Deer Hunting RTE 1

LONG DRAG

Hi programme on Tue 08 June, about Deer hunting, Prime time 2130 hr RTE 1.

clivej

Prime Time never did the hunting or shooting community any favors.

meathstevie

clivej wrote: »

Prime Time never did the hunting or shooting community any favors.

I think you’re right. Be prepared for a lot of Bambi analogies, why don’t army snipers to do this very dangerous work, how can people own these weapons of mass destruction five mile lethal range icbm rifles and of course will someone think of the children....

Accompanied by a lot of tuttutting by O’Callaghan or whoever presents the program these days. I nearly forgot, an obligatory appearance by John and Bernie.

If it pans out to be any different I will be very pleasantly surprised.

tudderone

It'll be a cringe fest or a stitch-up job, and i wouldn't watch it for all the tea in China.

Grizzly 45

Must be Covid silly season in RTE... Got us maxxed out on Covid and now have to show something that the GP can feel outraged by

Be interesting to see which MUGS have been suckered into representing or thought they could do some free PR and had zero clues about dealing with the media for our side of the argument.:rolleyes:

Ok let's see what sort of hatchet job will be done AGAIN on us by Slimetime investigates:(:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

garrettod

I think I'll start drafting my letters of complaint to both RTE and the BAI now, for the lack of balanced coverage, inaccurate reporting, sinister background music etc.

yubabill

They took a more lighthearted approach to shooting in the last piece they did a few weeks ago on RTE. The last PT hatchet job on shooting got something like 50 complaints to the BAI, so I'll be surprised if they attempt another one. Still have to consider the recent slant RTE has been taking, along with the fact that the Ecos are in government, so maybe I should be more cautious. I did hear that there's a lot of TB in the deer population this year, maybe that's the angle.

Even though it's almost impossible to get a BAI complaint upheld, tonight will tell if our efforts had any effect.

garrettod

yubabill wrote: »

...

Though it's almost impossible to get a BAI complaint upheld, tonight will tell if our efforts had any effect.

If RTE come out with more sh1te tonight, it'll be important that the number of complaints is significantly higher than last time, as they can't be allowed to just keep pumping out the same old crap to suit a few personal agendas.

athlone573

garrettod wrote: »

If RTE come out with more sh1te tonight, it'll be important that the number of complaints is significantly higher than last time, as they can't be allowed to just keep pumping out the same old crap to suit a few personal agendas.

It could be interesting, Prime Time have a good reputation although I'm not sure what's so controversial about the current situation. Maybe Eamon Ryan's idea of using wolves for population control will get a mention.

Odelay

I don’t know. Maybe it won’t be so bad and they’ll be giving some handy tips.

Melodeon

Here's their online article on it:
https://www.rte.ie/news/primetime/2021/0608/1226923-deer-seal-culling-overpopulation/

It appears to be about the culling of deer and seals.
They have some thoughts from the beloved Mr. Carmody too.

Bog Trotter99

See how they mix the culling of deer which is justified with the culling of seals which can never be justified.

Put the two together and you get nasty men with guns.

Asus1

On the face of the above article it looks like a fairly balanced program except for a few crazy ideas from you would imagine rational adults.Darting seals with a contraception dart and talking about deer and saying they are the same as cats and dogs is something a teenager might say.
The idea that animals should control their own population is absolutely the right idea but unfortunately an idea that is not feasible as long as humans are around interfering with the world.
If people think shooting a deer in a field while it's eating it's breakfast is horrible they would be absolutely freaked out if they seen how chicken,beef or lamb was produced.

meathstevie

I’m pleasantly surprised by Éanna Ní Lamhna’s point on anthropomorphism and apparent refusal to eliminate culling as an option. But then again I’ve been pleasantly surprised by her point of view on the Derek Mooney show on a few occasions before.

She’s an environmentalist for sure but far from a blinkered fundamentalist as well. I reckon she’s a lot closer to Prince Charles’ school of thought than she would be to the animal rights looney fringe.

Feisar

I'll stick it on this evening to see what sort of a slant is put on things.

meathstevie

Bog Trotter99 wrote: »

See how they mix the culling of deer which is justified with the culling of seals which can never be justified.

Put the two together and you get nasty men with guns.

Don’t get me wrong but why could the culling of seals never be justified ? I’m not arguing that seals should be culled but I can’t see any reason why there couldn’t be a set of circumstances arising under which the culling of seals would be advisable.

