15
Feb
16

More mountain hares slaughtered in the Angus Glens

The following photographs are from an article on the iShoot website, written by Peter Carr in April 2015 about a February trip he made to the Angus Glens to participate in a weekend of driven mountain hare shooting.

hares_AngusGlens_Feb2015_113 hares killed driven shooting

 

hares_AngusGlens_Feb2015

hares_AngusGlens_Feb2015_133 killed driven shoot

We’ve blogged a lot about the indiscriminate killing of mountain hares, particularly on grouse moors in the Lammermuirs (here), Deeside (here) and the Angus Glens (here) and many others have also been campaigning about this obscene bloodbath for a number of years.

SNH has a statutory duty to maintain a healthy population of mountain hares but conservationists have argued that the routine hare culls on grouse moors have led to a severe population decline in some areas.

In December 2014, SNH called for estates to practice ‘voluntary restraint’ on large sale culls – a move we considered to be pointless.

In April 2015, ten conservation organisations called on SNH to implement an immediate three-year ban on mountain hare culling (see here) until the impact of such widespread killing can be properly assessed. The grouse-shooting industry reacted strongly against this: the Scottish Gamekeepers’ Association said it was “environmentally irresponsible” to call for a ban (eh??!) and Scottish Land & Estates said it was “ill-informed” and “heavy-handed”. You can see why SNH’s call for ‘voluntary restraint’ won’t work, can’t you!

We’re not sure if SNH has paid any attention to the ten conservation organisations calling for an immediate three-year ban. According to the SNH website, the plea for ‘voluntary restraint’ is still in place and new research is underway (due to complete in 2017) to assess the population status of the mountain hare.

Meanwhile, the slaughter continues….

Advertisements

135 Responses to “More mountain hares slaughtered in the Angus Glens”


  1. 1 Marian
    February 15, 2016 at 8:29 am

    An emotional response, I regret – this is an utter disgrace: the smirks on the faces of this set of useless items tell it all.

  2. 3 Peter Shearer
    February 15, 2016 at 9:40 am

    The human race is at times simply appalling.Hopefully, the youngster in the photo might yet have time to fight back against the brain-washing.The rest-it is too late.

  3. 4 Mike
    February 15, 2016 at 9:53 am

    Initial impression was that this was three views of the same bag, the fact that it is three separate bags is dire! How can they be so dumb as to not see the consequences of their ways in terms of any sympathy in any quarter. The snowball is rolling, rolling and they are sealing their own fate!

  4. 6 Simon Tucker
    February 15, 2016 at 10:02 am

    The contempt these people have for all wildlife is beyond belief. The problem is a simple one: politicians tend to be a part of the Establishment, the same Establishment that the landowners belong to, and they are a part of the problem.

    I was watching Countryfile last night and wondered why they didn’t cover the lessons on “Contempt for Wildlife”; “Illegal Trap Setting”; “The Best Poisons for Killing Predators” and “How to Hide an Illegally Killed Carcass” in their hagiography on game-keepers training.

    • 7 Mike Watts
      February 15, 2016 at 11:31 am

      Yes Simon, they are indeed ‘The Problem’, just as our electoral system of First Past the Post is a problem. Those who would address the reality of wildlife persecution are effectively barred from the political system by F.P.P., therefore, it’s always the same old, same old. To stop this archaic practice masquerading as a country sport we need to change our electoral system in Britain to something slightly more democratic, representative and accountable; we need real P.R.

      • 8 Simon Tucker
        February 15, 2016 at 11:45 am

        Absolutely, we have a government elected by 27% of the eligible electorate that is busily destroying any chance of a democratic future: gerrymandering the boundaries to ensure built in Tory majorities in England and disenfranchising people who are not computer savvy to ensure there will always be a right-wing, anti-wildlife, anti-social, fascist government in Westminster.

        • 9 Bell
          February 15, 2016 at 4:23 pm

          Stop trying to put this on Tories. You’re obviously another yes voter with a grievance. I work on the land

          and can tell you virtually every one of the shooters I know are SNP and pro indie. It’s the mentality of

          grievance and bullying. If not people then defenseless animals. The SNP have full control over these acts

          but choose not to act. They allow fox hunting across Scotland yet vote against it in England – hypocrites. I

          have known over 700 hares killed in one week by an SNP member and activist, nothing to do with UK gov.

          So lets just face facts. These pathetic excuses for men will always be there until the SNP and SNH get their act together. But don’t hold your breath !

          • 10 Keith Miller
            February 15, 2016 at 4:51 pm

            Protection of Wild Mammals (Scotland) Act 2002, with a review underway (not a repeal of legislation, which is what many Conservatives want in England) .

          • 11 Marco McGinty
            February 15, 2016 at 7:15 pm

            Bell

            I’m not on here to defend the SNP, but you do realise that Mike and Simon were discussing the problems of the First Past the Post electoral system, which is solely a Westminster issue? The SNP has been against the FPT system for as long as I can remember, but they have no control of the issue, because the Tory party (and their Labour and LibDem allies) refuses to acknowledge the needs of Yes and No voters alike.

            However, the Scottish Parliament does have a form of proportional representation, which enables the leaders of the opposition parties to sit at Holyrood.

            As for your final nonsensical SNP-bad point, the SNP has held power in Scotland for less than ten years, and I do hope you realise that these countryside killers were active in Scotland long before the SNP came to power. Or do you believe that the SNP, in their less-than-a-decade stint in power, should have righted all of the wrongs created by unionists during the past 300 hundred years?

            End

          • February 15, 2016 at 11:34 pm

            Maybe Ruth Davidson would like to comment on this behaviour?

          • 13 Simon Tucker
            February 16, 2016 at 5:24 pm

            Sorry Mr Miller, I am English and have worked both on the land and now work in conservation in the south of the country. If I had a vote, it would have been “No” – as I despise petty nationalism almost as much as I despise people who kill wildlife for fun. My original post said nothing about any particular party but about the political system that supports the status quo of contempt for wildlife. We now have a government, elected by 27% of the eligible electorate, committed to giving a vote on repealing the Hunting with Hounds Act, despite the fact that a majority of their own supporters are against it, and over 84% of the overall population. They continue a war on badgers, despite the fact that the issue is poor farm hygiene and all independent scientists and conservationists point out the folly. Their lacklustre response to Marine Protection Zones, insane ideas about allowing the destruction of ancient woodlands if developers plant new woods elsewhere, failure to ensure police properly resource and investigate wildlife crime and failure to act to prevent the on-going persecution of Hen Harriers, nails their colours very firmly to the mast.

            They do not care what happens to our wildlife, as they will sacrifice anything if they or their mates an mak money out of it.

            • 14 Keith Miller
              February 16, 2016 at 5:46 pm

              Dear Mr Tucker. Would you please address your comments to the correct person. All I did was provide the title of the Protection of Wild Mammals (Scotland) Act 2002, with a note about the current review in response to a post that mentioned fox hunting. Many thanks. Keith

            • 17 Eco-worrier
              February 16, 2016 at 7:23 pm

              Very clearly put, thanks. All commenters are on the same page here – the problem is reaching the authorities and others who can act on this appalling demonstration of an attitude to nature that belongs in Neanderthal days. If people can’t control their bloodlust in the countryside they ought to be banished to the cities, if not the local gaol.

            • 18 BSA
              February 16, 2016 at 7:57 pm

              Seeking self determination and democracy for an ancient state is not ‘petty nationalism’ and you are not entitled to ‘despise’ the half of the population who support that entirely honourable aim, or anyone else for that matter. Scotland will deal with the criminal sporting industry in ways appropriate to Scotland. So far we are ahead of the rest of the UK in that. Perhaps you think British Nationalism, the British establishment and its sporting activities are somehow more elevated.

              • 19 dave angel
                February 19, 2016 at 3:42 pm

                I think the term should have been petty bourgeois nationalism rather than petty nationalism. It certainly seems a fairly accurate description of the SNP’s position and explains why they deal with issues, including wildlife crime, the way they do.

            • 20 Marco McGinty
              February 21, 2016 at 1:16 pm

              Simon, as a Yes campaigner I can assure you that the independence campaign had nothing to do with a nationalist agenda, but it was all down to self-determination. However, as a result of UK mainstream media and unionist politicians repeatedly spouting such lies about a “nationalism”, I can understand why you might have reached that conclusion. Just to clarify one point – SNP stands for Scottish National Party, not Scottish Nationalist Party. In other words, a party that will try to stand up for the interests of all of Scotland’s people.

              Another point worth mentioning, is that despite the unionist politicians and complicit media regularly going on about the divisiveness of the Yes campaign, I can guarantee that the most divisive, racist, sectarian organisations all campaigned alongside their Better Together allies. Although UK media did not want the public to know of such things, we had organisations such as the National Front campaigning alongside Scottish Labour, and we had the Orange Order marching through the streets of Edinburgh. There were many other such bigoted groups working for a No vote, and the No campaign was perfectly happy to have this support, despite one of those groups demanding that my entire family be deported (even though most of us were born in Scotland), or the other group demanding that my mother and her family should not be allowed to practice their religion.

