Chris Packham - Champion for the Countryside or Out of Touch Fool ?

mr_goo

Imagine waking up to this at your front gate and all because you are standing up for the British Countryside and protection of our wildlife.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2019/04/25/dead-birds-tied-chris-packhams-fence-farmers-pest-controllers/

I for one applaud Chris Packham for his stance on the environment. This kind of vile act wouldn't have happened to David Attenborough if he had spoken up about the same subject.

shirley_basso

Good way to scare off the magpies.

rjsterry

Mr Goo wrote:

Imagine waking up to this at your front gate and all because you are standing up for the British Countryside and protection of our wildlife.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2019/04/25/dead-birds-tied-chris-packhams-fence-farmers-pest-controllers/

I for one applaud Chris Packham for his stance on the environment. This kind of vile act wouldn't have happened to David Attenborough if he had spoken up about the same subject.

I quite liked his response: "People like me with Asperger’s are not affected by this sort of thing..."

Darius_Jedburgh

Chris Packham is an overgrown townie with no idea of how farming works. He thinks vermin are wonderful and that foxes are lovely things.

If he ever got down from his soapbox and tried to understand the damage these pests cause to farmer's live and growing stock, their livelihoods and his food supply he would take a more reasoned view.

He is a bigot. Nothing more and nothing less.

mr_goo

Franco di Banco wrote:

Chris Packham is an overgrown townie with no idea of how farming works. He thinks vermin are wonderful and that foxes are lovely things.

If he ever got down from his soapbox and tried to understand the damage these pests cause to farmer's live and growing stock, their livelihoods and his food supply he would take a more reasoned view.

He is a bigot. Nothing more and nothing less.

I beg to differ.
Locally he tries to fight the corner of residents seeing greenbelt disappear under rafts of concrete and bricks. He has voiced his opinions about the over grazing and deforestation of the New Forest, all of which he is bang on.
I'm a townie and love my countryside. Thank goodness there are bigots that are prepared to stand up for there principles. I guess we're all going to have to call David Attenborough an over opinionated trouble maker from now on.

rjsterry

Franco di Banco wrote:

Chris Packham is an overgrown townie with no idea of how farming works. He thinks vermin are wonderful and that foxes are lovely things.

If he ever got down from his soapbox and tried to understand the damage these pests cause to farmer's live and growing stock, their livelihoods and his food supply he would take a more reasoned view.

He is a bigot. Nothing more and nothing less.

Says the man who starts his post by calling someone an overgrown townie. If people really wanted to control the rural fox population they'd be rid of them in a few years, or at least address the huge numbers of urban foxes. But then what would there be to chase around on horses?

Ben6899

rjsterry wrote:

Says the man who starts his post by calling someone an overgrown townie. If people really wanted to control the rural fox population they'd be rid of them in a few years, or at least address the huge numbers of urban foxes. But then what would there be to chase around on horses?

Bang on.

Ben6899

Mr Goo wrote:

I beg to differ.
Locally he tries to fight the corner of residents seeing greenbelt disappear under rafts of concrete and bricks. He has voiced his opinions about the over grazing and deforestation of the New Forest, all of which he is bang on.
I'm a townie and love my countryside. Thank goodness there are bigots that are prepared to stand up for there principles. I guess we're all going to have to call David Attenborough an over opinionated trouble maker from now on.

That's right on the money, Goo.

john80

Most people live in cities and have limited or no interaction with the rural community. This was demonstrated well when fox hunting was banned. Essentially urban dwellers decreed that it was not on but in reality was really dying out anyway as farming became more commercial and large estates with the area to run these were becoming less and less prominent. The reality is that foxes are still killed as like it or not they are a pest to farmers as they take lambs or chickens etc. It has just reduced the sight of people on horses chasing a fox. To put in in perspective in Cumbria I have never seen people hunting on horses.

The latest rules regarding licenses for pest controllers using guns will just be another money spinner for Natural England until they are legally challenged by businesses large enough to tackle them and bring the rules back to the centre ground. It just screws over the little guys with a considerable amount of bureaucracy.

tangled_metal

That's the point isn't it? It will not really change the shooting of corvids only the bureaucracy needed to be allowed to shoot them. Do you really think a farmer is going to think again and not control the corvids on his / her land that's affecting their livelihood? A lamb can be worth £600 to them, how much will the licenses cost? That'll probably cover it. Bureaucracy? Well they've gone through what will probably have been worse to get their gun licence. Plus the whole business of farming has bureaucracy so they're used to it.

