Interesting news story here.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-11748775
It is estimated that the grouse sector directly employs 220 people in the whole of Scotland. Is there any other industry employs so few people per acre of land?
Indeed. There is much talk right now about "welfare scroungers". I wonder how much taxpayers money by way land subsidies support these 220 jobs? Poor value for money in anyone's book.
There is far more contribution than the direct jobs...this report suggested ?11m being injected into often remote communities with few job opportunities.
There are plenty of examples of councils running former grouse moors having lost or banned shooting. The result is a woeful waste of tax payer's money and grouse habitat lost due to incompetence and /or lack of resource.
It's a dangerous route to argue against something because you don't like the people that do it?!
Whether we like it or approve of it or not is not the question. In simple economic terms does laying over vast tracts of land to provide 220 jobs make sense? We can't really consider indirect jobs as it's impossible to put a figure or a value on them
We can look at the, ?11 million pounds of course, which must include the value of these indirect jobs and it is peanuts considering the vast amount of land being set aside in order to make it possible.
There has to be a better use of Scotland?s land resource than this, surely? Without even going into the damage caused to scrub regeneration and bio diversity by burning to maintain the virtual heather monoculture of the grouse moor, public money through land subsidy etc.
This report
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-south-scotland-11665227
suggests that in Galloway alone the ?red kite trail? has brought ?21m into the local economy over the past 6 years. Allegedly kites and other raptors are not looked upon favorably by grouse moor managers even although they might appear to have a greater potential economic benefit for the wider community than grouse.
No, read it again. I'm not slagging anything off. I'm asking a question. Is there any other industry employs so few people per acre of land?
As far as better use goes, it could be that a more diverse and natural mix of plants, birds and animals might provide more scope for wildlife tourism as seen in Galloway?
Fishing? :worms :crap
Quote from: burnie on November 14, 2010, 02:49:28 PM
Fishing? :worms :crap
Don't laugh, more biodiversity might well improve the fishing. :lol:
Quote from: buzz on November 14, 2010, 03:44:19 PM
My own thoughts are that Grouse shooting all ready benefits the diversity, wildlife and tourism in the Highlands why knock it?
What I have read suggests the opposite. Undoubtedly it helps maintain grouse numbers with varying degrees of success. The research into this including the most successful patterns of muirburn was done (back in the 1960s I think) by Adam Watson of the Institute of Terrestrial Ecology near Banchory for his phd thesis. Open blasted heath with no scrub or trees does not promote a natural or diverse environment. Neither does illegally killing raptors which ,allegedly, correlates with the most intensively grouse managed areas of Scotland: Angus, Perthshire and the Borders.
I have no information for wildlife tourism other than that link above and I?d be very surprised if there was a whole lot available. Unlike grouse shooting which has been a faltering economic venture since the 19th century, wildlife tourism is an infant just learning to walk. Killing what the people come to see is hardly likely to help it expand.
In Scotland a total of ?600 million was paid out in land subsidies in 2009. I?m sure most would agree this is not a trifling amount. I don?t know the breakdown, but it?s intended to support farming I believe.
I spoke with workers on the estate we fished on up at Kinbrace in 2005 and they were concerned that the change in the subsidy regime would allow the Laird to keep far fewer stock (mainly sheep) and still receive the same amount of public money each year. They had a real fear that fewer stock would mean fewer jobs. It could be argued then that on a mixed sporting / livestock farming estate if you are getting the same money for doing less farming, then a greater proportion of it is supporting the sporting side. Would that be a good use of public money if it was supporting grouse shooting that directly provides 220 jobs in the whole of the country?
A farmer I spoke with in Glenshee a few years ago was complaining the estate was preventing him using areas of what had always been the best hill grazing for sheep. According to the farmer this was to make way for grouse. This seemed a bit strange as grouse do better on heather and sheep do better on grass.
Huntin? shootin? and fishin? are a perfectly legitimate use of land, all of us here do at least one of them. Legitimate yes, but not to the exclusion of all else and they certainly should only receive public support by way of handouts if there is a wider economic benefit, especially a benefit measurable in jobs.
And while we are on the subject of public money, is this a good way to spend it?
http://www.flyfishing-and-flytying.co.uk/news/view/Montrose_salmon_nets_get_eu_grant/
Quote from: admin on November 14, 2010, 09:17:37 AM
.
This report
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-south-scotland-11665227
suggests that in Galloway alone the ?red kite trail? has brought ?21m into the local economy over the past 6 years.