There’s people living on the shores of the same Atlantic Ocean as we do whose ancestors for centuries have survived and thrived on the sustainable hunting of seals. Fur for clothes, meat and fat to eat, bones for needles and tools.

minktrapper

Asus1 wrote: »

On the face of the above article it looks like a fairly balanced program except for a few crazy ideas from you would imagine rational adults.Darting seals with a contraception dart and talking about deer and saying they are the same as cats and dogs is something a teenager might say.
The idea that animals should control their own population is absolutely the right idea but unfortunately an idea that is not feasible as long as humans are around interfering with the world.
If people think shooting a deer in a field while it's eating it's breakfast is horrible they would be absolutely freaked out if they seen how chicken,beef or lamb was produced.

Maybe humans should control their own population.

meathstevie

minktrapper wrote: »

Maybe humans should control their own population.

In our part of the world we do exactly that. Have you any idea how many million women in Europe are on the pill and how many hundreds of millions of condoms are sold and used every year ? On top of that the education system and housing etc etc is all geared towards small family groups of four maybe five people.

Bog Trotter99

meathstevie wrote: »

Don’t get me wrong but why could the culling of seals never be justified ? I’m not arguing that seals should be culled but I can’t see any reason why there couldn’t be a set of circumstances arising under which the culling of seals would be advisable.

You cant have a fishing policy which catches fish then dumps them dead back in the sea because you have caught over the limit, or leave them to rot somewhere.

Blame the EU it is their policy and they just will not change it yet claim to be environmental.

As regards culling of seals. Well if your country doesn't eat all the fish in your waters, then why should your seals be culled because another countries boats scoop up all the fish in your waters? Do you let French or Spanish farmers for example take all your crops off your farmers fields and instruct you to control the pests that attack them?

Bog Trotter99

minktrapper wrote: »

Maybe humans should control their own population.

100%

Most countries do not have a population problem and Ireland doesn't until now.

They say that children are our future. Children will actually be the death of the planet unless common sense is put into practise.

Richard308

Bog Trotter99 wrote: »

See how they mix the culling of deer which is justified with the culling of seals which can never be justified.

Put the two together and you get nasty men with guns.

In fairness, I think the culling of seals is probably justified, they’re destroying the breathing grounds of wild salmon and other species. I think (I’m open to correction) the population of seals is 10 times what it was in the 80’s

Bog Trotter99

Richard308 wrote: »

In fairness, I think the culling of seals is probably justified, they’re destroying the breathing grounds of wild salmon and other species. I think (I’m open to correction) the population of seals is 10 times what it was in the 80’s

It used to be not so long back that sea lice was killing the wild salmon. Sea lice explosion it was claimed due to situated salmon farms which have boomed since the 70's.

Are the true facts real or is the buck shifting?

athlone573

Richard308 wrote: »

In fairness, I think the culling of seals is probably justified, they’re destroying the breathing grounds of wild salmon and other species. I think (I’m open to correction) the population of seals is 10 times what it was in the 80’s

I would think that illegal fishing and lice infestation from fish farms is more to blame for any shortage of wild salmon than seals. It's great to see seals in our seas and harbours, they were threatened for too long, and if left alone nature will find a balance.

You can't say the same for sika which as an invasive species have reached epidemic proportions due to the lack of animal predators.

sheesh

Richard308 wrote: »

In fairness, I think the culling of seals is probably justified, they’re destroying the breathing grounds of wild salmon and other species. I think (I’m open to correction) the population of seals is 10 times what it was in the 80’s

Salmon breed in rivers.

sheesh

they did a big clear out (cull) of deer in killarney town park less than 2 years ago I heard there were signs up saying that part of the demesne were shut off from the public to cull deer. I don't know what the problem is.

Richard308

sheesh wrote: »

Salmon breed in rivers.

I am aware of that, but they travel from the sea inland.

useurowname

Caught it there. Too many deer, too many seals.. cull/don’t cull, probably need to cull, don’t know how many deer cos there’s been no survey. Animals rights people don’t like the cull idea, they want to give the seals contraceptives and rewild(wolves I’d assume)to sort out the deer. That’s the bones of it .

The pigeon man

Very balanced coverage. Great to see a scientist give his opinion that contraceptives for wild animals is entirely impractical. Far too many people think this is feasible instead of culling.


