Steven Mace
01-21-2002, 09:14 PM
Belt, braces and a Capercaillie ban
By Wesley Stanton
21/01/2002
So the Capercaillie is now enjoying the protection of the law – and quite rightly, some may argue. After all, the UK population of the birds has dropped dramatically, from over 20,000 in the 1970s to just over a thousand at the end of the last century – so clearly, the bird needs full legal protection. Or does it?
Even without the full protection of the law, anyone shooting one of the big black birds would have incurred the wrath of landowners, conservationists and shooting people alike – there’s been a voluntary ban on the taking of the species within the UK for the past decade, so shooting has not been a mortality issue for the bird at all.
Capercaillie numbers have been in decline for many reasons – global warming; habitat changes; the reduction of their principle food source; and increased exposure to predators. All these have been cited as possible reasons for the steep reduction in bird numbers. Shooting has not had one iota of effect on their numbers – the most prevalent cause of death is low-flying collisions with deer fences.
But what does the ban hope to achieve? The Scottish Assembly is applying to Europe for funding to establish a scheme to improve the Capercaillie’s prospects, which is, of course, an extremely welcome measure. But the voluntary ban on shooting the species hasn’t had the desired affect – not because people have continued to shoot them, but because of a myriad other factors. So it does seem a strange move to afford the bird legal protection against shooting – when in fact no-one has shot them for years. And it is disingenuous to suggest that shooting has had any effect on their numbers in recent years.
The fear is that without an incentive to improve the Capercaillie’s natural habitat – the possible game shooting revenue in many years to come – then landowners will feel that there is little incentive to invest in improving the bird’s prospects. And once a bird is on Schedule One, Part One of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, it’s extremely difficult to get it back on the quarry list, as those who have argued the case for the Brent Goose to be returned to it have discovered.
Around 30 woodland owners have received Government funding to remove or reduce the sizes of the deer fences so lethal to the birds. This funding was probably needed because there is no practical incentive for landowners to invest in the Capercaillie’s future. Sadly, it looks like the Capercaillie is highly likely to die out in Scotland – whether it’s on the quarry list or not.
http://www.leadshot.com/story.asp?id=431
Steve Mace
By Wesley Stanton
21/01/2002
So the Capercaillie is now enjoying the protection of the law – and quite rightly, some may argue. After all, the UK population of the birds has dropped dramatically, from over 20,000 in the 1970s to just over a thousand at the end of the last century – so clearly, the bird needs full legal protection. Or does it?
Even without the full protection of the law, anyone shooting one of the big black birds would have incurred the wrath of landowners, conservationists and shooting people alike – there’s been a voluntary ban on the taking of the species within the UK for the past decade, so shooting has not been a mortality issue for the bird at all.
Capercaillie numbers have been in decline for many reasons – global warming; habitat changes; the reduction of their principle food source; and increased exposure to predators. All these have been cited as possible reasons for the steep reduction in bird numbers. Shooting has not had one iota of effect on their numbers – the most prevalent cause of death is low-flying collisions with deer fences.
But what does the ban hope to achieve? The Scottish Assembly is applying to Europe for funding to establish a scheme to improve the Capercaillie’s prospects, which is, of course, an extremely welcome measure. But the voluntary ban on shooting the species hasn’t had the desired affect – not because people have continued to shoot them, but because of a myriad other factors. So it does seem a strange move to afford the bird legal protection against shooting – when in fact no-one has shot them for years. And it is disingenuous to suggest that shooting has had any effect on their numbers in recent years.
The fear is that without an incentive to improve the Capercaillie’s natural habitat – the possible game shooting revenue in many years to come – then landowners will feel that there is little incentive to invest in improving the bird’s prospects. And once a bird is on Schedule One, Part One of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, it’s extremely difficult to get it back on the quarry list, as those who have argued the case for the Brent Goose to be returned to it have discovered.
Around 30 woodland owners have received Government funding to remove or reduce the sizes of the deer fences so lethal to the birds. This funding was probably needed because there is no practical incentive for landowners to invest in the Capercaillie’s future. Sadly, it looks like the Capercaillie is highly likely to die out in Scotland – whether it’s on the quarry list or not.
http://www.leadshot.com/story.asp?id=431
Steve Mace