              Let me assure you, for the vast majority of Yes campaigners, it was, and still is, all about removing ourselves from the corrupt and dysfunctional Westminster system, and installing our own government that the people of Scotland can vote out. The present system does not allow that, with the one remaining Tory MP having more power over the people of Scotland, than the 56 democratically elected SNP MPs. I’m sure you will agree that there is something fundamentally wrong with such a system.

              I do agree with the rest of your comments, though.

              • 21 dave angel
                February 21, 2016 at 2:04 pm

                I’m sorry but I can’t allow that party political broadside to go unanswered. The SNP have more faces than the town hall clock. To be fair to them they are very good at convincing people that they have all the answers but I’d prefer to judge them by what they do rather than what they say. They claim, for instance, to be opposed to austerity but refuse to increase income tax or to allow local authorities to raise the council tax to avoid the need for cuts. The reality is you couldn’t put a cigarette paper between them and the Tories on the issue. Oh, and with regard to the matter of your family, as I’m sure you are aware, not so very long ago the SNP were known among the Irish Catholic population of the West of Scotland as Strictly No Papes, and for good reason.

                • 22 Marco McGinty
                  February 21, 2016 at 2:40 pm

                  And exactly which part of my comment was party political? Once again, we have a unionist that cannot differentiate between a pro-independence comment, or a pro-SNP comment.

                  If you choose to re-read my comment, you will discover that I was trying to explain to Simon why the vast majority of Yes campaigners chose to vote that way. It had nothing to do with the SNP, or nationalism, but it was all down to self-determination. I can’t help it if you are unable to understand these differences, but I suppose it allows you to come out with the usual SNP-bad pish, without giving any consideration to what you are actually advocating.

                  Again, and I don’t know how many times I have to mention this, I do not trust the SNP. I spent four years of my life going through the court system against a Scottish Government decision, so I am most definitely not pro-SNP, however between all of the mainstream political parties I consider them the only party that has the wider interests of Scotland at its core.

                  Of course, the SNP could raise income tax, but why should the people of Scotland pay more in tax, to counter the cuts and problems created by the Westminster government? Of course, the SNP could increase council tax, but again that would have a detrimental impact on poorer people, whereas the rich would be largely unaffected. Is that what you would prefer? You would favour the adoption of taxes that will severely impact on poorer people? I’m going to make a guess here – you are a Labour voter!

                  And finally, which timescale and which part of the West of Scotland are you referring to when you state that the SNP was known for sectarian practices? I’m curious to know, because I was an active member of the SNP in the past, and part of my background is Irish Catholic, and I never encountered any such bigotry.

                  • 23 dave angel
                    February 21, 2016 at 8:46 pm

                    I don’t think this is really the place for a political discussion about the merits or otherwise of Scottish nationalism so it’s maybe better that we just agree to disagree. To be honest I think you and all the other cult supporters are delusional, (anyone who opposes austerity but refuses to end a council tax freeze or increase income tax is delusional) so there probably isn’t a lot of scope for a rational discussion anyway, but I’m sure you’ll regain your senses eventually.

                    • 24 Marco McGinty
                      February 21, 2016 at 11:52 pm

                      If you don’t consider this the place for a political discussion, then why did you not interject when the topic of the SNP first arose? Was political discussion permitted at that time because the SNP was subject to criticism? That is exceptionally hypocritical of you.

                      But anyway, are you capable of reading plain English? It’s all there in the third paragraph of my previous response to you – I don’t trust the SNP (and I’ve regularly criticised them in the recent past), so that completely destroys your “delusional cult supporter” argument. But then again, that seemed to be the typical attitude during the referendum campaign – instead of engaging in debate, lies, deceit and personal attacks were the preferred method for people like yourself.

                      Anyway, I do find it interesting that the Labour Party are keen to proclaim that there will be no tax rises under the next Welsh Labour Government, but they’re particularly keen to raise income tax AND council tax in Scotland. What happened to the “broad shoulders of the UK” protecting us from such dastardly events under their programme of “pooling and sharing”? Or is it a simple case that the Labour Party will say one thing on a subject, whilst contradicting themselves the next minute? Of course, it could be that Labour are now considered unelectable in Scotland, and all the party and its supporters has left is their undying hatred of the SNP, hence the conviction in all of its SNP-bad nonsense.

                      However, as is typical of a Labour-supporting unionist, you choose to offer statements, then whenever questioned on your views, you cannot provide an answer, so I will ask you again.

                      1. Why should the people of Scotland pay more in income tax, to counter the cuts and problems created by the Westminster government?
                      2. Would you favour an increase in council tax, which will severely impact on poorer people?
                      3. Which timescale and which part of the West of Scotland are you referring to when you state that the SNP was known for sectarian practices?

                      Despite your nonsensical outpourings, I am quite content to have a rational discussion, but please bear in mind that you are the one that has refused to answer the questions, and you are the one that resorted to personal attacks, insinuating that I suffer from some form of mental disorder. And that has shown you up for the type of person you are.

                  • 25 Jack Snipe
                    February 21, 2016 at 10:36 pm

                    At great risk of going off-topic, Marco, I’m sorry to have to clash with you again over your defense of the Scottish National Party. You seem to be adopting the negative connotation of the term “nationalist”, as I know plenty of SNP activists and I can assure you they all regard themselves as nationalists. It’s not something I’ve ever heard the SNP deny, and why should they? It’s a perfectly honourable thing to be, and I suspect you might be confusing it with chauvinism or patriotism. Your arguments supporting the SNP’s reluctance to raise taxes are confusing and apparently quite naive, based on your assertion that the people of Scotland would pay more in tax, “to counter the cuts and problems created by the Westminster government.” Isn’t it rather obvious that the cuts are mainly driven by a popular reluctance to pay tax, and more significantly the successive governments (Labour and Tory) bowing to the wishes of big business interests to create what they pretentiously refer to as a “high wage, low tax” economy. That is just a ruse to engineer as much wealth into the richest sector of society as possible, and the statistics show that they are being extremely successful. Consequently public services are disintegrating before our very eyes. As a nature conservationist who has just retired from a long professional career as an Ecologist, I see the effect this is having at the sharp end. Great strides which were made at the end of the 20th century to promote the conservation of biodiversity have been well and truly destroyed by cuts in public sector funding. In a way it was almost inevitable that wildlife conservation, seen by the ruthless as “the icing on the cake” would be the first to be hit. Unfortunately the greatest damage in Scotland has occurred under the SNP’s watch, including the withdrawal of all grants from SNH to Local Authorities. We have a mountain to climb to make progress now, whether it be ending driven grouse shooting, or delivering the biodiversity process to rescue the many species which are declining rapidly as a result of man’s activities and neglect of the natural care duty.

                    • 26 Marco McGinty
                      February 22, 2016 at 2:09 am

                      And where was this defence of the SNP? I was merely pointing out to Simon that the independence campaign was not about nationalism or the SNP, but it was about self-determination. Once again, we have another instance where pro-independence comments are automatically rendered as pro-SNP. Perhaps some people should take a moment out to digest the comments in their entirety, before commenting themselves.

                      I’ll treat your assertion that I might be confusing nationalism with chauvinism or patriotism with the contempt it deserves.

                      There is nothing naïve about my belief. The Scottish Government is facing more cuts to the block grant (a problem created and implemented by Westminster), and other unionist politicians would rather the Scottish Government raise income tax and council tax for the residents of Scotland, which would severely impact on Scotland’s poor. Many of Scotland’s residents are struggling to make ends meet as it is, but some unionists want us to pay additional taxes simply because their preferred anti-Scottish government in Westminster choose to relentlessly attack Scotland and its people. We were told that the “broad shoulders of the UK” would protect us from such events through the “pooling and sharing of our resources”. This has all been conveniently forgotten and ignored by unionists, so please provide one sensible reason why the people of Scotland should now pay more income tax than anyone else in the UK.

                      As for the public service/local authority cuts implemented by the SNP, we’ve been through all of this before, but I suppose I will have to repeat myself. When the Scottish Parliament was reformed in 1999, Labour were in power at Westminster, with a LabLib coalition at Holyrood, and with the exception of 2005-2006, the block grant increased year on year, with a starting point of just under £13bn in 1999-2000 to a little over £25bn in 2007-2008.

                      Then the unthinkable happened, and the SNP gained control at Holyrood in a minority government. The immediate reaction from the Labour Government in Westminster? A reduction n the block grant! It increased slightly the following year, dropping again in 2011-2012 under the ConDem disaster, and since then has seen a reduction of -10.9%. If the Scottish Government does not want to impose additional taxes on its poor or low-waged, then other areas will suffer the cuts. Conservation just happened to be one of those areas that suffered as a result of Westminster cuts.

                      So, the Labour Party almost doubled the block grant to Scotland in less than ten years, whereas since the SNP gained power, the block grant has almost remained static (real-term cuts) in a roughly similar time period. By all means, if the SNP deserve criticism, then do so, but instead of continually banging on with the SNP-bad mantra, a more realistic outlook would soon see that some of the problems are out of their control, or not of their making.