I found it funny when they stated that the deer hunter shooting under section 42 at night uses highly advanced technology, then he's shown using a red torch. In fairness thermal was shown a while after stating this.

meathstevie

I didn’t watch it but by the sound of things there’s grounds to be pleasantly surprised by RTÉ’s reporting on hunting related matters.

richiedel123

The pigeon man wrote: »

Very balanced coverage. Great to see a scientist give his opinion that contraceptives for wild animals is entirely impractical. Far too many people think this is feasible instead of culling.


I found it funny when they stated that the deer hunter shooting under section 42 at night uses highly advanced technology then he's shown using a red torch. In fairness thermal was shown a while after saying this.

Don't think the night time shooting bit should have been put into it. It will attract too much attention. The general population will think this is what's done now

kunekunesika

Loads of stuff you could find fault with, or could have been explored more, but not the hatchet job I expected.
Not link made between the increase forestry planting and deer expansion. No mention of deer not staying in the national park ( wild area) and coming out evey night for their dinner. No mention of how big of a wilderness you would need for the wolf ( that will solve every problem???).
Probably the big topic they dodged, what is the magic number? Who or how do you decide?
Was expecting much worse.

Feisar

useurowname wrote: »

Caught it there. Too many deer, too many seals.. cull/don’t cull, probably need to cull, don’t know how many deer cos there’s been no survey. Animals rights people don’t like the cull idea, they want to give the seals contraceptives and rewild(wolves I’d assume)to sort out the deer. That’s the bones of it .

Ended up missing it after. One has to laugh at the animal’s rights crowd. Shooting bad but let’s bring in wolves to do the job! Go have a look at the aftermath of a dog attack on sheep and come back to me on that one lads. They could also mean tracts of the country been given to wildlife maybe? We’re too small a country with too scattered a population for that.

Grizzly 45

Somewhat surprised that this was balanced for a gap-filling slot done over 18 months...Considering that it was the year before last that this seal cull was mooted.So that was their obvious hanger.

Surprised too at the comment from the Wicklow deer project bloke, about not wanting trophy hunters,as "that would be like shooting the prize bull!" You do realise there are lads in the EU that would pay good monies to shoot a prize stah too, and that you could guide and direct them into a good cullable stag?

Not surprised the John "streaker" Carmody's[As he is known by down here in Limerick] rantings and suggestions of rewilding the place with wolves from the enviro one. If we cant deal with marauding dog packs at lambing season, imagine what a wolf pack will do? And no, they won't stay in their rewilded areas either. A packs range could be the entire length of the 32 counties.

All in all pleasantly surprised... For once that this, by now historical info got aired. as the info is outdated in the last 18 months.
NPWS has been funded, there is an effort being made to try and get some figures on the deer herd size, and there is an animal rights green minister in charge, who seems to be bucking the trend for his political party global policy on hunting,and is actually listening to people who hunt.

tudderone

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

Not surprised the John "streaker" Carmody's[As he is known by down here in Limerick] rantings and suggestions of rewilding the place with wolves from the enviro one. If we cant deal with marauding dog packs at lambing season, imagine what a wolf pack will do? And no, they won't stay in their rewilded areas either. A packs range could be the entire length of the 32 counties.

Well if he and his lot are pushing for veganism, then they don't want people eating lamb or mutton anyway, so no need for lambing or sheep to be frank.

minktrapper

Bog Trotter99 wrote: »

100%

Most countries do not have a population problem and Ireland doesn't until now.

They say that children are our future. Children will actually be the death of the planet unless common sense is put into practise.

You should check out the population of the African countries. There is so many people there. Also check out population densities. It is trying to feed the planet is the problem. Modern agriculture is destroying the planet.

tudderone

minktrapper wrote: »

You should check out the population of the African countries. There is so many people there. Also check out population densities. It is trying to feed the planet is the problem. Modern agriculture is destroying the planet.

Yup, In 1950 the population of the world was 2.5 billion, its 7.7 billion now and by 2100 it will be 11 billion ! Thats a lot of mouths to feed.

Birdnuts

tudderone wrote: »

Yup, In 1950 the population of the world was 2.5 billion, its 7.7 billion now and by 2100 it will be 11 billion ! Thats a lot of mouths to feed.

With most of the growth coming in countries that can least afford it:(

tudderone

Birdnuts wrote: »

With most of the growth coming in countries that can least afford it:(

It'll be Asia, when you see some of the rubbish they eat now, what will it be like in 80 years time ?

