sea gulls

sniperman

hi all,just wondering are sea gulls protected.or are they vermin?

dodderangler

They are protected
Why I don't know. Just big white rats with wings.

sniperman

dodderangler wrote: »

They are protected
Why I don't know. Just big white rats with wings.

i do agree

Capercaille

sniperman wrote: »

i do agree

Why?

sniperman

Capercaille wrote: »

Why?

because thats what they are in my opionion as well.

dodderangler

Correct me if I'm wrong but if gulls are out feeding at dumps and the likes would they not get diseases and then be carrying diseases around everywhere they go.I see them on my land I hunt.
And they'd be picking up scraps and rubbish and flying off somewhere with that rubbish and leaving it somewhere else?

Birdnuts

dodderangler wrote: »

Correct me if I'm wrong but if gulls are out feeding at dumps and the likes would they not get diseases and then be carrying diseases around everywhere they go.I see them on my land I hunt.
And they'd be picking up scraps and rubbish and flying off somewhere with that rubbish and leaving it somewhere else?

That was an issue alright in the past when rubbish was simply dumped uncovered and unsorted at landfill sites. This sometimes led to avian botilism outbreaks among certain gull species and other birds that frequented such sites. Today however rubbish in now sorted and organic waste is quickly covered over as it arrives at waste disposal sites, which has more or less cut off this food supply for gulls. Indeed some reckon it is behind the sharp decline in breeding Herring Gulls in Ireland and the UK since the 80's. In any case most other gull species such as Common, Med etc. always preferred to feed in ploughed fields or on the coastline( on invertebrates like grubs,worms etc.) and had little to do with landfill sites.

Capercaille

sniperman wrote: »

because thats what they are in my opionion as well.

That's harsh to consider them little more than rats(vermin). Practically all Irish gull species populations are decreasing, you think they would have a little sympathy.

Mackcon

When them dudes in the 70s recreated st Brendan's voyage they fished for and ate seagulls , said they tasted like woodpidgion , just saying

sniperman

Mackcon wrote: »

When them dudes in the 70s recreated st Brendan's voyage they fished for and ate seagulls , said they tasted like woodpidgion , just saying

they prob do taste like pigeon,thats about the only thing they good for:D

dodderangler

Ah jaysus no
I couldn't eat one of them for me Sunday roast. Dirty fcukers eat everything and anything. I'd imagine they'd taste like soggy cod and chips they eat from hanging around chippers
So basically chipper food

sniperman

dodderangler wrote: »

Ah jaysus no
I couldn't eat one of them for me Sunday roast. Dirty fcukers eat everything and anything. I'd imagine they'd taste like soggy cod and chips they eat from hanging around chippers
So basically chipper food

yes,you are probably right;)

Mackcon

Mmmmmm soggy cod

OpenYourEyes

Capercaille wrote: »

That's harsh to consider them little more than rats(vermin). Practically all Irish gull species populations are decreasing, you think they would have a little sympathy.

There's 4 gulls you'd normally see in Irish towns and cities:

Herring Gulls are red-listed

Black-Headed Gulls, Lesser Black-Backs and Greater Black-Backs are all amber-listed.

And all of the less common gull species are in similar trouble.


So all 4 are decreasing rapidly without being classed as vermin

dodderangler wrote: »

They are protected

Why I don't know. Just big white rats with wings.

If you don't know why birds are protected and why some birds are classed as vermin, and the importance/necessity/repurcussions of those two classings then I feel you are doing the hunting community a disservice.

dodderangler

OpenYourEyes wrote: »

There's 4 gulls you'd normally see in Irish towns and cities:

Herring Gulls are red-listed

Black-Headed Gulls, Lesser Black-Backs and Greater Black-Backs are all amber-listed.

And all of the less common gull species are in similar trouble.


So all 4 are decreasing rapidly without being classed as vermin




If you don't know why birds are protected and why some birds are classed as vermin, and the importance/necessity/repurcussions of those two classings then I feel you are doing the hunting community a disservice.

Completely misunderstood my comment But do tell me why they are protected.I can respect an animal that is protected but I can't understand why some are.
And also don't insult me by claimin I do the hunting community a disservice.

Half-cocked

dodderangler wrote: »

And they'd be picking up scraps and rubbish and flying off somewhere with that rubbish and leaving it somewhere else?

If we didn't leave our scraps and rubbish lying around, gulls wouldn't pick it up.

OpenYourEyes

dodderangler wrote: »

Completely misunderstood my comment But do tell me why they are protected.I can respect an animal that is protected but I can't understand why some are.
And also don't insult me by claimin I do the hunting community a disservice.