What this proceedings have done is cause a little bit of extra work and the waiting for a licence to drop through the farmers postbox. What a win?!!!

My big issue here is the way both sides have conducted themselves. From the self righteousness of the campaigners who carried out this campaign to the viciousness of the "debate" online over this. A symptom of this viciousness was obviously the appalling case of crows tied to his gate.

Although as an aside there is a tradition from pest controllers hanging vermin from fences. Believed to n originate from an early kind of advertising. For example a pest controller from centuries ago might hang up moles on a fence near a commonly travelled route. A landowner with a mole problem might see it and have a word with their neighbour as to who the good pest controller was. It gets him more work. Of course there's the view it's used to scare off other moles in some way.

Seriously, this is a typical case of a pyrrhic victory IMHO. All the legal costs, all the vitriol from both sides and for what? Paperwork and possibly a new system to let farmers control what to them are pest species. Its it not a case of only the lawyers win?

rjsterry

john80 wrote:

Most people live in cities and have limited or no interaction with the rural community. This was demonstrated well when fox hunting was banned. Essentially urban dwellers decreed that it was not on but in reality was really dying out anyway as farming became more commercial and large estates with the area to run these were becoming less and less prominent. The reality is that foxes are still killed as like it or not they are a pest to farmers as they take lambs or chickens etc. It has just reduced the sight of people on horses chasing a fox. To put in in perspective in Cumbria I have never seen people hunting on horses.

The latest rules regarding licenses for pest controllers using guns will just be another money spinner for Natural England until they are legally challenged by businesses large enough to tackle them and bring the rules back to the centre ground. It just screws over the little guys with a considerable amount of bureaucracy.

Do you know for a fact that there is a fee to pay for the new licenses? I've looked and I can't find any reference to that, nor for fees for the old general licenses.

webboo

I would hazard a guess that even if there is a fee for a license it will be tax deductible or there will be an grant from Europe for it.

shirley_basso

Not any more.

john80

rjsterry wrote:

john80 wrote:

Most people live in cities and have limited or no interaction with the rural community. This was demonstrated well when fox hunting was banned. Essentially urban dwellers decreed that it was not on but in reality was really dying out anyway as farming became more commercial and large estates with the area to run these were becoming less and less prominent. The reality is that foxes are still killed as like it or not they are a pest to farmers as they take lambs or chickens etc. It has just reduced the sight of people on horses chasing a fox. To put in in perspective in Cumbria I have never seen people hunting on horses.

The latest rules regarding licenses for pest controllers using guns will just be another money spinner for Natural England until they are legally challenged by businesses large enough to tackle them and bring the rules back to the centre ground. It just screws over the little guys with a considerable amount of bureaucracy.

Do you know for a fact that there is a fee to pay for the new licenses? I've looked and I can't find any reference to that, nor for fees for the old general licenses.

Natural England is a government organisation and therefore if they need more staff to handle paperwork then it is a money spinner for them as they will be allocated the resources. If the license is free it still costs money to apply for it unless you are one of those simpletons that think that a business owners time is free.

haydenm

I feel a bit sorry for Chris Packham, he is never really going to approve of killing any animals because of his unique way of looking at the world but it's slightly beside the point. His colleague in the legal case was on the radio yesterday and he basically said he's not against shooting things at all, he was just pointing out (and correctly so or they wouldn't have won the case) that the way the licenses have been administered is wrong. If Natural England had done their job properly this would never have been an issue. They are meant to produce assessments for the current need to shoot certain species, which apparently they haven't done and lost a load of paperwork for. It's not Chris Packham's fault that Natural England can't get their act together.

Incidentally Scottish Natural Heritage confirmed to a meeting I was in yesterday that there would be no changes north of the border. Wasn't clear on whether that's because they haven't received a legal challenge yet, or whether SNH aren't as incompetent as NE, although I'm not sure I'd go that far...

EDIT: Also, the person who left the crows on his fence are incredibly stupid. If you get caught doing something even as 'trivial' as using mildly aggressive language on social media you will have your license revoked by the police. Presumably they need their shotgun license to shoot crows for their livelihood or they shouldn't have them. I hope they get caught on CCTV, lose their livelihood and are forced to live in poverty for the rest of their lives. People like that (and Americans, but that's another story) give legitimate and responsible gun owners a bad name.

rjsterry

john80 wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

john80 wrote:

Most people live in cities and have limited or no interaction with the rural community. This was demonstrated well when fox hunting was banned. Essentially urban dwellers decreed that it was not on but in reality was really dying out anyway as farming became more commercial and large estates with the area to run these were becoming less and less prominent. The reality is that foxes are still killed as like it or not they are a pest to farmers as they take lambs or chickens etc. It has just reduced the sight of people on horses chasing a fox. To put in in perspective in Cumbria I have never seen people hunting on horses.