Don't you just love big number statistics? If you do the maths -that comes to 95.89 extra visitors per day for every single day of the six years, each spending ?100 day. Solely on the basis of Red Kites. See "Three kinds of lie", Mark Twain.
It is going to be a great help to the Fife "red kite trail" and local economy to know that those responsible for the reintroduction of the birds did so "from a secret location"!
Tourism is Scotland's biggest earner or so we are told anyway. We are a country that is relatively poor in resources with a harsh climate. Our landscape is probably our major selling point our wildlife may help make that even more attractive.
Quote from: Inchlaggan on November 14, 2010, 04:36:59 PM
Don't you just love big number statistics? If you do the maths -that comes to 95.89 extra visitors per day for every single day of the six years, each spending ?100 day. Solely on the basis of Red Kites. See "Three kinds of lie", Mark Twain.
It is going to be a great help to the Fife "red kite trail" and local economy to know that those responsible for the reintroduction of the birds did so "from a secret location"!
Don't forget the 13 full-time jobs each year of the project so far. Then there's the grouse-type indirect jobs to consider. :lol:
Quote from: admin on November 14, 2010, 04:46:30 PM
Tourism is Scotland's biggest earner or so we are told anyway. We are a country that is relatively poor in resources with a harsh climate. Our landscape is probably our major selling point our wildlife may help make that even more attractive.
Wholly agree, but try it. You immediately hit a brick wall of vested environmental protection interests.
A local B&B was well served by the local wildlife. Eagles, otters, pine martens, red deer and much else could be seen without leaving the comfort of an armchair by the window in the lounge. The owners proposed an extension (conservatory/ hide) to better improve the views and another couple of bedrooms to increase revenue flow. This would increase income across the local community and another member of staff would be employed. Planning permission refused on the objections of.....SEPA, can you guess why?
Quote from: Inchlaggan on November 14, 2010, 04:58:22 PM
Planning permission refused on the objections of.....SEPA, can you guess why?
The outflow from the bigger septic tank that would have been required might have upset the smolts in the local fish farm cages?
Am I close? :lol:
Quote from: admin on November 14, 2010, 05:03:34 PM
The outflow from the bigger septic tank that would have been required might have upset the smolts in the local fish farm cages?
Am I close? :lol:
9/10.
Reduced to 5/10 for being sarcastic about smolts in cages.
Spot on about the sceptic tank though.
They had three letting bedrooms so the septic tank outflow would have increased, but the rooms are not occupied 365 days a year. However, if they had given up on the extension and the B&B business and raised a family of six, the septic tank outflow would have increased by around the same amount. And no authority could intervene.
But surely the same political will that protects the interests of Norwegian fish farmers and American billionaires in Scotland could have been brought to bear in this case? Seriously, is there no route of appeal?
Past land subsidies and the current single farm payment are only paid for agricultural use of land and have never been paid to landowners for grouse or any other kind of shooting.
Some grant payments have and are being made for habitat improvement/management works which most farmers/land owners would probably admit they enter mainly to get the benefits to their sporting/farming business (new fences paid for etc) but at the end of the day the habitat is improved and the public get the benefit they are paying for. If the landowner doesent do the work or maintain it any funding paid will be reclaimed with interest.
Funding for managing moorland has only started to receive funding in the last 4 years and even includes payments for heather burning. The funding is being made because all research (which even the RSPB agree with) points to well managed moorland providing better habitat than unmanaged moorland; by taking the funding the landowner has to follow best practice which includes protecting tree regeneration, wetlands etc within the moorland.
Not going to pretend that its all rosy out there as a lot of bad practice still going on but if anything subsidies are helping rather than hindering and are only being paid as there is supposed to be a public benefit. In the ideal world revenue from tourists coming to see birds of prey and managing moorland for grouse should not be mutually exclusive.
Sorry didn't mean to go on so much :)
Quote from: admin on November 14, 2010, 05:24:04 PM
Seriously, is there no route of appeal?
I deleted the sarcasm again!
Nope.
SEPA (and others) may well object at the Outline or Detailed planning stages, and do.
However, SEPA are consulted at the Building Warrant stage. This is
after the planning process (complete with right of appeal, all the way up to Wee Eck himself). Whilst the extension could have gone ahead, SEPA used their authority to insist upon a sewage treatment plant costing tens of thousands being installed. This in itself would require planning permission.
