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

mr_goo

Rick Chasey wrote:

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.

I for once concur with your point.

shirley_basso

Mr Goo wrote:

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.

How rural?

My garden used to back directly onto the forest and saw them quite regularly. Mind you, I didn't live on a farm so no livestock to worry about, only when they shat in the garden.

Also foxes are nocturnal and people in rural communities tend not to be rattling around after dark, whereas in cities it's the norm.

rjsterry

Mr Goo wrote:

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.

Whereas us townies see them almost daily. I had one raise a family of cubs under my shed, which was cute when the cubs were play-fighting, but less appealing when the adolescents started leaving runny turds on the doorstep and destroying anything left out overnight.

haydenm

I think it would be absolutely excellent to do nighttime city fox hunts with full dress, horns and hounds. That is one circumstance than I would support it, imagine walking home from the pub at 1am and seeing a hunt go past...

TheBigBean

Rick Chasey wrote:

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.

I think all classes participate in hunts, but there is a distinction between the roles

Fox hunting is one of those debates that I would like both sides to lose.

awavey

fwiw Chris Packham has never struck me as a Townie just railing against countryside practices.

I spent a good chunk of my childhood growing up in the countryside surrounded by farms, animals and crops long before I migrated to city life, and we certainly saw foxes in the countryside, though more often signs of them rather than actual sightings as they kept their distance from people, whereas now they seem to be regular visitors to my garden, but you learn to appreciate animals lives are much more brutal and shorter than the wildlife documentaries make out, and that on the whole there is method to it and farmers would do their best to never be unnecessarily cruel.

where Chris and the campaign came from is from what Ive read he was out walking his dogs and found a guy just randomly shooting at birds in the New Forest, not because he needed to, but literally because he could and there was no law or licensing that said he couldnt. Now I dont believe anyone even from a countryside background would ever be against stopping people like that from indiscriminately shooting animals for no purpose.

I actually happened across a fox hunt probably few years back now whilst out on the bike and it was pretty intense & insane, as you had all the horses/dogs/horns galloping across the fields and roads at full pelt, a bunch of their friends/supporters following them in 4x4s on the road, a bunch of hunt saboteurs doing the same in their 4x4s and I can only assume aload of undercover cops following everyone around too. and you had no idea how to keep or just get out of their way as whichever way you went, you just found a different group hiding round the next corner.

surfercyclist

Well I actually live in the countryside and am against fox hunting purely on the basis of chasing an animal to exhaustion then killing it just seems a bit barbaric to me. I'm not a vegetarian and I wear leather shoes so hardly a tree hugger type (probably like most I'm a hypocrite). I'm in favour of keeping traditions going but killing for fun doesn't seem right really does it. Packham definitely divides opinion but undoubtedly animal welfare is his primary concern and for that he should be supported and applauded. It's extremism that causes most problems - every sane person should be concerned about climate change but causing mass chaos in cities and stopping people geting to and from work etc doesn't help, just pisses "normal" people off.

Whaling- is a disgrace BUT ultimately is it any different to us killing and eating cows, sheep, pigs etc? Tricky one. Personally I'd ban it totally worldwide.

As for digging out badgers in sets and setting dogs on them, dog fighting etc those people need a good kicking.

tangled_metal

Yeah! I'd find where they live, dig them out of their bed and give them a right good kicking for all their badger killing activities.

Strewth! What are laws for? If anyone has evidence of criminal activity such as dog fighting, badger baiting, etc seek out the relevant police officer. If course if you're just spouting generalisms then the forum is the right place. Perhaps twitter or Facebook is more your place though?

robert88

Yeah, and it's 'setts' ferchrissake two f-ing 'ts'. Badgers live in setts.



Geddit right, perleeease.

And talking of Twitter, we need to get that sorted out. You can do it here.

Lagrange

I used to live in rural Essex and the London foxes that were caught used to be released near the Hatfield Forest. The local boys had fun by rattling dustbins which was a sound the foxes associate with food. Then they shot them.

I did try this at home once but discovered my bin was made of plastic.

ugo.santalucia

Farming is heavily subsidised, so if foxes or badgers or birds kill your crop, it makes fuxxall difference... in fact growing food in the "first world" makes no difference whatsoever to the economy... one might argue that if you want organic or biodynamic, or "zero miles" food, then you need to grow it yourself, because you won't buy it from India, Egypt or Peru... but whether you grow bog standard, pesticide loaded potatoes or wheat or grow hormone and antibiotic fuelled beef successfully or not, makes no difference to anybody... in fact we should probably just give up intensive farming (both animal and plants) and plant trees instead

The idea that UK farmers feed you is simply odd

slowbike

awavey wrote:

where Chris and the campaign came from is from what Ive read he was out walking his dogs and found a guy just randomly shooting at birds in the New Forest, not because he needed to, but literally because he could and there was no law or licensing that said he couldnt.