The latest rules regarding licenses for pest controllers using guns will just be another money spinner for Natural England until they are legally challenged by businesses large enough to tackle them and bring the rules back to the centre ground. It just screws over the little guys with a considerable amount of bureaucracy.

Do you know for a fact that there is a fee to pay for the new licenses? I've looked and I can't find any reference to that, nor for fees for the old general licenses.

Natural England is a government organisation and therefore if they need more staff to handle paperwork then it is a money spinner for them as they will be allocated the resources. If the license is free it still costs money to apply for it unless you are one of those simpletons that think that a business owners time is free.

A simple "I don't know" will suffice. I run a business so I'm fully aware of what bureaucracy costs. You wouldn't normally call a requirement for more staff with no additional income a moneyspinner.

haydenm

NE have said they will be issuing species specific temporary licenses if you fill in a one page online application in place for Monday. I really can't see this having anything to do with spinning money, more just incompetence and general bureaucracy. I know with the Forestry Commission (or whatever they are called these days) any income they receive is apparently taken into a central pot and relocated separately to departments, it basically means nothing they do will have any real impact on their department budget.

*I don't work for the Forestry Commission, Forest and Land Scotland, Natural Resources Wales, or any of the other artists formerly known as the FC so I don't know this for sure

Pross

john80 wrote:

Most people live in cities and have limited or no interaction with the rural community. This was demonstrated well when fox hunting was banned. Essentially urban dwellers decreed that it was not on but in reality was really dying out anyway as farming became more commercial and large estates with the area to run these were becoming less and less prominent. The reality is that foxes are still killed as like it or not they are a pest to farmers as they take lambs or chickens etc. It has just reduced the sight of people on horses chasing a fox. To put in in perspective in Cumbria I have never seen people hunting on horses.

The latest rules regarding licenses for pest controllers using guns will just be another money spinner for Natural England until they are legally challenged by businesses large enough to tackle them and bring the rules back to the centre ground. It just screws over the little guys with a considerable amount of bureaucracy.

I've lived in the countryside all my life, we've owned horses. Hunting with horse and hound was never to do with pest control, or at least not for centuries. It has to be about the most inefficient way possible of killing foxes.

shirley_basso

Sociable though.

kingstongraham

Pross wrote:

john80 wrote:

Most people live in cities and have limited or no interaction with the rural community. This was demonstrated well when fox hunting was banned. Essentially urban dwellers decreed that it was not on but in reality was really dying out anyway as farming became more commercial and large estates with the area to run these were becoming less and less prominent. The reality is that foxes are still killed as like it or not they are a pest to farmers as they take lambs or chickens etc. It has just reduced the sight of people on horses chasing a fox. To put in in perspective in Cumbria I have never seen people hunting on horses.

The latest rules regarding licenses for pest controllers using guns will just be another money spinner for Natural England until they are legally challenged by businesses large enough to tackle them and bring the rules back to the centre ground. It just screws over the little guys with a considerable amount of bureaucracy.

I've lived in the countryside all my life, we've owned horses. Hunting with horse and hound was never to do with pest control, or at least not for centuries. It has to be about the most inefficient way possible of killing foxes.

If you have a group of people willing to pay to try and kill some animals that you think need controlling, you can either think:

a) great, it needs doing, let them do it
b) that's a bit weird, doesn't sound like something that we should let the poshos do
c) it needs doing, might as well let the bloodthirsty weirdos do it

I'm more towards c) at the moment, having enjoyed the odd saboteur outing when I was at university.

rjsterry

Pross wrote:

john80 wrote:

Most people live in cities and have limited or no interaction with the rural community. This was demonstrated well when fox hunting was banned. Essentially urban dwellers decreed that it was not on but in reality was really dying out anyway as farming became more commercial and large estates with the area to run these were becoming less and less prominent. The reality is that foxes are still killed as like it or not they are a pest to farmers as they take lambs or chickens etc. It has just reduced the sight of people on horses chasing a fox. To put in in perspective in Cumbria I have never seen people hunting on horses.

The latest rules regarding licenses for pest controllers using guns will just be another money spinner for Natural England until they are legally challenged by businesses large enough to tackle them and bring the rules back to the centre ground. It just screws over the little guys with a considerable amount of bureaucracy.

