• Welcome to BirdForum, the internet's largest birding community with thousands of members from all over the world. The forums are dedicated to wild birds, birding, binoculars and equipment and all that goes with it.

    Please register for an account to take part in the discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.
Where premium quality meets exceptional value. ZEISS Conquest HDX.

How can we ban wildfowling at nature reserves (2 Viewers)

epolenep sana

New member
United Kingdom
Hi, I am new to Bird Forum but have been shocked recently when, whilst on holiday and enjoying watching the birds on the mudflats at Lindisfarne Nature Reserve at Fenham Flatts in Northumberland, a wildfowler turned up and strode out on to the flats with his rifle and his unrestrained dog. He pointed to a sign that said wildfowling went on because "wildfowlers had helped set up the reserve in 1964". A warden for Natural England confirmed that the practice was OK but to us there is a huge conflict between caring for a habitat where birds are encouraged on the one hand and then allowing someone to kill these same birds on the other. What I want to know is what is being done to challenge the practice of wildfowling on nature reserves and how can I join in.
Thank you for any comments or help anyone can offer.
 
Depends on the nature reserve. A good few years ago now a fundraising campaign was launched to acquire shooting rights on or adjacent to Leighton Moss. I guess if the rights for a site come up crowdfunding might be a way to address it. If wildfowlers own the rights it's fair game in shooting season.

Also depends on the country. The wildfowl stamps are a means by which American hunters help fund habitat protection I think, I'm a bit rusty on it.
 
Welcome to Birdforum, an interesting question you open with 🙂

I think Stephen in post 2 has summarised it pretty accurately - though I would personally like to see hunting stopped, I also recognise that hunting in some parts of the world, eg the hunting stamp in the US and some managed areas elsewhere, does contribute to overall conservation if the hunting is conducted in a responsible way.

As regards to the example you saw, they presumably have the shooting rights, so (as Stephen also mentioned) if they don't come up for sale, not much that can be done about it if they conduct the hunting in accordance to all requirements.
 
In the USA huge tracts of wilderness are persevered as such in order to provide quarry for hunting. The won't allow you to go birding! Permits are strictly controlled and bag size is tiny.
20240926_223020.jpg


In the UK wildfowling is a completely different scale to the driven grouse and pheasant shooting. The biggest concern regarding wildfowling isn't the shooting itself, it is the use of lead shot. It is illegal to use lead shot over wetlands and foreshores but it is still in use.

Re:Leighton Moss, the RSPB bought the site in 1964 but didn't manage to buy the shooting rights until 1974. They cost the same as the land did.
EDIT: I think I have my dates a decade out, it was; lease 1964, buy 1974, shooting rights 1984
 
Last edited:
In the USA huge tracts of wilderness are persevered as such in order to provide quarry for hunting. The won't allow you to go birding! Permits are strictly controlled and bag size is tiny.
View attachment 1604308


In the UK wildfowling is a completely different scale to the driven grouse and pheasant shooting. The biggest concern regarding wildfowling isn't the shooting itself, it is the use of lead shot. It is illegal to use lead shot over wetlands and foreshores but it is still in use.

Re:Leighton Moss, the RSPB bought the site in 1964 but didn't manage to buy the shooting rights until 1974. They cost the same as the land did.
Is that a typo? Wikipedia says 1984 and I wasn't really following birding in 1974 when I was three...
 
Hi, can’t help with your question; just wanted to say welcome to the forum.
 
While the killing of birds will always be hard for me personally, there is another side of the coin. It is in the common interest for hunters and birders alike to preserve nature and wildlife, so populations stay healthy. I consider pollution, climate change, and habitat destruction a much greater threat to wildlife.
I read something about this recently that did give me pause for reflection. There is a quite high yearly mortality of birds within a species. In a given year, on average, a (surprisingly large) percentage of individuals will die of natural causes. When killing individuals in the population within a regulatory framework that contemplates this fact, the actual annual mortality of the species doesn't measurably change. All that changes is what individuals die when.

Put simply if there are three birds, two will most likely die this year. One of predation and one of starvation. Killing the third bird means that the one who would have died of starvation ends up living. The net result is that you maintain the same 67% mortality in the species, the hunting just changes the individual that dies and the method of death. The counter-argument being that the funds hunters provide for taking said birds then go towards conservation.

It took me a while to refind where I read this, it was in the book Ten Thousand Birds - Ornithology Since Darwin. I am going to quote an excerpt of it here:

One motivation for understanding the population dynamics of any species, including birds such as grouse or wildfowl, is the concept of “doomed surplus”—the birds that die naturally each year, mainly young individuals (Errington 1946). This is based on the recognition that most young individuals fail to survive to breeding age and that populations are maintained near their carrying capacity through density-dependent processes (chapter 10). In theory, killing or capturing the doomed surplus makes no difference to the size of the adult population, and this idea has been incorporated into conservation in two main ways.