                    • 27 Jack Snipe
                      February 22, 2016 at 10:15 am

                      Marco, you’re very good at treating others’ comments with contempt, but you’re being neither rational nor astute when it comes down to political analysis. Why make such insistence that the SNP is not a nationalist party when it proudly declares itself to be so? Is the Pope a catholic? Where do you suggest funding comes from for nature conservation without being prepared to raise it through taxation? You’re forever demanding that your adversaries answer questions, but there are quite a few put to yourself which go unanswered. You’re also good at complaining about personal attacks, but you’re pretty accomplished at mud slinging yourself. There’s a lot wrong with society, but currently there is no realistic radical alternative to the established front runners on the political scene. You claim not to defend the SNP, but you refuse to acknowledge that there is an underlying reluctance on their part to properly engage with conservation and raptor persecution issues. To continuously blame Westminster for cutting the block grant to be entirely responsible for the lack of Scottish self-determination is to ignore the truth about SNP’s priorities. If you’re not a member of SNP that’s a pity, because you could be arguing more constructively with them in an attempt to persuade them of the true value of Scotland’s biodiversity. There are some good thinkers within that organisation who could be susceptible to such influence. Currently you’re clearly in denial, which impedes forward thinking or progress. I suggest you think long and hard about your own advice to others to resist illogical knee-jerk reactions to anyone who happens to disagree with you. The irony is that when it comes to the key issue of raptor persecution we’re very much on the same side.

                    • 28 Marco McGinty
                      February 22, 2016 at 8:04 pm

                      Jack, in my previous reply to you, I did suggest that people digest my comments before responding, however it is patently obvious that you have ignored my request.

                      I’m not being rational? When did I ever insist that the SNP is not a nationalist party? I have stated (on more than one occasion) that the Yes campaign was not a nationalist campaign, so you will have to question yourself as to why you would choose to distort such a message.

                      Again, I did not suggest that there shouldn’t be any form of taxation, but I am totally opposed to the people of Scotland paying more in taxes as individuals, when we are in a political union that was supposed to save us from such events. Perhaps you would like to respond to the failure of the unionist politicians to “pool and share” our resources? Better Together, via complicit media, repeatedly forced this message to the Scottish electorate during the referendum campaign, but now they’ve conveniently forgotten all about it. Once again, you appear to have deliberately twisted and manipulated my comment in a devious attempt to discredit me.

                      You have also stated that I “refuse to acknowledge that there is an underlying reluctance on their part to properly engage with conservation and raptor persecution issues.” Where to start? I’ve criticised the SNP many times for some of their failures to combat raptor persecution, even on this very page, so again you are deliberately lying to suit your own agenda. I will support them when I consider it appropriate, but I will also criticise when criticism is needed. I’ve already had this argument with you on another post, but as you’ve brought the subject up again, I am forced into a response. I consider some of the SNP’s attempts to combat raptor persecution to be worthwhile aims, such as the poisons amnesty, granting the SSPCA additional powers, land reform, and the increase in wildlife crime penalties, but I also believe that more action should be taken, and quicker. I don’t know how many times I have to repeat myself on this matter, but it would certainly appear that, once again, you are perfectly happy to distort my comments.

                      Erm, when did I suggest that the cutting of the block grant was “entirely responsible for the lack of Scottish self-determination”? Again, deliberate distortion of my actual comment. The result of the independence referendum stopped Scottish self-determination. The cut in the block grant simply results in the Scottish Government having to cut back on certain areas.

                      And why should I become a member of the SNP? Why should I become a member of a party that I don’t fully trust? Why don’t you join the SNP and argue your case?

                      Finally, you have stated that I am in denial. Would you be so kind as to inform me what am I in denial from? As for resisting knee-jerk reactions, should I just stand by and allow people to hurl false accusations, or deliberately lie, twist, manipulate and distort my comments? I’m sorry to disappoint you, but that is simply not going to happen.

                    • 29 Michael Hamblett
                      February 22, 2016 at 11:33 pm

                      Please get the political bickering off this post On 22 Feb 2016 22:42, “Raptor Persecution Scotland” wrote:

                      > Marco McGinty commented: “Jack, in my previous reply to you, I did suggest > that people digest my comments before responding, however it is patently > obvious that you have ignored my request. I’m not being rational? When did > I ever insist that the SNP is not a nationalist party?” >

                  • 30 dave angel
                    February 22, 2016 at 10:06 am

                    ‘1. Why should the people of Scotland pay more in income tax, to counter the cuts and problems created by the Westminster government?’

                    To avoid the need to make cuts which will affect the worst off. The poor, the disabled etc. That’s more important that trying to engender a grievance culture against the English. And the !% rise is a progressive measure whatever the cult might say to the contrary
                    http://www.centreonconstitutionalchange.ac.uk/blog/scottish-rate-income-tax-progressive-or-regressive

                    ‘2. Would you favour an increase in council tax, which will severely impact on poorer people?’

                    See previous answer. An increase in council tax will affect the middle class, not the poorest. The nats won’t do anything which will adversely affect the middle class though, it’s where they draw their core support from. Hence their tuition fee and free prescription policies, which like the council tax are designed to benefit the middle class at the expense of the poorest.

                    ‘3. Which timescale and which part of the West of Scotland are you referring to when you state that the SNP was known for sectarian practices’

                    See Billy Wolfe’s comments about the Falklands war and the Papal visit for an idea of the timeline and the nature of the belief systems of the party leadership. See also Andrew Dewar Gibb’s (the SNP’s first leader) comments on Catholic Irish immigrants in Scotland for an idea of the cultural heritage of the party.

                    And as for the whole self determination, ‘decisions which affect Scotland are best made by the people who live in Scotland’ notion, I take it you’ll be voting to leave the EU? Or are you happy to be in an economic and political union with the Germans, the French etc etc etc but not the English. Some would say that’s just Anglophobia but I’m sure you’ll be able to explain that it’s not that at all ,it’s something entirely different.

                    • 31 Marco McGinty
                      February 22, 2016 at 7:19 pm

                      At least you’ve answered the some of the questions put to you (at the second attempt), but you have conveniently ignored some others.

                      Yes, raising taxes will obviously increase revenue, but the whole point of staying within the union was the apparent protection from such events. You do remember the “best of both worlds”, “the protective broad shoulders of the UK”, and the “pooling and sharing”? Would you be so kind as to explain what happened to those belief systems that were supposed to protect us? Furthermore, why is the Labour Party refusing to increase taxes in Wales? Don’t the people of Wales count? Surely raising taxes in Wales would benefit the people of Wales?

                      But I do have a problem with some of your points. You have claimed that an increase in income tax and council tax will NOT affect the poorest. How can that possibly be the case? The only way that income tax and council tax rises will not affect the poor, is if their wages are increased to cover those additional expenses.

                      I also have an issue with your take on tuition fees and free prescriptions. You have categorically stated that these policies are designed to benefit the middle classes at the expense of the poorest. Would you care to expand on that belief? Jim Murphy, who was leader of the Labour Party in Scotland not so long ago, stated that he would not reverse the policy, and the Scotland Patient’s Association stated that a return to charging would harm those on low incomes. It has also been suggested in some circles that the middle classes are also affected by tax rises, and that those from deprived areas benefit from free tuition fees
                      http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/tax/11341486/Middle-class-hardest-hit-by-benefit-cuts-and-tax-rises.html
                      http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-30103761

                      And now onto you assertion that the SNP as an organisation has been anti-Catholic, and you have managed to provide the sum and total of two SNP members’ personal opinions on Catholicism (and one of those members was also a Unionist at one time). But again, this is one of those things that the typical Labour supporter in Scotland has repeatedly tried to use against the SNP. For the benefit of other readers, here is some more background into the subject.
                      http://davidtorrance.com/letters-reveal-snp-crisi-over-bigoted-presidents-anti-catholic-diatribes-from-the-times-11-9-2010/

                      So if we are to follow your system of apportioning guilt to all members of a party, as a result of the actions of one or two individuals, then you must also agree that all unionist politicians must be paedophiles, after all Cyril Smith was one. Of course, that would be nonsensical in the extreme, but it does give an insight into the mind of the staunch Labour supporter in Scotland.

                      And for the EU referendum, I can see the positives and negatives of that particular partnership, but again we have a Scottish Labour voter that cannot differentiate between Scotland’s independence with that of membership of the European Union. It’s the same old tired guff that we’ve been hearing for years. Are you seriously suggesting that France, Germany, Italy, Ireland, Croatia, Sweden and all of those other nations that have membership within the EU are not independent countries? Christ, it’s frightening that people are still holding onto such a view.

                      But your final point is truly revealing, and the real Dave Angel is uncovered. Firstly, I was accused of suffering from a mental illness, and now there are insinuations that I’m being anti-English. This was another typical rank-and-file Labour supporters argument during the referendum, and it’s utterly typical of someone who has lost an argument – resort to lies, deceit and character assassination.

                      So, on that note, for the benefit of other readers, would you care to highlight just one example where I have expressed anti-English sentiment?