Off the top of my head, two important roles that they'd do are:
1) acting as indicator species for changes in the environment e.g. if there's big declines in gulls then its likely that something bad has happened their foodsource, or parts of the sea or coast are heavily polluted. Similarly if there's a population explosion we can look into why thats happened - in the recent past it was because we werent covering up dumps, which was an unhealthy practice that we've rectified.
2) They also scavenge so eat the majority of dead stuff that washes up on the shore/beaches etc. If the big gulls were gone we'd have much more dirty and unhealthy beaches/harbours/shorelines etc. We don't see half the stuff that washes up because gulls have it gone so quickly, or sometimes before it reaches the shore.

And then there are other more intrinsic factors, and the fact that just because you want to shoot something or you want to build on an important habitat etc. doesn't mean you should be able to or have the right to.
Its similar reasons for every other species too then, and some have more specialist values too. Plus we gain a lot of useful information/science/engineering etc. from studying animals and birds etc. and how they live, how they've adapted to certain things, how they react to disease etc etc - and we aren't nearly finished learning from them, so if a species was to go extinct who knows what valuable information we could have lost! recently someone in congress in the USA gave out about money being spent on snail research, thinking that snails aren't important, but it later turned out that the research was shedding light on disease transmission and so was proving very useful to humans. So if you weigh up the costs and benefits of protecting a species (unless the damage they cause is getting out of hand i.e. vermin) versus the costs and benefits of not protecting them - it makes much more sense, and its worth much more to everyone to start off with them being protected and then allow their numbers to be reduced if needs be later on.

And by suggesting that something shouldn't be protected, or should be classed as vermin, without having given much thought or research into why, is doing the shooting community a disservice because other people will read your comment and think similar and then there are more uninformed opinions floating around that make uniting the goals of conservationists and hunters more difficult.
I'm sorry and I didn't mean to offend you too much, but seeing uninformed and sweeping generalisations by either hunters or conservationists makes my blood boil, because there's so much potential for the two to work together and achieve a lot.

sniperman

OpenYourEyes wrote: »

Off the top of my head, two important roles that they'd do are:
1) acting as indicator species for changes in the environment e.g. if there's big declines in gulls then its likely that something bad has happened their foodsource, or parts of the sea or coast are heavily polluted. Similarly if there's a population explosion we can look into why thats happened - in the recent past it was because we werent covering up dumps, which was an unhealthy practice that we've rectified.
2) They also scavenge so eat the majority of dead stuff that washes up on the shore/beaches etc. If the big gulls were gone we'd have much more dirty and unhealthy beaches/harbours/shorelines etc. We don't see half the stuff that washes up because gulls have it gone so quickly, or sometimes before it reaches the shore.

And then there are other more intrinsic factors, and the fact that just because you want to shoot something or you want to build on an important habitat etc. doesn't mean you should be able to or have the right to.
Its similar reasons for every other species too then, and some have more specialist values too. Plus we gain a lot of useful information/science/engineering etc. from studying animals and birds etc. and how they live, how they've adapted to certain things, how they react to disease etc etc - and we aren't nearly finished learning from them, so if a species was to go extinct who knows what valuable information we could have lost! recently someone in congress in the USA gave out about money being spent on snail research, thinking that snails aren't important, but it later turned out that the research was shedding light on disease transmission and so was proving very useful to humans. So if you weigh up the costs and benefits of protecting a species (unless the damage they cause is getting out of hand i.e. vermin) versus the costs and benefits of not protecting them - it makes much more sense, and its worth much more to everyone to start off with them being protected and then allow their numbers to be reduced if needs be later on.

And by suggesting that something shouldn't be protected, or should be classed as vermin, without having given much thought or research into why, is doing the shooting community a disservice because other people will read your comment and think similar and then there are more uninformed opinions floating around that make uniting the goals of conservationists and hunters more difficult.
I'm sorry and I didn't mean to offend you too much, but seeing uninformed and sweeping generalisations by either hunters or conservationists makes my blood boil, because there's so much potential for the two to work together and achieve a lot.

what a load of cobblers:D.

OpenYourEyes

sniperman wrote: »

what a load of cobblers:D.

Might involve a bit too much thinking for some people alright Thankfully there are plenty of people who realise these things when they hear it though!

sniperman

OpenYourEyes wrote: »

Might involve a bit too much thinking for some people alright Thankfully there are plenty of people who realise these things when they hear it though!

dont see to many agreeing though:rolleyes:

OpenYourEyes

sniperman wrote: »

dont see to many agreeing though:rolleyes:

Not too many people have probably read the thread, of those that have read my comment 4 have 'thanked' it, plenty more are likely to have agreed but not bothered thanking it, and a good number are likely to have at least partially agreed or taken some of the points on board. So the lack of people visibly agreeing with my post doesn't worry me. Also, the fact that everything I've said can be backed up is reassuring too - the number of people who agree with it doesn't affect how true it is.