...


The second way that harvesting birds has been incorporated into conservation is through recreational hunting. While this might seem paradoxical, hunting can be sustainable. On many private estates in Britain, for example, the harvest of nonmigratory game birds such as red grouse [Willow Ptarmigan], Black Grouse, and Western Capercaillie is effectively managed (albeit through the destruction of predatory birds). In North America the management of migratory ducks has also been successful. In 1934 the Migratory Bird Hunting Stamp Act was passed in the United States, meaning that federal licenses were required for hunting migratory waterfowl. All waterfowl hunters over sixteen must annually purchase and carry a Federal Migratory Bird Hunting and Conservation Stamp (or “duck stamp”). As well as allowing hunters to continue their pursuits legally, the scheme has had significant conservation benefits: 98 cents from every dollar goes toward the purchase or lease of wetland habitat in the National Wildlife Refuge Program, and since 1934 more than $750,000,000 has gone into the fund, enabling the purchase of more than 5.3 million acres of breeding, migration, and wintering habitat.

Ducks Unlimited was also created by hunters. Founded in 1937 during an intense drought that caused many waterfowl populations to nose-dive, its aim is to preserve habitat and ensure an abundant supply of waterfowl for the future. Ducks Unlimited is the world’s largest private waterfowl and wetlands conservation organization and has conserved more than 12.5 million acres of habitat across North America.

I am at heart a pragmatist. I hate seeing any birds die. But I also realize that's just not realistic nor is it natural. And I also know that conservation does not happen in a vacuum. Human beings also want to survive. That means that successful long-term conservation needs to contemplate economic factors and impacts. While I still am not a huge fan of hunting, especially for sport, knowing the positive impact it has on conservation while seemingly not having an overly negative impact on populations does cause me to consider whether this is something I should be against. Or at the very least how high up on the priority list it is of things to change.

Like the post I quoted said, I think it's more important to focus on things that while less obviously affecting bird populations are actually having a far greater impact on them.
 
Hi, I just stumbled across this thread and wanted to offer some form of reply given I am one of the wildfowlers from Lindisfarne.

Firstly, how would you feel if wildfowlers tried to ban bird watchers from Lindisfarne? This is not how the world works. Just because you don’t like something doesn’t mean you have to do “what you can to stop it”. I am very ethical How I personally shoot, if I could take 10 birds would I? Absolutely not! I shoot to eat not to kill for the sake of killing. I also very much respect my quarry and do all I can to make sure I get the kill and that I don’t injure the animal, I don’t want to see any element of suffering, not even for 2 seconds.

I’ve just actually returned from Lindisfarne where 2 birdwatchers stumbled across where I was set up and we had a wonderful conversation (which as I’m sure won’t surprise you, isn’t always the case). They may not agree with what I do, but they were respectful of it, as I was of them.

Instead of trying to change what you don’t like, I please implore that you learn to Co exist, wether it’s this particular issue or any other, your way isn’t the right way.

I send this with the most sincere respect and not to antagonise.
 
Hi, I just stumbled across this thread and wanted to offer some form of reply given I am one of the wildfowlers from Lindisfarne.

Firstly, how would you feel if wildfowlers tried to ban bird watchers from Lindisfarne? This is not how the world works. Just because you don’t like something doesn’t mean you have to do “what you can to stop it”. I am very ethical How I personally shoot, if I could take 10 birds would I? Absolutely not! I shoot to eat not to kill for the sake of killing. I also very much respect my quarry and do all I can to make sure I get the kill and that I don’t injure the animal, I don’t want to see any element of suffering, not even for 2 seconds.

I’ve just actually returned from Lindisfarne where 2 birdwatchers stumbled across where I was set up and we had a wonderful conversation (which as I’m sure won’t surprise you, isn’t always the case). They may not agree with what I do, but they were respectful of it, as I was of them.

Instead of trying to change what you don’t like, I please implore that you learn to Co exist, wether it’s this particular issue or any other, your way isn’t the right way.

I send this with the most sincere respect and not to antagonise.
Welcome to Birdforum.

People who shoot birds do ban or try to ban birdwatchers in a number of places in the UK, so the world does work a bit like that. As you say coexistence is preferable, but the situation with regard to some species (Hen Harrier in particular) is rather more complicated.
 
Welcome to Birdforum.

People who shoot birds do ban or try to ban birdwatchers in a number of places in the UK, so the world does work a bit like that. As you say coexistence is preferable, but the situation with regard to some species (Hen Harrier in particular) is rather more complicated.
I wasn’t aware of that and it genuinely saddens me that this happens. It really did brighten my day to have a genuine conversation today with the bird watchers and I really mean that. Reference the Hen Harriers, what I saw recently and what had been gone on, absolutely disgusting and despicable behaviour and they deserve jail time for their heinous crimes
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top