                      [Ed: No more comments on this please, it’s way off topic]

        • 32 Denis
          February 15, 2016 at 8:30 pm

          So, here’s a thing, I’ve long thought that there is no particular political party that represents me and what I think, what I love and what I care about so why are we still installing politicians into parliament at great expense, and very inefficient. What it needs, is to be streamlined, cut the politicians out of the picture and out goes not only national, but local as well, a great swath of expense is cut straight away and replaced with………Us! Each and every one of us, how? Well as you may know we already have the ability to raise petitions which have to reach a minimum number of supporters to be successful, so why don’t we run the country that way? Then at least we could stop some of these atrocities occurring because most of us would vote that way, wouldn’t we? The silent majority would have a voice, how novel, we would actually be able to make a big difference to the way the whole of this country is ‘managed’ and the ‘running’ of it. We would still need the permanent staff to do our bidding and balance of payments but we would be in control of our destiny. It isn’t communism or conservative or labour or libdem or any of the other labels, it’s just people getting what we want for once, got to be better than the dish water we’re served up at the moment and each and every time there’s an election!🤔

          • 33 Andrew
            February 20, 2016 at 7:43 am

            I wouldn’t deny a need for change but the country run by Facebookers and the Twitteraty? I don’t think so.
            So many online petitions are started and signed based on an emotional whim with almost no real thought.

            • 34 Eco-worrier
              February 20, 2016 at 3:17 pm

              Feel free to intellectualise, but intellectuals don’t achieve anything. Emotion turns to anger, to action, and action is urgently needed. Half the world’s wildlife gone in fourty years. If you’re not emotional, you’re not awake.

            • 35 heclasu
              February 21, 2016 at 2:04 am

              I take your point but I’ve followed this blog for months now and I’ve often wondered whether we are missing something here. ‘Change.org’ and ’38 Degrees’ (to name but two sites) seem to reach far more people than we could ever do. Isn’t it about time to try to interest them in taking up our fight against the abominations that are being perpetrated in our countryside. Yes, you would be pulling at the emotional heartstrings but you would be reaching a much bigger audience. Without them, I fear we will continue as we are – going nowhere – and the thing that really riles me is that these arsehole estate-owners know that!

              • 36 Eco-worrier
                February 21, 2016 at 11:47 am

                Quite agree – the ‘you can’t stop us’ attitude is encouraged by similar from cabinet minister’s. They’re all in it together.
                Anyone is able to start a petition on 38degrees etc. – inclusion of one of those photos will be effective.

              • 37 Marco McGinty
                February 21, 2016 at 2:01 pm

                Good point, heclasu. Those two organisations, along with Avaaz and Care2, have a far-reaching potential.

                Considering the mainstream media’s obsession with trying to spin everything into an SNP-bad article, I do find it absurd that they have never targeted the SNP on their lax attitude to tackling wildlife crime, which suggests that the BBC and various newspapers are supportive of the shooting industry. So, with that in mind, a campaign that could easily attract hundreds of thousands of signatures, could generate some good publicity for our cause, and some bad publicity for the SNP, and this could just encourage the SNP into some action.

                For example, a petition started just three weeks ago on Change.org, to preserve one of the remaining original cross-channel hovercraft, has already surpassed 20K signatures, whilst another campaign against the ivory trade, this time on Avaaz but started at approximately the same time, has passed the 1.25 million mark.

                When we consider that Mark Avery’s petition couldn’t reach 35K in six months, perhaps it is time to start using these other methods to get the message out to a wider audience. It’s obvious where the supposedly impartial BBC stand on the subject, and we don’t have much newspaper support, so we have nothing to lose.

    • 38 Marco McGinty
      February 15, 2016 at 7:54 pm

      I have just finished watching yesterday’s Countryfile, and I’m in total agreement with you, Simon.

      A considerable part of the programme was dedicated to gamekeeping, and the BBC in their typically biased approach, chose to explain to the viewer that there are only positive aspects to the profession. No mention of widespread, illegal persecution, and no mention of the barbaric trapping, bludgeoning and poisoning of many native creatures, much of it for the benefit of introduced species.

      Where was the BBC impartiality? Where was the BBC fairness? Where was the balanced BBC reporting?

      Like a Hen Harrier on a grouse moor – reported missing!

  5. 39 Andy Holden
    February 15, 2016 at 10:19 am

    I couldn’t say it better than those words Marian.

  6. 40 Andy Holden
    February 15, 2016 at 10:24 am

    I have publicly shared this article – to show those who aren’t aware of such goings on that there are some really sick people in our society; people who ought to know better than to destroy our wildlife in such a manner.

  7. 41 Chris Roberts
    February 15, 2016 at 10:36 am

    They all look so proud of their accomplishment, pathetic scum. Many more golden eagles would have gone hungry, due to these morons bloodlust.

    • 42 heclasu
      February 21, 2016 at 2:05 am

      Starve the eagles = fewer eagles = obvious really

      • 43 Marco McGinty
        February 21, 2016 at 12:36 pm

        Not necessarily. All that will happen is that the eagles will switch prey (to Red Grouse), resulting in the shooting industry claiming that grouse stocks are suffering because of raptors, giving them the opportunity for yet more calls for raptors to legally killed. It’s a bit like the pheasant rearing estates refusing to cover their pens, and just another example where the shooting industry is deliberately creating conflict where none should be. Mismanagement of the highest order.

  8. 44 Carolyn Lee
    February 15, 2016 at 10:48 am

    Down to the Landowner who allows it.

  9. February 15, 2016 at 10:54 am

    It’s an Annex V species so I can’t understand why culling is permitted without highly detailed information about the distribution & abundance. It’s an absolute disgrace.

  10. 46 crypticmirror
    February 15, 2016 at 12:45 pm

    Best way to cull hares responsibly is the same as the best way to do it with deer. Re-introduce the wolf and the lynx (some say bear and leopard too, but I wouldn’t go that far for obvious reasons). Also stop killing all the raptors and foxes.

  11. 47 Merlin
    February 15, 2016 at 1:28 pm

    SNH staff should get down to the Angus glens and get on the photograph, you could get all the shooters to stick two fingers up at them with placards saying shove your tempory ban on shooting hares we’ll do what we want, get the environment secretary down there, the gift of the mountain hare or welcome to Scotland. Congratulations to BASC you stood up for this, ask your members is this what they want to be associated with, an absolute disgrace our wildlife gets treated like this

  12. 49 Dougie
    February 15, 2016 at 3:29 pm

    I am at a loss to explain precisely where people with such a blood lust could be placed in the lower end of world civilisation league, but I find it difficult to imagine how they can have anything worthwhile to contribute to the human gene pool.

  13. 50 Eco-worrier
    February 15, 2016 at 3:44 pm

    This is Ecocide – in a just world the perpetrators would be excluded from the natural world, if not locked up. I am convinced that those with evil attitudes to wildlife are usually not good at respecting humans either. I understand BASC supported this killing – what’s that supposed to tell us about your morality?

  14. February 15, 2016 at 3:44 pm

    what a load of idiots , and when theres nothing left ,what next , great idea hunt themselves

  15. February 15, 2016 at 4:19 pm

    How can hunting on this scale be sustainable?

    • 53 Doug Malpus
      February 15, 2016 at 11:36 pm

      This is not hunting. This is carnage to satisfy blood lust, greed and a strange form of control. It employs nothing sensible, sustainable or conservational. Disgusting that such attitude are still around in the 21st century. Humanity has a long way to go, if we last that long.

  16. 54 Fredwright
    February 15, 2016 at 5:36 pm

    Why isn’t this shown to the “media”. You are preaching to the converted here when the only way to get it stopped is to get the general public on the case ( as with fox hunting).

  17. 55 nirofo
    February 15, 2016 at 5:49 pm

    It’s bloody disguting that this sort of wanton killing of Mountain hares for no good reason is still allowed in this day and age, the people responsible for these massacres should hang thei heads in shame, and that includes SNH who are in a position to stop it if they wanted to. None of the excuses put forward by the various shooting estates responsible for this outrage hold any water either scientifically or environmentally.

    When are SNH going to realise that they are employed by the public and paid from the public purse, they are not just there for the shooting estates and other shooting interests to use on their own behalf as they see fit. There are far more people out there who are paying for SNH who would rather have the Mountain Hares, the Raptors and all the other predators on the moorlands properly protected than see them overpopulated with Red Grouse for a selfish few to indulge in their lust for “blood sports”.

  18. 56 Jack Snipe
    February 15, 2016 at 6:42 pm

    When is the RSPB establishment going to realise there’s no room for compromise or complacency any more? These acts are morally bankrupt and ethically criminal, and ought to be properly recognised as such. The act of killing wildlife for pleasure should be outlawed by any society which considers itself civilised. To hell with the royal family and their pheasant shooting, and our hypocritical Prime Minister out on his fox hunts, it’s time for change to a caring society where violence is abhorred in all its forms. The sordid grins and smug expressions on the faces of the hare-killing gangs above is absolutely sickening. It’s clearly about power and control at so many levels.

    However it’s an indication of how callous we can all become when we get enraged by scenes of Mountain Hares laid out as trophies, yet we don’t seem to express similar outrage when the same happens to Red Grouse. We do quite rightly highlight the illegal persecution of raptors and the environmental damage generated by grouse moor management, but I sometimes think we forget about the obscenity of shooting large numbers of grouse just for the fun of it. We should think outside the box a bit more, and urge the RSPB to care about the grouse as much as they do about the hares.

    • 57 Marian
      February 16, 2016 at 2:02 pm

      Many of us here might wholly agree with this, Jack Snipe – to my mind killing for pleasure is appalling, whatever the species – and however numerous the creatures are.

      Going back to Fredwright’s comment about preaching to the converted – Yes – do people in the areas affected (and afflicted) succeed in getting this insanity mentioned in letters to the press?

      Were those photos printed in the press, or do local editors support the practice?