The same thing happened to me. The septic tank was installed in the 1950's to serve 20 persons and now serves two. It was updated to exceed current effluent standards. When I planned the new house, all went swimmingly through planning. I was demolishing a three bedroom house and replacing it with a two bedroom house pretty much on the same footprint. When it came to the Building Warrant stage, SEPA insisted on my demolishing the old septic tank and replacing it with a plastic one with a capacity for five persons. I was also required to pay them a one-off fee of ?70 for a licence to discharge. The good news is that I could do this online. I just had to mark a cross on an online map the discharge point of my tank. The scale of the map means that my cross was 100 x100 metres wide!
Quote from: Part-time on November 14, 2010, 05:33:00 PM
Sorry didn't mean to go on so much :)
You didn't the post was excellent. I suppose one questions it does raise though is what is "well managed" and "well managed" for what?
Quote from: admin on November 14, 2010, 05:50:52 PM
You didn't the post was excellent. I suppose one questions it does raise though is what is "well managed" and "well managed" for what?
Agree, excellent post.
Quote from: Exerod on November 14, 2010, 08:40:05 PM
Netting is clearly far more sustainable than salmon farming and organic too.
I completely agree. There is a place for salmon sustainable netting. It's just as valid a way to kill a salmon as by a rod and line.
Well written part time
Quote from: admin on November 14, 2010, 05:50:52 PM
You didn't the post was excellent. I suppose one questions it does raise though is what is "well managed" and "well managed" for what?
This is what the Government expect you to do and what for if you want to try and claim grant funding:
http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/farmingrural/SRDP/RuralPriorities/Packages/UplandsandPeatlands/Muirburnandheatherswiping#top
Thanks for the link John. I've had a quick look and so far I don't see much chance of getting any cash out of them for weed removal on my couple of acres. :lol:
You never know Fred; a bit of imagination and a creative application and you could be in the money for those weeds :)
Part -time beat me to the point re subsidies ...not sure what some posters are refering to but I'm not aware of any subsidies directly relating to the activity. The suggested tax breaks are also few and landowners have to demonstrate that the shoots are viable businesses, not just for private benefit. In the past this has been problematic.
There is also this argument of other use...there is a real cap on the amount of red kite based tourism and surely the Galloway example is reliant on the fact it is a localised novelty. With successful wider reintroduction surely there would be little or no public interest..eg who would travel to see a buzzard. The main other economic use for the upland is sheep farming which arguably does far more damage to biodiversity.
I was talking to a gamekeeper on the Hebrides a while back. He pointed out that when the shooters come to stay they hire lodges and hire local caterers, keepers, teams of beaters and dog men. They have large group lunches and dinners all pumping money into the local economy. Birdwatchers stay in a B&B at best and take a pack lunch with them. Not knocking birdwatchers but as an alternative industry it doesn't really add up..what they basically engage in is impossible to charge for.
I just think this thread is a bit of a wider political dig at landowning...from my experience the worst land managers and some of the most restrictive on access rights are the likes of councils and National Trust.
Well Rory, we all have the right to hold our own political views on any aspect of land ownership, nothing wrong with that in a democratic country, but to get back to the question, is there any other industry employs so few people per acre of land?
Deer stalking,Falconry,try scoring for Scotland? :crap
Quote from: burnie on November 15, 2010, 11:38:08 AM
try scoring for Scotland?
I tried to write a program to calculate that but kept getting division by zero errors :D
Possibly not but don't really see that it matters...it's not subsidised (as suggested), if anything it enhances access and the only viable land usealternative across the majority of land is sheep farming...which when you factor in overall economic impact probably has less benefit per acre and more biodiversity reduction.
Grouse are very hard to maintain in numbers and public sector custodians have generally failed. Hen harriers and peregrins live off grouse...it can be beneficial relationship if not abused by a minority of keepers that poison. As a proportion I bet there are more fishery managers that kill protected cormorants so as a sporting group we should be very careful about attacking another field sport :oops:
A fair post Rory, but it's not about attacking anyone. It's a straightforward question about jobs / acre. It certainly does not look like an especially efficient use of the country's land resource. The reason I posted it in the first place was astonishment at how few people it directly employs according to that news item on the BBC. There will always be claims and counter claims about so called indirect jobs, salmon farms use it a lot.
I'd rather see grouse managed habitat than blanket forestry. That's the other common use for so called wasteland. What puzzles me is that if grouse are very sensitive to the right mixture of young and old heather why is it I see most grouse on remote unmanaged moorland?
Quote from: Malcolm on November 16, 2010, 09:41:33 AM
why is it I see most grouse on remote unmanaged moorland?
fewer shot there?