And then there's the very small minority, like yourself, that will have disagreed just for the sake of it because you were just never going to change your mind anyway - too much effort and you'd hate to conceed that you might have been mistaken. The fact that you didn't forward any counter-points to mine is very telling.

People like you don't interest me tbh - too much effort to try and get you to think or use a bit of cop on. Much more productive to engage with people that want to either learn or have a healthy discussion about the topic.

sniperman

OpenYourEyes wrote: »

Not too many people have probably read the thread, of those that have read my comment 4 have 'thanked' it, plenty more are likely to have agreed but not bothered thanking it, and a good number are likely to have at least partially agreed or taken some of the points on board. So the lack of people visibly agreeing with my post doesn't worry me. Also, the fact that everything I've said can be backed up is reassuring too - the number of people who agree with it doesn't affect how true it is.

And then there's the very small minority, like yourself, that will have disagreed just for the sake of it because you were just never going to change your mind anyway - too much effort and you'd hate to conceed that you might have been mistaken. The fact that you didn't forward any counter-points to mine is very telling.

People like you don't interest me tbh - too much effort to try and get you to think or use a bit of cop on. Much more productive to engage with people that want to either learn or have a healthy discussion about the topic.

like i said, a load of cobblers:D

dodderangler

I do see and understand what you post says openyoureyes ( hunters aren't all mindless Neanderthals with guns wanting to kill everything) but can you explain this to me. Game birds and songbirds mate and rear young during the spring and going into summer. Magpies and crows raid the best breaking the eggs and stealing young and yet they have a season ( november till 31st of january)to be shot under derogation ie. doing crop damage.
Surely they should be shot most when the game birds and songbirds are nesting to give the young a chance at life?
The fact they have a season is beyond me and as such their number are growing rapidly as they havint many predators other than sparrowhawks and buzzards and odd cat but there's only so many a hawk will take a year as they also prey upon game birds and sprawks take the songbirds.
I am also putting gulls in this category as I just find them scavengers and dirty and opportunistic hunters aswell meaning they will also take young birds unaware of the danger and from researching online they do raid nests aswell.

Vegeta

dodderangler wrote: »

I do see and understand what you post says openyoureyes ( hunters aren't all mindless Neanderthals with guns wanting to kill everything) but can you explain this to me. Game birds and songbirds mate and rear young during the spring and going into summer. Magpies and crows raid the best breaking the eggs and stealing young and yet they have a season ( november till 31st of january)to be shot under derogation ie. doing crop damage.
Surely they should be shot most when the game birds and songbirds are nesting to give the young a chance at life?
The fact they have a season is beyond me and as such their number are growing rapidly as they havint many predators other than sparrowhawks and buzzards and odd cat but there's only so many a hawk will take a year as they also prey upon game birds and sprawks take the songbirds.
I am also putting gulls in this category as I just find them scavengers and dirty and opportunistic hunters aswell meaning they will also take young birds unaware of the danger and from researching online they do raid nests aswell.

Have you read the derogations dodderangler?

It very clearly states that Grey Crows and Magpies can be controlled in Spring and Summer for protection of fauna.

dodderangler

Vegeta wrote: »

Have you read the derogations dodderangler?

It very clearly states that Grey Crows and Magpies can be controlled in Spring and Summer for protection of fauna.

Link?

garv123

sniperman wrote: »

like i said, a load of cobblers:D

So you get schooled on the matter and thats you´re only reply.. :rolleyes:


Their numbers are in decline, they´re protected..

What are your reasons for wanting to shoot them since you asked and you think everything is a load of cobblers... besides being trigger happy?


They may on occasion raid nests but then again so do hawks and other BOP and they´re also protected...

Vegeta

dodderangler wrote: »

Link?

Here you go.

OpenYourEyes

dodderangler wrote: »

I do see and understand what you post says openyoureyes ( hunters aren't all mindless Neanderthals with guns wanting to kill everything) but can you explain this to me. Game birds and songbirds mate and rear young during the spring and going into summer. Magpies and crows raid the best breaking the eggs and stealing young and yet they have a season ( november till 31st of january)to be shot under derogation ie. doing crop damage.
Surely they should be shot most when the game birds and songbirds are nesting to give the young a chance at life?
The fact they have a season is beyond me and as such their number are growing rapidly as they havint many predators other than sparrowhawks and buzzards and odd cat but there's only so many a hawk will take a year as they also prey upon game birds and sprawks take the songbirds.
I am also putting gulls in this category as I just find them scavengers and dirty and opportunistic hunters aswell meaning they will also take young birds unaware of the danger and from researching online they do raid nests aswell.

I fully realise that about hunters, don't worry!

I was under the impression that crows could be controlled all year round under derogation? Or is there a difference between shooting them and controlling them via larsen traps etc?