For that - I'd agree - totally unnecessary - I'm surprised that you can shoot on open land..

I generally have a dislike for Chris Packham - mostly for his failed attempt at preventing anchoring in a well known spot just outside Poole Harbour - because there were sea-horses there..
Not because I don't like sea-horses - but the reasoning behind it was along the lines ...

There are sea-horses, therefore we have to stop any non-scientific human activity in the area

...
without first looking at the impact that the human activity had - positive or negative ...
I've not followed it for a while - but last I heard, the sea-horses hadn't been sighted for a while - probably something to do with the divers catching and tagging the sea-horses - something the anchorers never did .... I wonder who drove the sea-horses away?!

Is Chris a champion for the countryside? No - I don't think so - not from what I've seen - it seems that the causes he supports go for the extreme - whereas a more balanced solution is usually required. Perhaps it's the only way to achieve the goal ... but it doesn't help me believe in his causes...

Oh - foxes - rarely see them around us - but quite often hear them at night ...

shirley_basso

ugo.santalucia wrote:

Farming is heavily subsidised, so if foxes or badgers or birds kill your crop, it makes fuxxall difference... in fact growing food in the "first world" makes no difference whatsoever to the economy... one might argue that if you want organic or biodynamic, or "zero miles" food, then you need to grow it yourself, because you won't buy it from India, Egypt or Peru... but whether you grow bog standard, pesticide loaded potatoes or wheat or grow hormone and antibiotic fuelled beef successfully or not, makes no difference to anybody... in fact we should probably just give up intensive farming (both animal and plants) and plant trees instead

The idea that UK farmers feed you is simply odd

I don't think the content of this post is very accurate.

rjsterry

ugo.santalucia wrote:

Farming is heavily subsidised, so if foxes or badgers or birds kill your crop, it makes fuxxall difference... in fact growing food in the "first world" makes no difference whatsoever to the economy... one might argue that if you want organic or biodynamic, or "zero miles" food, then you need to grow it yourself, because you won't buy it from India, Egypt or Peru... but whether you grow bog standard, pesticide loaded potatoes or wheat or grow hormone and antibiotic fuelled beef successfully or not, makes no difference to anybody... in fact we should probably just give up intensive farming (both animal and plants) and plant trees instead

The idea that UK farmers feed you is simply odd

Farmers don't grow "hormone and antibiotic fuelled beef" in this country. So much misinformation packed into so few words is really quite impressive.

haydenm

ugo.santalucia wrote:

Farming is heavily subsidised, so if foxes or badgers or birds kill your crop, it makes fuxxall difference... in fact growing food in the "first world" makes no difference whatsoever to the economy... one might argue that if you want organic or biodynamic, or "zero miles" food, then you need to grow it yourself, because you won't buy it from India, Egypt or Peru... but whether you grow bog standard, pesticide loaded potatoes or wheat or grow hormone and antibiotic fuelled beef successfully or not, makes no difference to anybody... in fact we should probably just give up intensive farming (both animal and plants) and plant trees instead

The idea that UK farmers feed you is simply odd

I agree with the bit about trees very much, but just because farming is subsidised doesn't mean it doesn't impact on farmer's income when their crops fail unless they are compensated after the event.

rjsterry

An urban fox in my garden about 7.45 last night.

ugo.santalucia

HaydenM wrote:

I agree with the bit about trees very much, but just because farming is subsidised doesn't mean it doesn't impact on farmer's income when their crops fail unless they are compensated after the event.

Just pay them to do something else... there are no profits in farming... if you took away the subsidies, they would all make a loss, which means it simply is not worth farming in this way... it's a waste of everybody's time, money etc...
We still do it becuase we are afraid of WW3, when we'll have to ration food and become self sufficient, it's as useful as the nuclear deterrant.

However, there is a small market for organic, which can be made profitable... the rest of the land could be converted to forestry, which is probably less of a liability and in the long run might turn profitable

john80

ugo.santalucia wrote:

Farming is heavily subsidised, so if foxes or badgers or birds kill your crop, it makes fuxxall difference... in fact growing food in the "first world" makes no difference whatsoever to the economy... one might argue that if you want organic or biodynamic, or "zero miles" food, then you need to grow it yourself, because you won't buy it from India, Egypt or Peru... but whether you grow bog standard, pesticide loaded potatoes or wheat or grow hormone and antibiotic fuelled beef successfully or not, makes no difference to anybody... in fact we should probably just give up intensive farming (both animal and plants) and plant trees instead

The idea that UK farmers feed you is simply odd

https://www.foodsecurity.ac.uk/challeng ... is-global/

Have a look at these stats. Are you really saying that you could remove 52% of the UK produced food and just import it and somehow that would be a good idea. Have you ever seen the aftermath of a fox in a chicken coup or do you so fundamentally not understand how they are funded to see that losing a load of livestock would impact their earnings.

ugo.santalucia

john80 wrote:

https://www.foodsecurity.ac.uk/challeng ... is-global/

Have a look at these stats. Are you really saying that you could remove 52% of the UK produced food and just import it and somehow that would be a good idea. Have you ever seen the aftermath of a fox in a chicken coup or do you so fundamentally not understand how they are funded to see that losing a load of livestock would impact their earnings.