Malcolm
This may be your anecodatal experience but on the whole is far from the case. I used to beat on a grouse moor so loaded with grouse that in times gone by the owners built a railway all the way up to the butts. The council took ownership and grouse stocks have been decimated. I work a pointer and in a day's roaming you would be lucky to flight a couple.
The council weren't buring heather fully, allowed too much grazing, weren't laying grit, divertionary feeding or culling predators....a 24/7, 365 day job. They did exploit the toursim potential of hen harriers and placed a web cam in the nest with live streaming to the vistors' centre. Two years in a row a fox killed the chicks on live video stream...an example of their lax land management and at what cost to the tax payer?
My uncle is a very highly regarded keeper and states the reason for the poor growth in capercaillie on neighbouring estates is that the chumps in National Trust employ are poor land managers who do not control predators such as stoats and foxes; Capercaillie like other UK galliforms, are ground nesting.
Quote from: Exerod on November 20, 2010, 09:34:39 AM
You need to kill foxes to save hen harriers - you need to kill all the hen harriers you have saved to save the grouse. Result you have killed everything so that you can have your sport with artificially high numbers of grouse (or pheasants down in my neck of the woods). Too me that is just wrong.
A fair and accurate summary. Then when grouse numbers get artificially high parasites and disease take the place of missing predators. As I understand it this has been the major cause of grouse stock declines. In short grouse were never meant to be there in those numbers. Grouse moor management just screwed up the balance of nature.
Trouble is once you start to "manage" a habitat,be it moor of woodland,you can't just walk away from it.The diversity of wild creatures has changed,to walk away could set the land back for decades.What does need to change is the attitudes from the estates"kill everything with a tooth or a claw" to the bunny huggers,"you can't kill anything".
Man has removed animals that used to maintain a balance,now unless we re introduce bears and wolves,deer will have to be "managed".
Anglers have in the past removed otters to the point of extinction,for the same reasons that are practised on grouse moors.We now know a few otters are preferable to being over run by alien mink.
Pike are not popular with some,but it has been shown that they and rainbow trout are the top food item for ospreys.
What would be nice was if we stopped poisoning the land and treated it with the respect and help to protect it for the future .Forget short term financial gain with little or no thought for the long term consequences.I would like a stop to all wind farms and covering the land with polytunnels for a bit to just study the effects these things are having on the enviroment.Then maybe proceed if all is well,we seem to have this "fast food" want it now attitude for everything and it is not progress in my eyes.
I agree with pretty much everything you have posted there Burnie but will quote the line where it all falls down.
Quote from: burnie on November 21, 2010, 03:54:23 PM
Forget short term financial gain with little or no thought for the long term consequences.
It's worth watching the 'Scotland's Water' programme that is on iPlayer right now to see how the post war ideals of highland hydro power have been bent, twisted, privatised and sold to the highest, greediest bidder for the energy "!free market". Short term gain for companies and shareholders override all other considerations.
Quote from: burnie on November 21, 2010, 03:54:23 PM
Trouble is once you start to "manage" a habitat,be it moor of woodland,you can't just walk away from it.The diversity of wild creatures has changed,to walk away could set the land back for decades.What does need to change is the attitudes from the estates"kill everything with a tooth or a claw" to the bunny huggers,"you can't kill anything".
Man has removed animals that used to maintain a balance,now unless we re introduce bears and wolves,deer will have to be "managed".
Anglers have in the past removed otters to the point of extinction,for the same reasons that are practised on grouse moors.We now know a few otters are preferable to being over run by alien mink.
Pike are not popular with some,but it has been shown that they and rainbow trout are the top food item for ospreys.
What would be nice was if we stopped poisoning the land and treated it with the respect and help to protect it for the future .Forget short term financial gain with little or no thought for the long term consequences.I would like a stop to all wind farms and covering the land with polytunnels for a bit to just study the effects these things are having on the enviroment.Then maybe proceed if all is well,we seem to have this "fast food" want it now attitude for everything and it is not progress in my eyes.
:applause :applause
Well said Burnie. We can't turn the clock back. Leaving nature to it's own devices could be done but the results could be worse than we have now; habitats taken over by imported invasive plant species, red squirrels replaced by greys; woodland grouse die out because predator control stops (RSPB control lots of predators on their reserves but not surprisingly dont publicise this), etc, etc. We need to try to to the best we can with what we have left but its always going to be a difficult balancing act with so many conflicting interests.
