl whilst allowing shooting of prolific species of wildfowl for example.

I don't disagree with any of that but those that oppose us and the majority of those that are fairly passive in their opposition do not care about science. I'll sit quoting case studies and GWCT papers to them all day, even to hunting folk that have a bone to pick with another hunting faction but it gets you nowhere. They're all ignorant bigots.

 

The fieldsports community already does a shit ton of conservation and research, but nobody cares about it.

 

The only question that needs to be asked regarding hunting and conservation is this "Does the legal hunting of this animal contribute negatively to conservation?". Even if the animal is critically endangered and not even currently hunted legally, this question should be asked, because simply taking the view that "the species is in trouble, it must be at least partially hunting's fault" is naive.

 

Stopping legal hunting of a species that is of conservation concern when the evidence doesn't support hunting being a contributing cause of that is nothing more than political.

But surely if you have a species that is of conservation concern, but then to say....."well you can't prove we've caused this problem, so well will just crack on killing it" is a bit ignorant & shirking responsibility, is it not?

You do except that over hunting can have negative affects?

 

 

I assume in that situation there has been no study into the causes of the decline? In which case we have not answered the important question that I posed. In that situation there is insufficient evidence to make a conclusion and it MUST be answered!

 

If there has been a study and hunting was not found to have a negative impact then further questions need to be asked. Critically "Would banning hunting negatively contribute to conservation?"!

 

Frankly if there has been a conclusive study then I absolutely would take the attitude of "f**k you my conscience is clear!". Like I said, I'll not bow to this attitude of 'hunting is bad, you just want to kill everything', which is essentially what drives all of this. Not science.

 

An argument from ignorance ie is a false dichotomy. In the case of a rapidly falling population number such as turtle doves it lacks the introduction of prior plausibility. I.e. hunting may well have a very small impact on populations but one would need to consider the common sense idea that even a small impact at a critical point may well have a much bigger long term effect.

In this case he reasons are multiple although reduction in food availability through changes in farming practices and the trichomonosis parasite are the likely major causes, both of which are difficult to alter. So addressing areas, such as trapping/shooting on migration, are viable and have prior plausibility ie less stress/disturbance on migration likely increasing success rates etc. Plus small populations are more heavily impacted by smaller number reductions than larger populations ie killing one hundred of a population of a million will have little impact but do the same with a population of a 1000………

[Born Hunter 17,809]

 

 

 

 

 

I think it's pretty obvious that killing things will have a negative impact on such creatures numbers.

Well you would assume it's a contributing factor! Haha....

That's a straw man argument. You've replaced hunting practices with simply killing. In some circumstances they are equal but in most they are not. The question and approach I posed would take that into account. Alternatively, taking the view of "hunting is killing and common sense says killing is bad for conservation" is incredibly ignorant, only applicable to a small number of cases and actually harmful to the conservation of many species, some of which would be put at greater risk of becoming extinct.

Yes I understand all that, I'm not stupid! But it can't be ruled out in this case. Sometimes it's just simply too much.

 

 

LOL, I honestly don't believe you are.

[Born Hunter 17,809]

 

 

An argument from ignorance ie is a false dichotomy. In the case of a rapidly falling population number such as turtle doves it lacks the introduction of prior plausibility. I.e. hunting may well have a very small impact on populations but one would need to consider the common sense idea that even a small impact at a critical point may well have a much bigger long term effect.

In this case he reasons are multiple although reduction in food availability through changes in farming practices and the trichomonosis parasite are the likely major causes, both of which are difficult to alter. So addressing areas, such as trapping/shooting on migration, are viable and have prior plausibility ie less stress/disturbance on migration likely increasing success rates etc. Plus small populations are more heavily impacted by smaller number reductions than larger populations ie killing one hundred of a population of a million will have little impact but do the same with a population of a 1000………

 

 

As I have said, I have made no attempt to comment on this specific situation. Simply how these issues should be approached.

 

If the above bold text is determined to be reasonable then the answer to my question of effect isn't as you suggest that hunting has a small impact. If it is, then someone hasn't been comprehensive enough in their research and when interrogated by the scientific community would be pulled up on it immediately.

 

Can I just make it clear one more time, that I am not defending, promoting or attacking the legality of Maltese hunting. Just how I believe these issues should be approached.

 

Sandy, your insight on this specific issue is interesting and I'd like to read more of it, it expands on what Beast said previously. It enables people to make a more informed judgement.

Edited April 20, 2017 by Born Hunter

[Dinosaurs 2,108]

Big surprise he's been realeased No Charge in court !!!!

[Accip74 7,112]

 

 

 

 

 

 

I think it's pretty obvious that killing things will have a negative impact on such creatures numbers.

Well you would assume it's a contributing factor! Haha....

That's a straw man argument. You've replaced hunting practices with simply killing. In some circumstances they are equal but in most they are not. The question and approach I posed would take that into account. Alternatively, taking the view of "hunting is killing and common sense says killing is bad for conservation" is incredibly ignorant, only applicable to a small number of cases and actually harmful to the conservation of many species, some of which would be put at greater risk of becoming extinct.

Yes I understand all that, I'm not stupid! But it can't be ruled out in this case. Sometimes it's just simply too much.

LOL, I honestly don't believe you are.

I know mate, how could you?? (Joke) haha...

[3175darren 1,101]

So if he's assaulted someone, will he get sacked like Jeremy clarkson, I hope so The BBC have a duty to be fair and consistent,