I am just saying that farming operates at a loss... so either you change the way it operates, by producing food which is more profitable to sell (organic? Biodynamic? Whatever?) or you don't... if you don't, then it's not worth killing pests to try and make it less of a liability... address the real elephant in the room, which is that it would be better to NOT farm

briantrumpet

rjsterry wrote:

ugo.santalucia wrote:

Farming is heavily subsidised, so if foxes or badgers or birds kill your crop, it makes fuxxall difference... in fact growing food in the "first world" makes no difference whatsoever to the economy... one might argue that if you want organic or biodynamic, or "zero miles" food, then you need to grow it yourself, because you won't buy it from India, Egypt or Peru... but whether you grow bog standard, pesticide loaded potatoes or wheat or grow hormone and antibiotic fuelled beef successfully or not, makes no difference to anybody... in fact we should probably just give up intensive farming (both animal and plants) and plant trees instead

The idea that UK farmers feed you is simply odd

Farmers don't grow "hormone and antibiotic fuelled beef" in this country. So much misinformation packed into so few words is really quite impressive.

We could import it from the US, if that easy trade deal does through.

ugo.santalucia

briantrumpet wrote:

We could import it from the US, if that easy trade deal does through.

We don't need it... eat less meat, eat only organic meat once a week or don't eat it at all... save the countryside, save the planet and save yourself from heart disease in one go

surrey_commuter

john80 wrote:

ugo.santalucia wrote:

Farming is heavily subsidised, so if foxes or badgers or birds kill your crop, it makes fuxxall difference... in fact growing food in the "first world" makes no difference whatsoever to the economy... one might argue that if you want organic or biodynamic, or "zero miles" food, then you need to grow it yourself, because you won't buy it from India, Egypt or Peru... but whether you grow bog standard, pesticide loaded potatoes or wheat or grow hormone and antibiotic fuelled beef successfully or not, makes no difference to anybody... in fact we should probably just give up intensive farming (both animal and plants) and plant trees instead

The idea that UK farmers feed you is simply odd

https://www.foodsecurity.ac.uk/challeng ... is-global/

Have a look at these stats. Are you really saying that you could remove 52% of the UK produced food and just import it and somehow that would be a good idea. Have you ever seen the aftermath of a fox in a chicken coup or do you so fundamentally not understand how they are funded to see that losing a load of livestock would impact their earnings.

I would love to see the aftermath of a fox in a chicken coup

Stevo_666

Shirley Basso wrote:

ugo.santalucia wrote:

Farming is heavily subsidised, so if foxes or badgers or birds kill your crop, it makes fuxxall difference... in fact growing food in the "first world" makes no difference whatsoever to the economy... one might argue that if you want organic or biodynamic, or "zero miles" food, then you need to grow it yourself, because you won't buy it from India, Egypt or Peru... but whether you grow bog standard, pesticide loaded potatoes or wheat or grow hormone and antibiotic fuelled beef successfully or not, makes no difference to anybody... in fact we should probably just give up intensive farming (both animal and plants) and plant trees instead

The idea that UK farmers feed you is simply odd

I don't think the content of this post is very accurate.

Agree on the accuracy of the content. It's also poorly written so not easy to understand either.

robert88

Surrey Commuter wrote:

john80 wrote:

ugo.santalucia wrote:

Farming is heavily subsidised, so if foxes or badgers or birds kill your crop, it makes fuxxall difference... in fact growing food in the "first world" makes no difference whatsoever to the economy... one might argue that if you want organic or biodynamic, or "zero miles" food, then you need to grow it yourself, because you won't buy it from India, Egypt or Peru... but whether you grow bog standard, pesticide loaded potatoes or wheat or grow hormone and antibiotic fuelled beef successfully or not, makes no difference to anybody... in fact we should probably just give up intensive farming (both animal and plants) and plant trees instead

The idea that UK farmers feed you is simply odd

https://www.foodsecurity.ac.uk/challeng ... is-global/

Have a look at these stats. Are you really saying that you could remove 52% of the UK produced food and just import it and somehow that would be a good idea. Have you ever seen the aftermath of a fox in a chicken coup or do you so fundamentally not understand how they are funded to see that losing a load of livestock would impact their earnings.