      If all this happens, then killing huge numbers of defenceless hares must be a matter of indifference to the public, which is very disturbing.

  19. 58 Tony Warburtopn MBE
    February 15, 2016 at 7:03 pm

    Just two words cover these pictures – ‘ Gross’ behaviour from ‘Crass’ people. I refuse to describe them and their sick grins of triumph, as those of ‘humans’. Just amazed Aileen the Silent isn’t among them, applauding their manly prowess. Wait for the complaints that Golden Eagles (the main natural predator of Mountain Hares) are killing their Grouse.

  20. 60 C Lee
    February 15, 2016 at 7:12 pm

    Well said and so true. Sad that you have to say though.

  21. February 15, 2016 at 8:02 pm

    10 years ago or last February – same difference …….. utter contempt for wildlife ……. if it runs kill it …… if it stays still, chase it and kill it ……..

  22. 62 Anon
    February 15, 2016 at 8:18 pm

    Quite a few years ago Angus was a staunch Tory stronghold held by Bruce Gardyne until dislodged by the SNP. They had grown disillusioned with the Party, not the philosophy. When they lost Angus Council they simply renamed the remaining members as Independants. The current Tartan Tory and voice for the shooting lobby is Aberdeen born Graeme Dey, Behind the power of the three different political entities sit high standing members of the community and thus quite influential, both financially and on the boards of the various organisations they are members of, often holding various offices. A hegemonic abuse of the system, However they are slowly being forced into a position in regard to these wildlife atrocities. Pressure must continue to be applied to the nerve centre of SNP to act if any progress is to be made. A public campaign to publicise photo’s as reproduced above should commence. If local newspapers can be persuaded to publish what can only be seen as pro-shooting propaganda e.g gamekeeper rescues bird of prey, (Ad Nauseum) then in fairness of balance pictures of the hare massacre should also be available for the public in general to view. Wildlife charities and organisations should also be contacted and asked for a response. The responses should be noted, leafleted and then distributed to the general public. The leaflets should encourage people to make a complaint to their MSP. Those more skilled than myself could scrutinise and analyse the political and NGO systems which support the present situation, identify their weak points, and start to pressurise/publicise them with a fair and balanced response to wildlife crime, regardless of who is responsible, the goal. In the meantime I will continue to call driven grouse shoots to be banned,
    Too much to hope for? Is there another way?

    • 63 J Hiles
      February 15, 2016 at 11:00 pm

      I think you’ll find that the so called wildlife conservation groups won’t shout too loudly, simply because the numbers of mountain hares breeding & thriving on managed grouse moors is far in excess of any of the ground supposedly looked after by RSPB Scotland, John Muir Trust, National Trust etc. Ever thought about why that should be, if they’re shooting so many of them.
      What the National Trust like to keep quiet though is that they have professional predator controllers on most of their estates for foxes, deer etc.
      & the Wildfowl & Wetlands trust don’t like to tell the public that they actually cull ducks when the need arises.
      The public maybe need to wake up & realise that it’s not all Peter Rabbit out there, no matter what they like to believe!

      • 64 Marco McGinty
        February 16, 2016 at 12:18 am

        “Ever thought about why that should be, if they’re shooting so many of them.”

        Because all known predators are routinely killed on shooting estates, and the “management” of these estates has created a massive imbalance.

        It’s well known that the National Trust, and its Scottish equivalent, carries out predator control and deer culling, and I don’t think they’ve ever tried to hide that fact.

      • 65 Simon Tucker
        February 16, 2016 at 5:37 pm

        J Hiles – are you really as stupid as your post suggests? The simple answer to your deliberately loaded question is that the organisations that you mention do not illegally kill all predators. Therefore mountain hare numbers are in balance on their land, except where neighbouring shooting estates deliberately target those reserves to provide negative propaganda for their cause.

        The RSPB and National Trust, on occasion and for specific purposes, undertake predator control. This is always done under licence and legally. Certainly neither the RSPB nor the National Trust hide this fact: they don’t shout about it either. This is in marked contrast to the illegal activities of the shooting estates.

        I can only presume that you are a troll for the psychopaths who enjoy killing wildlife.

    • 66 Marian
      February 16, 2016 at 2:04 pm

      Sorry , Anon – I have just made a similar point before reading your contribution here. Quite right.

  23. 67 keen birder
    February 15, 2016 at 8:56 pm

    This is what can happen when all the hares predators are kept to low numbers, the guns look like keepers and their beaters, probably a free days shooting, I wonder if the Mountain hare screams as loud as the brown hare does when they are caught by a dog or picked up when wounded, a truly horrendous sound like a crying scream. Horrible. Say no more

  24. 68 Donna Smith
    February 15, 2016 at 10:34 pm

    Stop it now! Evolve already, stupid cruel traditions carried out by idiots who enjoy tortour and killing!

  25. February 15, 2016 at 11:33 pm

    Come on Dr Aileen Dolittle…
    ….look at these guys having a laugh at your expense… that’s your credibility lying out on the grass.

    • 70 Marco McGinty
      February 21, 2016 at 2:08 pm

      You’re being a tad generous there, circusmaxim. Dr Aileen McLeod has achieved nothing whatsoever in tackling raptor persecution and other wildlife crimes.

  26. 71 Doug Kelson
    February 15, 2016 at 11:35 pm

    In the first picture, at least, the copious amounts of blood on some of the carcases suggests they did not die instantly. Dead bodies do not bleed.

  27. 78 Christine Reeve
    February 16, 2016 at 9:58 am

    These pictures are upsetting, but they’re of poor quality and the “huntsmen” also look a bit odd. If you click on the article itself, you find that it’s headed “Pete Carr reminisces…”. It’s about an old hunt. Whether it still goes on on this scale, I don’t know, and I hope not. But there’s not much point getting upset over something that happened years ago.

    • 79 nirofo
      February 16, 2016 at 3:35 pm

      WHY ??? It’s disgusting no matter when it happened and I’m not convinced it isn’t recent, there have been several hare massacres (hunts) similar to this in the last couple of years, many of them blogged about here on RPS.

    • 80 Jack Snipe
      February 16, 2016 at 5:32 pm

      Huntsmen “looking a bit odd”? What a surprise!

  28. 81 Nicky Callis
    February 16, 2016 at 4:56 pm

    What is the matter with folk where they get pleasure from killing animals. These folk need to be prosecuted NOW, along with the landowner(s) for allowing this to happen. It is sheer disgust to slaughter such beautiful animals for the sake of their precious grouse. Things need to change on estates whereby the landowner is accountable for everything that goes on on their land and they should pay heavy penalties for allowing such cruelty.

  29. 82 John F. Robins
    February 16, 2016 at 7:12 pm

    One question that must be asked is what about the poor wee ticks that would have relied on all those mountain hares for sustenance? Will they starve to death on the hills? Actually they should be OK because when the new season ticks emerge a few weeks from now there will be lots of young grouse, ptarmigan and other birds for them to feed on and ticks are known to quickly adapt to new hosts when numbers of traditional hosts such as hares are reduced. Our Minister for the Environment and Climate change should ask her very good chums and government advisors in the Scottish Gamekeepers Association to explain that one.

  30. 84 Marilyn Lindsey
    February 16, 2016 at 11:50 pm

    I don’t understand why a limit is not applied to the hunts, initially. If they want a real sport, have the hunters use their bare hands to catch the hares. Hope none of the animals go to waste after overculling.

    • 85 Jack Snipe
      February 17, 2016 at 12:11 am

      Of course they don’t go to waste, Marilyn. They’re used to fill awkward holes in the ground, or in “stink pits” to attract nuisance predators like Buzzards or Goshawks to be shot or poisoned.

      • 86 Marian
        February 17, 2016 at 8:32 am

        A timely reminder, Jack Snipe – how well organised these killers are, in a very mediaeval way. What a pity ways to stop them are not modern and effective.

        We are worked up by the futile cruelty of it, while those charged with (at least) controlling this waste of life turn a blind eye.

  31. February 17, 2016 at 10:55 am

    Everything about these pictures of dead hares and smirking humans makes me sick. It represents what is wrong with the countryside when a minority of morons can do this to our beautiful wildlife in a misguided attempt to save grouse for more morons to shoot later. As for Countryfile, I have already complained to the BBC about the program which gorified the killing and maiming of birds for sport. Everyone knows that 78% of gamekeepers are responsible for the illegal killing of raptors whether by poison,trapping or shooting. However the fight goes on and when the vast majority wake up to what is going on we will get driven grouse shooting banned. Meanwhile support your local Hunt Saboteurs as they are the only ones taking direct action to protect our wildlife.

  32. 88 Beverly Lemings
    February 17, 2016 at 11:21 pm

    We had that here in the states, the passenger pigeon, now all thats left of that beautiful bird is one, amd it is stuffed,in a vault where no one can see him. Even the artist who painted it had to go to the vault to paint. Thats here in Tennessee, straight from the artist mouth. What a shame that people can be so STUPID. You must stop this now.

  33. 89 Jim Wyllie
    February 18, 2016 at 4:50 pm

    High time the Scottish Government did something about these Donald Trump types shooting hares and various other animals and birds with utter despicable relish under the false name of sport.