Gulls, especially the bigger species, will certainly raid nests etc - but their numbers are much much smaller than Rooks, Magpies, Hoodies etc. and their (gulls) populations are all decreasing fairly rapidly,

And also, when game birds are breeding (spring/summer) the vast majority of these gulls will have moved to the coast to breed themselves, so won't really overlap with areas where gamebirds are breeding. And where they do overlap, a lot of gamebirds have well hidden nests compared to other birds.
So overall, gulls pose a minor threat to gamebirds compared to the threat from crows, mink, bad weather etc.

Gulls are a much bigger problem for seabirds that nest on cliffs and beaches etc., but to a certain extent thats just the natural order of things - while their methods of predation are nowhere near as impressive as that of something like a Peregrine, it still doesn't justify them to be classed as vermin or anything like that.

dodderangler

Vegeta wrote: »

Here you go.

Thank you

getz

I think all the irish gulls have moved to Fleetwood,and keep ****ting on my car,[must be irish boardies]

dodderangler

That's my point. I don't see why any species of corvid have a season because they'll be shot anyway and any hunter could use the excuse that they are protecting smaller birds and such. I am shooting them at the moment because they are swallowing a good mess of cow pellets.

garv123

Vegeta wrote: »

Here you go.

They´ve really made that confusing to remember since they´ve changed the dates between them all and divided each of them into three different dates for each type of protection.

dodderangler

garv123 wrote: »

They´ve really made that confusing to remember since they´ve changed the dates between them all and divided each of them into three different dates for each type of protection.

I was confused looking at it myself
It says about magpies can be shot to protect serious damage to livestock.
What livestock is that now? We talking fowl here.

sniperman

garv123 wrote: »

So you get schooled on the matter and thats you´re only reply.. :rolleyes:


Their numbers are in decline, they´re protected..

What are your reasons for wanting to shoot them since you asked and you think everything is a load of cobblers... besides being trigger happy?


They may on occasion raid nests but then again so do hawks and other BOP and they´re also protected...

first i did not say i wanted to shoot gulls,read my op properly,second a simple yes or no to my op would have been enough,i did not want a lecture by people who think they know everything,and third,yes i am happy with my trigger,:cool:

garv123

dodderangler wrote: »

I was confused looking at it myself
It says about magpies can be shot to protect serious damage to livestock.
What livestock is that now? We talking fowl here.

live stock = cattle, sheep, horses, chickens and the likes wouldnt it.

Mags can be shot if they´re attacking lambs from december until may but after may they cant.. thats strange.. But its attacking game birds you can all year around except January..

Half-cocked

OpenYourEyes wrote: »

And also, when game birds are breeding (spring/summer) the vast majority of these gulls will have moved to the coast to breed themselves, so won't really overlap with areas where gamebirds are breeding. And where they do overlap, a lot of gamebirds have well hidden nests compared to other birds.
So overall, gulls pose a minor threat to gamebirds compared to the threat from crows, mink, bad weather etc.

A good example of the lack of threat to game birds from gulls is Great Saltee Island. Large nesting colonies of Lesser and Greater Black Back Gulls (and slowly recovering Herring Gulls) and a massive pheasant population for such a small island.

As a sea angler, I love seeing gulls feeding at the back of our boat and appreciate the job they do cleaning up our shores.

dodderangler

garv123 wrote: »

live stock = cattle, sheep, horses, chickens and the likes wouldnt it.

Mags can be shot if they´re attacking lambs from december until may but after may they cant.. thats strange.. But its attacking game birds you can all year around except January..

I know what livestock is. I just didn't know about them attacking lambs. I know the greys and rooks do it. But didn't know about magpies so I assumed it meant the rob chicks and ducklings or something

Capercaille

dodderangler wrote: »

I know what livestock is. I just didn't know about them attacking lambs. I know the greys and rooks do it. But didn't know about magpies so I assumed it meant the rob chicks and ducklings or something

The cuckoo destroys it's host eggs/chicks. Do you dislike the cuckoo also?

dodderangler

Capercaille wrote: »

The cuckoo destroys it's host eggs/chicks. Do you dislike the cuckoo also?

Never came across one before and never heard of a cuckoo being raised by pheasant or any other game bird for that matter

Capercaille

dodderangler wrote: »

Never came across one before and never heard of a cuckoo being raised by pheasant or any other game bird for that matter

They kill songbirds chicks/eggs though. In your previous post you related to the damage crows do to songbirds

Surely they should be shot (crows) most when the game birds and songbirds are nesting to give the young a chance at life?

So you are you more concerned about Gamebirds like pheasant than songbirds?

Birdnuts

Capercaille wrote: »

They kill songbirds chicks/eggs though. In your previous post you related to the damage crows do to songbirds So you are you more concerned about Gamebirds like pheasant than songbirds?

In fairness the OP asked a simple question which was answered in the second post. This sort of stuff is way off topic and has little or nothing to do with hunting.

Cass

Think this thread has run it's course so closing thread.