On the original question of jobs/acre; grouse shooting does not employ many (like any other business it only employs the numbers needed to get the job done) but I can't think of any alternative landuse that would currently do much better in terms of jobs on the ground. I guess Sheep farming would be similar, wildlife guides for tourists similar or less, forestry less (although definitely more downstream jobs if productive). The first two along with deer stalking can all be carried out on the same land and some landowners are already doing this so if there is an answer to creating more rural jobs it will involve multiple land use rather than single land use.
Fachan beat me to the suggestion of fishing employing fewer people / acre.
This has been an interesting thread to read with excellent points made on both sides of the debate. I do not know enough about land management and grouse to venture an opinion on options to employ more people per acre. However if someone did would it be a good thing? I like knowing that I can take off to a hill loch and be unlikely to see another soul.
Robbie
Interesting development on the grouse front.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-13339288
There was another eagle poisoned reported last week as well http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/home-news/golden-eagle-found-poisoned-on-estate-owned-by-royal-relation-1.1099902?localLinksEnabled=false
I'll try and watch that tonight.
Personally I find it very sad that so many sporting estates, fishery owners and even ordinary anglers on fishing forums appear obsessed with the killing of birds and animals that they imagine threaten their own narrow interests.
Such an evil thing to do, what a death these beautiful birds must have. All for the pursuit of money. The people doing this should be bloody ashamed of themselves. As usual bugger all will be done to stop this happening.
As a former falconer,I've watched,studied and read a lot about birds of prey,known a lot of falconers who have hunted with both British and non indigenous birds.
The common conclusion is that apart from the Peregrine,British birds are mostly useless for falconry.
The reason is they don't take quarry that falconers disire to hunt,funnily enough,the same species that shooters like to take.
Small birds , which may be taken, are the ones that unfortunately,give the estates some reason to complain.Because the number of prey are in "un natural/managed"numbers,then the likes of Harriers and Short Eared Owls do take grouse chicks.In a natural situation,then a natural balance prevails.
Eagles and Peregrines will take the odd fully grown Grouse or Pheasant,but all the rest,Buzzards and Kites for example are primarily scavengers,that may take a young rabbit.
There are grouse moors that cater for falconers,they do not feel the need to kill other birds of prey.
Finally,poisoning is the most indiscriminate way to kill/cull and is quite barbaric and should carry a jail sentance as a minimum.If numbers are required to be controlled ,then shooting is the only clean and quick way to do it.
Quote from: Ardbeg on May 10, 2011, 07:46:00 PM
I'm sure in one of the fishing mags there are calls for killing saw bills. It might have been in FF&FT but I have read T&S recently too.
Quite frankly they, and other knuckle draggers who, in the name of sport, call for the killing of birds and animals whose only crime is to eat to survive, disgust me.
Quote from: Ardbeg on May 10, 2011, 07:46:00 PM
I'm sure in one of the fishing mags there are calls for killing saw bills. It might have been in FF&FT but I have read T&S recently too.
Ardbeg
I do remember reading a letter in a magazine from one "gentleman" who was extremely upset that the RSPB had put nest boxes up for goldeneyes in Speyside because Goosanders nest up trees too and this could therefore increase their numbers.
You know, sometimes when I read some of the narrow minded, ill informed trash in magazines, their letters pages and on some other forums I really do have serious doubts about the long term future of angling. Some of these idiots appear hell-bent on destroying our relatively good relationship with the wider non-fishing public. Once we lose that we are gone.
I wonder if the Scottish government will yield to landownership interests as they did with indiscriminate snares? Like element I would be tempted to destroy any such devices I came across.
There's a well known cycle with glut which happens when the numbers of prey species increase. It goes like this:
1 Prey species increase - predators increase
2. Less prey but predators still high. Artificially high numbers of predators almost obliviate prey species
3.Predators move off elsewhere and often die.
4. Slow recovery of prey species
5. go to 1.
etc etc
The important point is that predators reach their peak numbers well after the peak of the prey species - that's what causes the extreme damage to the prey species.
It's more complex than this but you get the picture. Glut can be natural but it's seldom as accentuated as when man interferes. That's clearly what happened in the experiment on Langholm Moor which basically killed the moor off for years.
Quote from: Element on May 10, 2011, 11:17:10 PM
If I come across any of these bird traps that they showed at the beginning - I'd spend a few minutes crushing it with rocks and boulders to make my conscience feel better;E.