  34. 90 I C T
    February 21, 2016 at 8:25 pm

    Marco the SNP government have made plenty of promises about curbing raptor persecution but with little to show for it. Now with Macleod they cosy up to the countryside killers. I voted SNP previously but not time around.

    • 91 Marco McGinty
      February 21, 2016 at 10:41 pm

      Then considering the successive failures of Labour, Conservative and LibDems at Westminster, and the previous failures of Labour and the LibDems at Holyrood, then I take it you won’t be voting at all. Unless you think the Green Party or UKIP will somehow manage to make the necessary changes with miraculous wins at Westminster and Holyrood.

  35. 92 I C T
    February 22, 2016 at 7:04 am

    I always vote Marco but not for the SNP next time. I’d rather a party did say nothing & did nothing than one that made so many promises to curb raptor persecution & done so little & now seems to have given up.

  36. 94 W Hall
    February 24, 2016 at 12:23 pm

    No justification
    No necessity
    No respect
    No science
    No investigation
    No enforcement
    No prevention
    No political will
    No mountain hares……..

  37. 95 Me
    February 24, 2016 at 6:31 pm

    “Oh spot the looney,spot,spot the looney” …oops ,sorry “Oh spot the loonies,spot,spot,spot the loonies”
    Who on Earth benefits from your gross act of stupidity ? No one absolutely no one. You must be right proud of yourselves….you freaks.

  38. 96 Eco-worrier
    February 24, 2016 at 7:42 pm

    Obviously loads of anger and feelings from decent folk on here – who’s got ideas on how we can constructively get involved in doing something about all this mindless killing. All ideas welcome -“every little helps”

  39. 97 Gary Baldie
    February 24, 2016 at 8:33 pm

    Give sspca increased powers

  40. 99 Harris Keillar
    February 29, 2016 at 10:55 pm

    When these appalling pictures first appeared on Facebook, the Angus Glens Moorland group or some such organisation leapt in to say that this had happened years ago. They still kill mountain hares though.

  41. 100 Angela
    March 13, 2016 at 10:48 pm

    Disgusting and disgraceful. These people are sick and pathetic.

  42. March 16, 2016 at 8:31 am

    Hi to all, I’ve just been reading some of the comments on this site and oh boy, what a worrying realisation that there are people who believe nature is all so cuddly. I don’t recall any of you commenting on RSPB, John Muir Trust or SNH slaughtering Scotlands Red Deer population indiscriminately. I think their argument is that there is an abundance/overpopulation, so, to protect the environment, they have to reduce the numbers. Isn’t that what these Estates are doing by reducing the hare numbers? Nature is cruel, I doubt many of you realise that all those wonderful wildlife programmes on the BBC showing Lions killing zebras or elephants, it can and usually does take hours for the prey to die. Unlike todays ‘Hunters’ who use modern weapons and ammunition which has the intention/benefit of killing quickly & humanely. Scotlands wildlife is being managed well, our countryside is there for all to be enjoyed,but, it is a working environment, not to be dictated to by the people who live in a fantasty world

  43. March 17, 2016 at 12:35 am

    Och aye….right enough….would that be the hunt saboteurs who ‘monitor’ hunts wearing balaclavas, send life threatening letters & set fire to hunt followers property….tut tut, how could they? Isn’t it a fact…a Scientific fact actually, that Shooting Estates have a far more diverse wildlife population than farms, nature reserves and countryside that is not shot over? Going back to Scotlands Mountain Hare population, didn’t the Scottish Gamekeepers Association throw down a challenge to all the so called experts demanding a stop to the legal control i.e. SNH, John Muir Trust and RSPB to show that the ground they manage has more Hares than any of the ground which is managed by Shooting Estates? Funny how none took up the challenge, in fact, all went rather quiet on the subject, I wonder why? Wouldn’t that have been the perfect opportunity for the ‘wildlife experts’ to put their money where their mouths are? I do not pretend to be an expert on Scotlands Hares but I have taken some satisfying photographs of Scotlands Mountain/Blue/White/Snow Hares and funny enough, I have always found the best place to find the Hares was on Shooting Estates (not under any bridge)??!! …..Och…a wee bit ironic eh?

    • 105 Simon Tucker
      March 17, 2016 at 12:15 pm

      That would be the hunt saboteurs that do the police’s job for them despite attacks from heavily armed thugs and harassment from the police, so that psychopathic losers and their apologists can kill our precious wildlife for fun?

      It is people like you, apologists and lying mouthpieces for criminals, who claim the hunt sabs violently break the law, but that is a lie: it is the hunt supporters who regularly resort to violence: hence they beat up two LACS monitors and stole their cameras; another sab was recently stabbed; it was a demented pro-hunt farmer who continuously rammed his tractor into a Landrover full of people – and a corrupt police force that decided to take no action. Personally, I would be in favour of more robust direct action and intimidation via social media and highlighting where the psychopaths live and work being taken by the sabs, but that would just result in giving morons like you a real axe to grind instead of the lies you have posted above.

      As for your pathetic contention that shooting estates harbour more bio-diversity than nature reserves: that is such an idiotic claim. I doubt whether the total bio-diversity of all shooting estates could match Minsmere on any Spring, Summer or Autumn day.

    • 106 Marco McGinty
      March 17, 2016 at 1:45 pm

      If you’d bothered to read the article, you would have realised that those that were wearing balaclavas were the pro-hunting, criminal assailants. The legal monitors would have been there on official business, and therefore no need to wear balaclavas, but you’re obviously too stupid to realise that.

      Now onto your “scientific fact” that “shooting estates have a far more diverse wildlife population than nature reserves.” Well, my response to that would be that your “scientific fact” is completely untrue, and if you believe in such drivel, then you are dim-witted in the extreme.

      Of course, we are often provided with such statements from imbecilic apologists such as yourself, but none of these statements are ever backed up with evidence. So, would you be prepared to provide any evidence to support your claim? To date, the shooting industry has repeatedly failed to provide any evidence, so you have an opportunity to prove us wrong.

    • 107 Marco McGinty
      March 21, 2016 at 3:20 pm

      I take it that Calum Campbell cannot provide any evidence for his “scientific fact” claim that “shooting estates have a far more diverse wildlife population than farms, nature reserves and countryside that is not shot over.”

      I’m waiting patiently for your response on this matter, so if there isn’t any supporting evidence for your claim, then I will have to conclude that you are indeed a liar, or gullible, or both.

      As Simon has mentioned, a species list of vertebrate fauna on any UK east coast nature reserve, would far exceed any corresponding list of any UK shooting estate, and I would imagine the same could be said for invertebrate lists. Indeed, my own patch on the west of Scotland will have a greater number of species than the majority of UK shooting estates, and quite possibly a greater list than any UK shooting estate.

      As previously mentioned, you have the opportunity to prove us all wrong, so please do include your evidence, along with species lists. But then again, the Gift of Grouse nonsense has repeatedly failed to account for their “81 species thriving on grouse moors”, so I won’t hold my breath waiting for any detailed, substantial, or factual reply.

  44. 108 Viv
    March 18, 2016 at 1:40 am

    How, in all thats holy, does the human race have sooooo many savage, ignorant, sad small membered, inadequate twats!

  45. March 19, 2016 at 12:29 am

    [Ed: This comment has been deleted because it’s abusive and off-topic]

    • 110 Simon Tucker
      March 21, 2016 at 5:03 pm

      Surely Callum Campbell and his ilk should be permanently deleted, not just his comments, and then, perhaps, our wildlife can be left to get in harmony with their environment and live out their lives, no matter how short, brutal or otherwise, without being abused by human psychopaths.

  46. March 21, 2016 at 7:46 pm

    Deary me, would you believe it…the Ed?!! deleted my response giving you some details of how [Ed: rest of this para deleted as it’s untrue and off-topic anyway].

    Or was it because I quoted some facts (scientific off course) backed up by English Nature and Dr David Bellamy.
    His reason….off topic and offensive??? Looks like the Raptor Persecution Forum,,,wait a minute….Jings…… I’ve just realised the Scottish Mountain Hare is not a Raptor….it’s a mammal..
    Looks like this is a closed forum to only people who are against shooting.

    Anyway, I will try and give you all some more juicy facts regards the diverse wildlife on shooting estates.
    The Game & Wildlife Conservation Trust scientists did a study on Estates which grow game crops. In the winter months songbirds were on average, 340 times as abundant as anywhere else, densities averaged between 30 to over 60 birds per hectare on each estate….wow….not bad going for a shooting estate.

    This is only part of the reason, because estates do predator control, these songbirds benefit.
    Scientists quote : Humane & targeted predator control is an ESSENTIAL part of effective game & wildlife conservation…I guess this is why RSPB now follow shooting estates management and kill foxes, crows & gulls to name but a few. Hope you all don’t find these facts offensive now??!!

    Incidentally….no one has yet answered my previous question as to why you require Hare shooting in Scotland to be banned. If you have any scientific evidence to suggest these animals are threatened or that cruelty is being carried out, give it to your MSP or MP so they can act. Like SNH, RSPB & John Muir TRust, you do not have any

    • 112 Marco McGinty
      March 22, 2016 at 12:53 pm

      “Or was it because I quoted some facts (scientific off course) backed up by English Nature and Dr David Bellamy.”