I've lived in the countryside all my life, we've owned horses. Hunting with horse and hound was never to do with pest control, or at least not for centuries. It has to be about the most inefficient way possible of killing foxes.

Humans are quite good at eradicating other species when they want to. If hunting was about anything other than a social gathering and the fun of tearing around on horseback, foxes would have been extinct long ago. Obviously if you enjoy hunting then you need to maintain a stable population of foxes or you'd have nothing to chase.

haydenm

There's a proper fox hunt near here (as it's legal north of the border to my knowledge). They came past when I was out on the bike a while ago and it was very interesting to watch, not sure I'd join in but each to their own. I think someone worked out how many foxes were actually killed in this way every year and it's so little it's completely negligible. There are far bigger issues in the world than fox hunting. The problem with a lot of these things is protesters lose all sense of perspective and make genuine concerns look ridiculous.

shirley_basso

I've been on a handful of fox hunts before the ban came in and never even saw a fox.

rick_chasey

Isn't it that fox hunting is just a class war battleground?

robert88

Rick Chasey wrote:

Isn't it that fox hunting is just a class war battleground?

No. I think it is the would-be fox hunters who spin the line it is class related. Many people of all classes think that chasing a small mammal over hill and dale to exhaustion so it can be torn to pieces is medieval.

That applies to other 'entertainments' such as censored -fighting, bear-baiting, dog fights, hare coursing and so on. Of course we don't seek to ban fishing, perhaps because we don't relate to fish as we do to warm-blooded creatures. Whales are of course warm-blooded and very intelligent.

rick_chasey

Robert88 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Isn't it that fox hunting is just a class war battleground?

No. I think it is the would-be fox hunters who spin the line it is class related. Many people of all classes think that chasing a small mammal over hill and dale to exhaustion so it can be torn to pieces is medieval.

That applies to other 'entertainments' such as censored -fighting, bear-baiting, dog fights, hare coursing and so on. Of course we don't seek to ban fishing, perhaps because we don't relate to fish as we do to warm-blooded creatures. Whales are of course warm-blooded and very intelligent.

Yeah ok but it's predominantly a chin past-time right?

If it was predominantly working class, the guardian would be banging on about losing a great working class tradition etc.

haydenm

The fact we relate to foxes but not fish highlights the futility of anthropomorphism. It's a bit cruel so I probably wouldn't do it, but it's just not a big enough issue for me to care about.

robert88

Rick Chasey wrote:

Robert88 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Isn't it that fox hunting is just a class war battleground?

No. I think it is the would-be fox hunters who spin the line it is class related. Many people of all classes think that chasing a small mammal over hill and dale to exhaustion so it can be torn to pieces is medieval.

That applies to other 'entertainments' such as censored -fighting, bear-baiting, dog fights, hare coursing and so on. Of course we don't seek to ban fishing, perhaps because we don't relate to fish as we do to warm-blooded creatures. Whales are of course warm-blooded and very intelligent.

Yeah ok but it's predominantly a chin past-time right?

If it was predominantly working class, the guardian would be banging on about losing a great working class tradition etc.

What you mean like dog-fighting and badger-baiting? Must admit I never knew the Guardian wrote articles defending such 'sports'. That's shocking.

Ben6899

Robert88 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Isn't it that fox hunting is just a class war battleground?

No. I think it is the would-be fox hunters who spin the line it is class related. Many people of all classes think that chasing a small mammal over hill and dale to exhaustion so it can be torn to pieces is medieval.

That applies to other 'entertainments' such as censored -fighting, bear-baiting, dog fights, hare coursing and so on. Of course we don't seek to ban fishing, perhaps because we don't relate to fish as we do to warm-blooded creatures. Whales are of course warm-blooded and very intelligent.

The whole fox hunting scene is a micro-feudal system in its own right. It's interesting to pay attention to.

The landed gentry run the show, then you have the hounds and the foxes. Somewhere right at the bottom of the pile are the hangers on who are desperate for fox hunting to be "their thing"...

The gentry see them as riff raff dogsbodies.
The foxes, naturally, try to evade them.
The hounds don't listen to them.

Easily spotted by their camouflage clothing and Japanese import 4x4s.

mr_goo

There was a time when I'd have defended fox hunting because I saw the campaign to ban it as one being led by townies who knew nothing of countryside husbandry.
As an aside my daughter and her boyfriend live in rural Dorset and they rarely see foxes. So perhaps Basil and his clan are more likely to be found rooting around back gardens in cities than taking spring lambs.

rick_chasey

I guess I mean to say this is the U.K. and it’s a very class specific activity so you’re being naive if you don’t take that class context into account.