Bog Trotter99

minktrapper wrote: »

You should check out the population of the African countries. There is so many people there. Also check out population densities. It is trying to feed the planet is the problem. Modern agriculture is destroying the planet.

Partly true.

The population of the world has soared in less than 50 years. The only way to feed them is with as you say modern agriculture, but that still isn't enough.

Neither is the food production enough because those people in less advanced countries want what you have. So all that industrial activity to supply those goods is destroying the planet also.

People and too many of them is destroying the planet and will do in just a very short time.

Driving around in an electric car won't make any difference except quicken the Earth's demise.

Taking tractors away from farmers and getting people out there to tend the crops will just make food bills soar, together with land prices. This will have a knock on effect of making roads and housing and everything else more expensive, but also reduce the spending power of people to purchase goods as they spend more money on their food bill.

It is a disaster on a huge scale and it will happen soon as the system breaks down.

Added to all this Western countries are allowing those other countries populations to migrate. So their problem of over population is being exported to our countries.

It won't be a deer or seal cull you will be hearing about in a few years. It will be the vanishing wild animals as food prices start to get more expensive and those 'free' animals become a food source.

Bog Trotter99

tudderone wrote: »

It'll be Asia, when you see some of the rubbish they eat now, what will it be like in 80 years time ?

The first type of 'environmental disaster' type movie I ever saw was made in 1970. The Earth's demise in the film was because of over population, pollution etc.

That film was based on a book, written in 1956. That is how long (at least) they have known about the problems we experience today.

80 years? I doubt there will be many left to tell the tale.


Happy fecker aren't I ?

yubabill

Missed PT last night - usually watch youtube now and forgot.

Glad to hear it wasn't a hatchet job.

On world population, it's expected to peak at 10-11Bn mid-century and then decline naturally.

Africa will be the biggest contributor, as Asia is mostly maxxed out, China is already seeing irreversible decrease in births (and as an aside, apparently Russia has been massaging births for the last 4-5 years). Africa is becoming affluent, it's not the desert they put on TV many millions have escaped absolute poverty, many live in cities with cellphones and cars. Yes, they are less-developed than the West but the people are resilient and have ingenuity, they are progressing at an amazing rate. With this shift away from subsistence farming will eventually come less need for children and more desire for affluence.

I don't see problem feeding 11Bn, we're already doing it with 7-8Bn. When I was a kid, the world had 3.5Bn and they worried about population growth and food. They managed with new techniques and fertilisers etc., granted at the cost of biodiversity.
But a lot of people forget that Nature is not a static, fragile thing - it is dynamic. Just tarmac or concrete a piece of field and see how long it lasts. Eventually, something will burst through and if left alone it will be overgrown. Not in favour of tarmac or concrete, just using to illustrate the passing nature of the things we do as humans. I don't see humans as parasites on the Earth, we are a part of Nature, too just as much as ants, bees, wildebeest and so on. And our population will naturally adjust to the resources available given time.

Feisar

Bog Trotter99 wrote: »

It will be the vanishing wild animals as food prices start to get more expensive and those 'free' animals become a food source.

I've noticed a lot of the smaller stuff doesn't seem to be around anymore at all.

Couldn't tell you when I last heard a grasshopper or seen frogspawn. Butterflies, bees and wasps don't seem as plentiful these days either.

Bog Trotter99

Feisar wrote: »

I've noticed a lot of the smaller stuff doesn't seem to be around anymore at all.

Couldn't tell you when I last heard a grasshopper or seen frogspawn. Butterflies, bees and wasps don't seem as plentiful these days either.

This year I have seen only 2 bees. No butterflies. About 10 flies except for millions of midges. No frogs and no grasshopper for years and I live in an area with lots of natural trees etc.

Bog Trotter99

yubabill wrote: »

Missed PT last night - usually watch youtube now and forgot.

Glad to hear it wasn't a hatchet job.

On world population, it's expected to peak at 10-11Bn mid-century and then decline naturally.

Africa will be the biggest contributor, as Asia is mostly maxxed out, China is already seeing irreversible decrease in births (and as an aside, apparently Russia has been massaging births for the last 4-5 years). Africa is becoming affluent, it's not the desert they put on TV many millions have escaped absolute poverty, many live in cities with cellphones and cars. Yes, they are less-developed than the West but the people are resilient and have ingenuity, they are progressing at an amazing rate. With this shift away from subsistence farming will eventually come less need for children and more desire for affluence.