      No, you didn’t. All you did was type some words, and you have just repeated that same mistake. I’ve asked for evidence to back up your claim, so please provide some, rather than an outburst formed from falsified accounts, downright lies and moronic beliefs.

      “I’ve just realised the Scottish Mountain Hare is not a Raptor….it’s a mammal.”

      Well done!!! You must be so proud of yourself that you’ve finally managed to ascertain that the Mountain Hare is a mammal. Most children have managed to figure that one out before they enter primary school, but nevertheless, congratulations on your major discovery.

      “Looks like this is a closed forum to only people who are against shooting.”

      And yet you are able to post, and you have posted in the past. Not really a closed forum then, is it? More lies from a pro-shooter.

      “This is only part of the reason, because estates do predator control, these songbirds benefit.”

      And if predatory songbirds were annihilated in the same way as shooting estates target predatory birds and mammals, invertebrate populations would flourish. All it does is create a massive imbalance, and does nothing for conservation as a whole.

      “Scientists quote : Humane & targeted predator control is an ESSENTIAL part of effective game & wildlife conservation.”

      And which scientists would that be? It wouldn’t be people connected to the shooting industry would it? It really does amaze me that people believe this guff. If your nonsense was to be believed, then there would have been mass extinction events in recent centuries, with all of these raptors, gulls, corvids and predatory mammals running amok, and indeed we would see this happening today – but it never happened, and it doesn’t, which soundly defeats the shooting industry’s nonsensical belief.

      “I guess this is why RSPB now follow shooting estates management and kill foxes, crows & gulls to name but a few.”

      The RSPB might kill the occasional fox, crow or gull, but I’m quite sure that the organisation doesn’t go around shooting, poisoning, trapping or bludgeoning raptors and other protected species. So, on that note, to claim that the RSPB “now follow shooting estates management” is incredibly disingenuous, as predator control used a last resort is nowhere near the wholesale, indiscriminate slaughter of all predators that is practiced on most shooting estates.

      “Incidentally….no one has yet answered my previous question as to why you require Hare shooting in Scotland to be banned.”

      I don’t think you did ask that question. That was all in your head. But it’s another nice try to deflect from the very fact that you have repeatedly failed to answer my question. So, for the third time of asking, you have claimed that it is a “scientific fact” that “shooting estates have a far more diverse wildlife population than farms, nature reserves and countryside that is not shot over”, so please provide evidence to support your claim, along with species lists from these estates.

    • 113 Simon Tucker
      March 22, 2016 at 1:53 pm

      I will happily answer your last question. That you are happy for wildlife to be killed for no reason is why you are out of step posting on here: it should be a psychopath free zone. The culling of Mountain Hares can be construed as a deliberate ploy to remove another prey species from the food chain of Buzzards and Golden and White-tailed Eagles, foxes, stoats, wildcats etc., to starve them off the moors. Cynicism is warranted, with the continuing illegal actions of gamekeepers and landowners of shooting estates.

      The newly published review by RSPB scientists quotes peer reviewed evidence (not carried out by the RSPB but by independent scientists) that there is no causal link between the Mountain Hare population and tick borne disease in Red Grouse. This is the feeble justification used for the cull being put forward by the killers – and it is a lie. Feel free to download the paper, RPS have provided a link, you might get some education (but I won’t hold my breath). I would provide the reference but you need to learn to find your way around scientific papers and then, perhaps, you won’t make such an idiot of yourself in future.

      As for the RSPB using predator control, they have always done so: reluctantly, legally, effectively and for specific reasons – unlike the shooting estates.

      • 114 Eco-worrier
        March 22, 2016 at 8:23 pm

        Nicely put. I think enough people’s energy has been wasted on Callum Campbell – possibly his intention to draw the heat off the perpetrators. Can we now ignore him and concentrate on finding effective ways to work against all this insane killing. I previously requested details of Scottish government and SNH contacts – any chance of info that people can use for campaigning. Chatting with Campbell has achieved nothing.

  47. March 24, 2016 at 2:16 am

    Jings crivvens help ma bob…you are all so correct I have to admit defeat…I mean, why else would your Ed? delete my previous blogs…was it because I was correct,,,,naw..how could I.
    If my contribution to the debate on Mountain hare culling is deleted because it causes offence? is not topical? then you guys have lost big time.I see now why politicians totally ignore your contrbution, you cannot have a healthy debate when your Ed?!!who is nameless& faceless decides to delete factual and scientific evidence.
    Glad to see shooting estates have nothing to worry about.
    Incidentally, no one has yet come up with any scientific or factual evidence that Scotlands Mountain Hare ppulation is under threat or being cruelly dealt with, So…come on guys, ask your Ed??!! to reinstate my Blog which is factual…what are they afraid off…truth hurts eh..Also as a reminder on a different topic, I note that Police now have the power to disrobe Hunt Saboteurs (thugs) wearing balaclavas,,,what a shame…nothing to hide behind now Eh??
    All correspondence on this topic is now being forwarded to MSP’s/MP’s to see what evidence is being contributed to this forum (by the experts) of course

    • 116 Eco-worrier
      March 24, 2016 at 11:04 am

      You’re a rare creature – paranoid sociopath as far as I can see. Should probably be culled.

    • 117 Simon Tucker
      March 27, 2016 at 4:28 pm

      I believe you will find that all of the available evidence points to hunt supporters being the thugs. The only video evidence of a Hunt Sab being violent was a heavily edited propaganda piece that seemed to show a Hunt Sab attacking the whipper-in of one particular hunt, whereas the full video showed six hunt thugs (that’s “supporters” to you) kicking and punching the sab, who extricated himself from the attack by going through the weakest of the thug bunch – removing a couple of his teeth in the process.

      You are one very sick individual: it seems that all and any cruelty to wildlife is fine by you.

  48. March 24, 2016 at 2:20 am

    So come on guys…ask your Ed?! to reinstate my previous blogs, I mean, How can we possibly have a healthy democratic debate on the subject when my factual and scientific evidence is deleted?? Theres no point in having a one sided argument.. I mean…. you will always win

    • 119 Marco McGinty
      March 27, 2016 at 2:21 pm

      Just because you repeatedly state that you have “factual and scientific evidence”, doesn’t actually mean that your statement is true. You do realise that, don’t you?

      What should happen, is that you provide evidence to back up your claims, so please include some links to independently-produced factual and scientific papers, and then we can continue the debate.

  49. 120 Guy Wolf
    March 24, 2016 at 4:56 pm

    These hares should now be put on the endangered list
    In the near future we will lose them because of over hunting and climate change !!!!

  50. March 27, 2016 at 7:56 pm

    As I said before, ask your Ed to reinstate my previous blogs, there’s no point in me giving you the facts and the scientific evidence which is then deleted by your Ed just because it proves you all wrong. As I also said before, what evidence do you have to prove Scotlands Mountain Hare population is under any threat…there is none.
    Why do RSPB cull foxes, rats and gulls….well because over population of these birds and animals is detrimental to other species of wildlife or habitat. Same as why these hares are culled when & only when, numbers exceed what is deemed suitable for the habitat. When numbers become low, culling stops. This has been going on for hundreds of years by the way. So come on guys, you cannot have it all your own way. It is all right for RSPB to cull animals and birds, but not ordinary working folks in the countryside. You have all lost your arguments because there is NO argument or debate. It can only be one sided when your Ed deletes what he doesn’t like, factual or scientific.

    • 122 Eco-worrier
      March 27, 2016 at 8:27 pm

      This guy seems very desperate to distract attention and energy from constructive action on seeking reduction of killing wildlife. Ignore him……?

      • 123 Marco McGinty
        March 28, 2016 at 5:15 am

        Eco-worrier, it’s the same, tired tactics that all pro-shooters seem to use, and I can understand your reason for ignoring him, however we also have to remember that more and more people are becoming engaged with these issues.

        As a result, more people are reading blogs such as this, so we have to destroy the pro-shooting lies at every given opportunity, because we certainly won’t get any help from the mainstream media, who are only too happy to peddle the lies.

        • 124 Eco-worrier
          March 28, 2016 at 10:07 am

          I just think all energy should be focused towards people who can effect change – that idiot obviously can’t, unless he’s some kind of ‘devil’s advocate’. I want to know what I can do, who to contact, who needs support.

    • 125 Marco McGinty
      March 28, 2016 at 5:06 am

      As a result of your demented, lunatic ramblings, all you have done so far, is to act like an imbecile, an idiot, a moron, a clown, a buffoon, a charlatan.

      The site owner allows people like yourself a say, but just like more or less every single person connected with the shooting industry, you cannot provide any evidence to back up your nonsensical claims. Indeed, one of the very few occasions when one of your buddies did try support a claim (about the Goshawk population increasing by 16% per annum), until it was pointed out that their claim was utterly wrong, and quite possibly a deliberate lie.

      I’m quite sure if you could find any evidence from independently-produced reports, our host would happily permit the links, but you have to consider that we are dealing with an industry that recently claimed that 81 species of birds were “thriving on grouse moors”, yet no-one from outwith the shooting industry has been allowed to read the report.

      So, on that note, that in addition to you acting like a dimwit, you are also behaving like a sociopath, just like many of your shooting friends.