I would love to see the aftermath of a fox in a chicken coup

Are chickens likely to want to overthrow the government and would a fox join them? It sounds a bit Wallace and Gromit to me..

surrey_commuter

Robert88 wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

john80 wrote:

ugo.santalucia wrote:

Farming is heavily subsidised, so if foxes or badgers or birds kill your crop, it makes fuxxall difference... in fact growing food in the "first world" makes no difference whatsoever to the economy... one might argue that if you want organic or biodynamic, or "zero miles" food, then you need to grow it yourself, because you won't buy it from India, Egypt or Peru... but whether you grow bog standard, pesticide loaded potatoes or wheat or grow hormone and antibiotic fuelled beef successfully or not, makes no difference to anybody... in fact we should probably just give up intensive farming (both animal and plants) and plant trees instead

The idea that UK farmers feed you is simply odd

https://www.foodsecurity.ac.uk/challeng ... is-global/

Have a look at these stats. Are you really saying that you could remove 52% of the UK produced food and just import it and somehow that would be a good idea. Have you ever seen the aftermath of a fox in a chicken coup or do you so fundamentally not understand how they are funded to see that losing a load of livestock would impact their earnings.

I would love to see the aftermath of a fox in a chicken coup

Are chickens likely to want to overthrow the government and would a fox join them? It sounds a bit Wallace and Gromit to me..

I was assuming the chickens were rising up against the fox

haydenm

ugo.santalucia wrote:

HaydenM wrote:

I agree with the bit about trees very much, but just because farming is subsidised doesn't mean it doesn't impact on farmer's income when their crops fail unless they are compensated after the event.

Just pay them to do something else... there are no profits in farming... if you took away the subsidies, they would all make a loss, which means it simply is not worth farming in this way... it's a waste of everybody's time, money etc...
We still do it becuase we are afraid of WW3, when we'll have to ration food and become self sufficient, it's as useful as the nuclear deterrant.

However, there is a small market for organic, which can be made profitable... the rest of the land could be converted to forestry, which is probably less of a liability and in the long run might turn profitable

Agreed, it's a bit like the sheep compensation scheme for the reintroduction of lynx.

Also, given the available ground for commercial forestry it is extremely profitable. On lowland sites it's fantastic in terms of silviculture but land prices are prohibitive. Currently on upland sites forestry employs 4x as many people per ha as sheep farming, 4x as much carbon sequestration, 4x as much biodiversity and is 4x (probably a lot more at the moment) more commercially viable. (See the Eskdalemiur forestry and farming report).

rjsterry

ugo.santalucia wrote:

john80 wrote:

https://www.foodsecurity.ac.uk/challeng ... is-global/

Have a look at these stats. Are you really saying that you could remove 52% of the UK produced food and just import it and somehow that would be a good idea. Have you ever seen the aftermath of a fox in a chicken coup or do you so fundamentally not understand how they are funded to see that losing a load of livestock would impact their earnings.

I am just saying that farming operates at a loss... so either you change the way it operates, by producing food which is more profitable to sell (organic? Biodynamic? Whatever?) or you don't... if you don't, then it's not worth killing pests to try and make it less of a liability... address the real elephant in the room, which is that it would be better to NOT farm

Assume you are relaxed about the mass starvation that would result from ending farming. Will you be off to your survivalist hut?

TheBigBean

ugo.santalucia wrote:

briantrumpet wrote:

We could import it from the US, if that easy trade deal does through.

We don't need it... eat less meat, eat only organic meat once a week or don't eat it at all... save the countryside, save the planet and save yourself from heart disease in one go

What about eating organic fox? That way production could be increased and meat craving satisfied.

ugo.santalucia

TheBigBean wrote:

ugo.santalucia wrote:

briantrumpet wrote:

We could import it from the US, if that easy trade deal does through.

We don't need it... eat less meat, eat only organic meat once a week or don't eat it at all... save the countryside, save the planet and save yourself from heart disease in one go

What about eating organic fox? That way production could be increased and meat craving satisfied.

Wild can't be organic... if you want to eat a fox, eat a fox, I don't have any objection. I think hunt was banned for its cruelty rather than for the hunting per se. If people shot foxes in the same way they shoot pheasants during the hunting season to eat them, it wouldn't be a massive deal to be honest.

As an aside, you will find that fox is not very good meat, just like dog isn't

ugo.santalucia

rjsterry wrote:

Assume you are relaxed about the mass starvation that would result from ending farming. Will you be off to your survivalist hut?

We probably waste a similar proportion of food as the one produced in the UK, so waste food management could be a viable alternative to farming.
You could go as far as re-training farmers to teach how to avoid food waste... they probably have a better understanding than most.

It's a bit rich to talk about mass starvation, when the western world has an obesity epidemic, don't you think?