I don't see problem feeding 11Bn, we're already doing it with 7-8Bn. When I was a kid, the world had 3.5Bn and they worried about population growth and food. They managed with new techniques and fertilisers etc., granted at the cost of biodiversity.
But a lot of people forget that Nature is not a static, fragile thing - it is dynamic. Just tarmac or concrete a piece of field and see how long it lasts. Eventually, something will burst through and if left alone it will be overgrown. Not in favour of tarmac or concrete, just using to illustrate the passing nature of the things we do as humans. I don't see humans as parasites on the Earth, we are a part of Nature, too just as much as ants, bees, wildebeest and so on. And our population will naturally adjust to the resources available given time.

It can't decline naturally. They won't let it and do everything to keep it growing. It's the only way they can sustain their economic system.

Less people, means less consumers, means less profit, means less revenue, means economic collapse.

Regards adjusting naturally............thousands of years ago they reckon our population was just a few million. This was because come winter, food was scarce and we died until we discovered the farming of grasses.

Wheat, barley, oats, rice they found can be stored through the winter to feed us and our livestock so the population boomed but peaked at about 1 to 2 billion and stopped that way until around 100 years ago.

Then we had refrigeration and antibiotics and farm industrialization and the result is today.

So where do you think the line is regards a 'natural population'?

Melodeon

Here's the episode, the culling item starts at 16.00 minutes:
https://www.rte.ie/player/series/prime-time/SI0000000825?epguid=IH000400739

corelokttikka

There’s no apex predator apart from hunters end of debate. Everyone knows the harm and damage done by animals to the environment if their not kept in check. Fauna would be wiped out etc etc effecting all species including mankind. Never mind the claims going in for car crashes and damage to vehicles or worse by over populated areas where deer live.
As regards to insects if the fauna is there insects thrive, they do in my gardens and so there’s lots of nesting birds. Farm land however nowadays need to change. A lot are sterile cutting, draining etc for every square inch to grow grass, mono culture for dairying etc

Grizzly 45

tudderone wrote: »

Yup, In 1950 the population of the world was 2.5 billion, its 7.7 billion now and by 2100 it will be 11 billion ! Thats a lot of mouths to feed.

Yeah,and us thinking apes can actually match this population growth,by technology .Food has never been cheaper,plentiful or in abundance n mankind history than in the present day.I am old enough to remember in the 1970s ,India still having a famine because of rice crop failure.
They export rice nowadays.

This "We are,all gonna die,cos the world has too many people!"is another debunked myth that has been around since the 1970s purported by a Mr Eherlich and like the rest of the doomsayers of environmentalism is bunkum. In fact they were talking about this happening in ancient Rome...We are still here ...

tudderone

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

Yeah,and us thinking apes can actually match this population growth,by technology .Food has never been cheaper,plentiful or in abundance n mankind history than in the present day.I am old enough to remember in the 1970s ,India still having a famine because of rice crop failure.
They export rice nowadays.

This "We are,all gonna die,cos the world has too many people!"is another debunked myth that has been around since the 1970s purported by a Mr Eherlich and like the rest of the doomsayers of environmentalism is bunkum. In fact they were talking about this happening in ancient Rome...We are still here ...

Unicef say there are 190 million people in India undernourished at the last count. A point has to come when we can no longer feed everyone. Apart from that, what are all these people going to work at ?

Grizzly 45

Feisar wrote: »

I've noticed a lot of the smaller stuff doesn't seem to be around anymore at all.

Couldn't tell you when I last heard a grasshopper or seen frogspawn. Butterflies, bees and wasps don't seem as plentiful these days either.

Wait about another month.Everyhing is about 4 /6weeks behind this year.Courtsey of the jet stream being lower over us than usual and hanging around longer.

tudderone

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

Wait about another month.Everyhing is about 4 /6weeks behind this year.Courtsey of the jet stream being lower over us than usual and hanging around longer.

Yeah, including my Tomato plants, courgettes, and strawberry's :mad:

Bog Trotter99

tudderone wrote: »

Yeah, including my Tomato plants, courgettes, and strawberry's :mad:

Tis cold though.

This year 1 cuckoo and 2 swallows which appeared for a day and disappeared then nowt.

Whitethorn flowers just changing to pink. Mass of them this year but what has pollinated them? I have no idea as no flies or bees.