  51. April 4, 2016 at 7:52 pm

    Hey Guys, you are all still all rambling on about the same old thing, banning Mountain Hare culling, on what basis?
    Now, you can all call me these terrible names, (tut tut), but it is not going to help your argument.
    So come on, you have had ample time to present your case to Scottish Ministers there is cruelty being carried out. Any Minister just has to look at all the spiteful ramblings by the ‘experts’ on this site!!
    Also, no one has dared answer why it is alright for RSPB to control (kill) animals and birds, looks like one Law for one, different Law for another.
    Please try and get your facts right before posting comments others can read, it totally shows how ignorant people are of how the countryside works.
    As I said before, you cannot have a debate when your Ed has a selective statement/evidence removal policy, they are denying the uneducated some factual evidence.
    If I get time, I will look again next week to see what you have come up with

    • 127 Jack Snipe
      April 5, 2016 at 1:12 am

      Calum, you’re certainly persistent if nothing else. Perhaps this is what you’re wanting to tease out, but it is inevitable that different individuals may not see eye to eye regarding the details you request. That alone could be the simple reason for the lack of response. Personally, I stand for minimal ‘species management’ in nature conservation, while at the other end of the spectrum stand people like yourself and gamekeepers, for example. However, even among conservationists and RSPB supporters, there is bound to be disagreement over RSPB policy towards predator control. Perhaps both sides need to consider science and ethics more thoughtfully in deciding what is personally conceived as right or wrong. It’s a bit like politics, where both Tories and Labour politicians can be ascribed as being left or right wing, even within the contexts of their own party’s political views. Some hunters believe in abiding by the law, and not killing protected birds of prey, while others happily resort to extreme measures which can be categorised as right wing and criminal. Respectively, some RSPB members might think it’s okay to kill crows to prevent them eating Lapwings’ eggs, while others believe crows deserve as much protection as any other bird behaving as nature intended. Some might find it acceptable to kill Mountain Hares ‘for the pot’, but in the case of massacring hares in a misguided attempt to control ticks, that does not really enter the equation. Whether you agree or not, it seems that many people find this practice quite repulsive and dishonorable, guided by ill-conceived ideas of “how the countryside works” to quote yourself, and motivated by an antisocial desire to gain sordid pleasure from the unnecessary killing of wild animals. The Mountain Hare is harmless, the justification for killing them being more part of a belief system about “how the countryside works” rather than an intelligent perspective on ecological principles. The tick population is regulated by host abundance, therefore removing one host does not lead to a lower population affecting the grouse. It makes no sense ecologically or even just logically to conclude otherwise. So the real question you should be posing is not on what basis should the hares be protected from culling, but on what basis is it justified to kill them? From a distance, it actually appears that the game industry is deliberately reducing prey availability for Golden Eagles and other predators and scavengers, so that they switch to grouse thus justifying demands for lethal control of currently protected species. But that’s just a ridiculous conspiracy theory, isn’t it? The truth must be that most people obsessed with killing wildlife for pleasure are simply ecologically naive.

  52. April 12, 2016 at 2:35 pm

    Well well, over a week now to give us all evidence on what proof there is of Scotlands Mountain Hare population being cruelly decimated to an endangered level, and what do we have, none.

    Same as when the Scottish Gamekeepers Association who became so fed up with all the totally inaccurate stories of hares being endangered because of culling, last April offered a £1,000 reward to any conservation body that could prove the land they own and manage has more hares than land managed for grouse shooting. RSPB, John Muir Trust, Scottish Wildlife Trust and NationalTrust for Scotland have ALL been very quiet in response.

    Now, while I accept shooting is not everyones cup of tea, you must be able to appreciate the benfits shooting gives to employment in rural areas, maintaining Britains countryside, conserving our wildlife, much which would not be there if it were not for shooting.

    The following should be read very carefully by those wishing to stop shooting.

    The UK has 75% of remaining heathland left in the world, it is rarer than rain forests, why is it there?
    Well most is there because it is owned and managed by private individuals or syndicates who invest much money without government help. These people have it so grouse can be shot.
    The benefits are because the heather is burned on a rotational sytem, you have a mosaic of different ages of heather. This is done so that the grouse have young nutritious heather to feed on as well as older heather which is longer which gives shelter/cover to nest in.
    Studies have proved endangered and threatened species such as Golden Plover, Lapwing, Curlew, Ring Ouzel, Snipe and Redshank to name but a few, they ALL buck national declining trends on these grouse moors.
    Sudies have also proved waders are up to 5 times more abundant on moors managed for grouse and that, because the Gamekeepers carry out predator control to help the grouse, because of the predator control these waders have 3 times more chance of fledging their chicks.
    Also, this is the very reason these grouse moors have an abundant number of Mountain Hares.
    So, the same as why John Muir Trust and RSPB decide to shoot Scotlands iconic animal the Red Deer to endangered numbers in some areas (for trees), when numbers of the hares increases it becomes detrimental to other species, the hares are shot, the shooting stops in years when numbers fall.

    Without shooting, all the hill walkers and wildlife lovers would not see these beautiful landscapes, most would have been planted with non native trees with little or no biodiversity.
    There would definately NOT be an abundance of wildlife as some seem to think.

    Like it or not, this is how the countryside works, so before you all demonise shooting estates and gamekeepers just stand back a minute and take a look, What you see is probably because of the hard work these people do.
    More than all the ‘Eco-Warriors’ and armchair conservationists will ever do.

    If you want to do something for animals which are being cruelly treated, lobby your M.P’s to stop sheep being slaughtered, having their throats cut without being stunned.

    In reply to Jack Snipe, I am not aware of any petition at the moment in Scotland to have any bird of prey controlled.
    There is at the moment a petition, started by farmers to have Ravens added to the Quarry list because of the destruction to lambs and sheep, no conspiracy

    • 129 Eco-worrier
      April 12, 2016 at 6:06 pm

      Despite all your spinning, you are not able to explain the foul photos of men proudly displaying a carpet of dead hares, or the very recent picture of a pick-up truck loaded with corpses. This is what the original post is about. Perhaps the pictures are photo-shopped fakery………? Be honest, grouse shooting causes imbalances requiring butchery on a massive scale – totally unacceptable to decent human-beings.

    • 130 Marco McGinty
      April 12, 2016 at 9:08 pm

      Ah, Calum Campbell, the cretinous Captain of the Commonwealth Clown team makes his return, to offer yet another dose of moronic misinformation.

      As no-one else has tackled your question, and you’re obviously too stupid to have discovered the major flaw in your own questioning, I’ll give you an answer. However, you might not like what you read, as it does show you up to be an incompetent fool.

      The actual answer to your question is that no-one made the comment you are referring to. That was a figment of your vivid imagination, or perhaps as a result of voices in your head. What has been suggested, is that the Mountain Hare has suffered population declines in some areas, and a temporary ban be implemented until the impacts of large-scale culls can be properly assessed. No-one on this page stated that the Mountain Hare was endangered, and no-one on this page suggested that the Mountain Hare was threatened. Are you able to understand that?

      I will expand on the subject of cruelty, though. Any death inflicted on a sentient creature must cause some form of suffering, so it would be fair to state that an element of cruelty is involved in any killing.

      Now, onto some more of your nonsensical claims. You have clearly stated that a benefit of shooting is “conserving our wildlife, much which would not be there if it were not for shooting.” This is another of those flimsy, fallacious beliefs so often spouted by the shooting industry and its criminal apologists.

      So, on that particular issue, would you be prepared to name just one species that only exists in this day, as a direct result of shooting? Now, as you have intimated that there are several species that only exist because of shooting, I have made that question as simple as possible for you, by allowing you to name just a single species.

      However, despite repeated attempts asking you to provide independent evidence for your claim that it is a “scientific fact that shooting estates have a far more diverse wildlife population than farms, nature reserves and countryside that is not shot over”, you have failed on every single occasion, citing the nonsensical reason of censorship as a result of your inability to provide evidence. I do get the feeling that this is another of those unfounded claims.

      As a result of your demands for an answer on the supposed “endangered” or “threatened” status of the Mountain Hare, which as I have already suggested was all in your head, I have to take you to task on your own ideas of endangered or threatened species.

      You have stated that Golden Plover, Lapwing, Curlew, Snipe, Redshank and Ring Ouzel are all endangered and threatened, so let us analyse some of the facts regarding these species, shall we?

      The Golden Plover is a Green-listed species in the UK, and is a species of Least Concern, both in Europe and worldwide.
      The Snipe is an Amber-listed species in the UK, and is a species of Least Concern, both in Europe and worldwide.
      The Redshank is an Amber-listed species in the UK, and is a species of Least Concern, both in Europe and worldwide.

      So, why did you deliberately lie about the status of 50% of the species you mentioned?

      Your feeble response to Jack Snipe has only further supported my theory that you have a wild imagination, or you are hearing voices – either that, or you simply cannot read or digest basic English text. At no point did Jack Snipe state that there was a petition to have birds of prey controlled.

      And finally, onto your other idiotic belief that Scotland wouldn’t have beautiful landscapes if it wasn’t for shooting estates, the entire country would be planted with non-native trees, and there would not be an abundance of wildlife. Really??? You’re fast becoming a living monument to sheer stupidity.

  53. 131 Dave
    September 4, 2016 at 7:30 pm

    That pic should be put back up with the names of the smiling assassins on it.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Blog Stats

  • 2,979,808 hits

Archives

Our recent blog visitors