The police have contact No for local wildlife officers, reporting location promptly may one day lead to, or help with prosecution of the landowner, traps are cheap, a few weeks in a cell as 20stone tommy 'the hatchet's bitch, would make him think twice before repeat offending...
Joe
I've just picked up a copy of the Field magazine,get one from time to time.There's a full page advert from the Churchill sporting agency,for the Lammermuirs(which I think is in the borders)3 days Grouse shooting for 3 guns shooting 300 birds,?10500 per gun.Gives you an idea of how desperate they might be to add a couple more birds at those prices!!over ?30000 for 300 birds!!
Good news story here for Mull.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-business-13783555
Value of sea eagles for Mull alone - 5 million. Looks pretty impressive compared to 11 million for grouse for the whole of Scotland.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-11748775
What I don't understand is why these rich people need to shot 100's of birds in 1 day, that isn't sustainable. Manage the land for a mix of wildlife and shooting, get rough shooters and bird watchers. Maybe on different days though :P
I think you are right Scotaidh. Nothing at all wrong with shooting if it's done sustainably. My own definition of sustainable is shooting a natural surplus, not some artificial high number that may have been created by the slaughter of raptors that appear to be of more value to Scotland's economy than the grouse they are killed to protect.
Quote from: Alan on June 16, 2011, 02:41:35 PM
ideally this would be good for everything, if we ate pike, perch, roach etc, dined on wild roe deer, which are becoming a road hazard in places, not sure about eating magpies and cormorants but i like the formula.
we breed an awful lot for entertainment and food while populations of things that used to be food explode into problems.
My grandmother used to say cormorant was the best eating seabird.
Quote from: Scotaidh on June 16, 2011, 04:44:03 PM
My grandmother used to say cormorant was the best eating seabird.
I imagine it tastes like wild brown trout from my local loch. :x
Quote from: River Chatter on June 16, 2011, 06:59:35 PM
I imagine it tastes like wild brown trout from my local loch. :x
more likely stockie rainbows from one of the many dubs. C'mon the cormorants!!! :lol:
Quote from: Alan on June 17, 2011, 01:17:45 AM
christ knows why people fished for trout in the first place, pike is like eating mud with needles
Salmon too, the most culinary overrated fish that swims, even the the wild stuff is pretty dire. Nice smoked, but then so are most things. Give me a bit of haddock any day! :D
I have always been interested in what we Britons will or will not eat- horse anyone?
On safari in Kenya our Masai guide would tell us the common (English), latin and local names of each animal spotted. An antelope was identified as "kongoni" and I commented that I had tried that for dinner the previous night- delicious. The other couple in the Land Rover were horrified- how could I eat wildlife?
Quote from: admin on June 17, 2011, 09:08:22 AM
Salmon too, the most culinary overrated fish that swims, even the the wild stuff is pretty dire. Nice smoked, but then so are most things. Give me a bit of haddock any day! :D
I really don't know what goes on with your tastebuds Fred but fresh caught salmon is a delight! The fish I really don't care for is cod. That is the most overrated fish. Unless you give it a decent sauce it is very bland.
Quote from: Inchlaggan on June 17, 2011, 01:03:49 PM
I have always been interested in what we Britons will or will not eat- horse anyone?
On safari in Kenya our Masai guide would tell us the common (English), latin and local names of each animal spotted. An antelope was identified as "kongoni" and I commented that I had tried that for dinner the previous night- delicious. The other couple in the Land Rover were horrified- how could I eat wildlife?
Fashion and Fad seems to come in to here. Many of the things once thought of as peasant dishes could now command ridiculous prices in a resturaunt.
I once did the "tourist-y" thing whilst on holiday and went on a guided tour of the ruins of an old city. When we reached what was aparently the "slums" area of the city our guide told us of how the people would have to "survive" by drinking claret and eating oysters- because they were poor :shock:
Oysters and other shellfish used to be considered food for the poor not so long ago, which is why they find middens full of their shells around the old slums of Edinburgh
Some interesting comments on "the other forum" regarding cormerents.
Unnatural abundance of fish in inland waters greatly declines overwintering mortality, thus increasing population. Factor in declining marine fish stocks and you have yourself the perfect recipe.
Quote from: Ardbeg on June 26, 2011, 08:02:48 PM
Aye, some numpty had hinted that he would like to see otters targetted too :shock:.
I saw the same hint by another well known numpty on a stockie bashing forum. :roll:
Quote from: Alan on June 26, 2011, 09:17:48 PM
my l i dare say he did nothing different to any highland gamekeeper in the same situation
you are right, he commited a criminal offence