I totally agree. The ecological impact of pets is out of control & it's an issue that no-one is brave enough to tackle. There are too many dogs & cats with too many ignorant owners. 'Nation of animal lovers' is simply untrue - we are a 'nation of domesticated animal lovers'.
We stopped using flea treatment years ago as it seemed unnecessary, expensive & damaging. Never used it on our current dog & never had an issue with fleas. The whole thing is a legalised racket, perpetuated by the veterinary industry
Such a sad end for such a beautiful creature. Can't bear to see it.
Still think the birdfood industry is about 'conservation', rather than endless commercial growth in pursuit of £££? See how their industry leader reacted. The science is well known, but heaven forbid there'll be a threat to his industry's profits (and sod the wildlife): www.bbc.co.uk/news/article...
This new advice will sound familiar to older folk, as strong rule until 1990s was to only feed birds in winter. That changed when birdfood industry started wagging the dog, seeking huge commercial growth. Now we've got mass disease & waste. And not one species of conservation concern has benefited.
From my own experience, it's very difficult to persuade people to stop feeding their garden birds, even when you present them with the evidence. Not sure it it's denial or selfishness or just plain ignorance.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2026/apr/09/uk-food-security-iran-war
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c2lwvz1pl1no
These 2 environment stories today are linked. UK uses 150,000 tonnes of birdfood/yr from intensive farming.
Worried about land use, food security, carbon, climate, water scarcity, pesticides, livestock emissions, habitat loss, food miles, oil, fertiliser, shipping?
Don't squander it on common birds.
So what if a diseased bird comes and feeds on the day after you've cleaned up? A week's worth of uninhibited disease transmission. Bird feeding is creating a highly unnatural situation & a perfect way for disease to spread.
'Fine' for disease, but any feeding has consequences, favouring some species over others, and suet/fat are animal fats from intensive farming, with issues that comes with (climate/land/waste). There's better uses for expensively produced animal fats than feeding to Blue Tits that don't need it.
They've done a great PR job of rebranding farming that's for sure. It's still a farm at the end of the day - it's not a replacement for proper wild nature, something almost totally lacking in Britain.
It's a reflection of the sad state of affairs in conservation in Britain - constantly using carefully controlled farm animals behind fences to 'mimic' the actions of species that we've removed. No room for wild nature.
Ah, thought you just meant that losing the ability to hunt them is sad.
In what way is it sad?
"One of the penalties of an ecological education is that one lives alone in a world of wounds. Much of the damage inflicted on land is quite invisible to laymen."
"Nature is repeatedly discussed in terms of human needs, human values and human choices. Conservation, in this view, becomes something we do for ourselves – because it benefits us, reflects our identities or supports our livelihoods." Perfectly sums up my issue with conservation in Britain
Wolves in killing each other shocker. Are they surprised that this has happened?
I mean putting aside basic humanity & general emapthy for your fellow human beings, this seems like an issue that is absolutely connected to environment & climate change. But what do I know.
I can tolerate rough shooting, but I have zero tolerance of pheasant releases. It's an absolutely ridiculous idea - if someone came up with the idea today, they would rightly be laughed at.
Second, regular falling limbs & trees (very frequent in natural forest) flatten Hazels in the understorey, again stimulating new growth. So the ability of Hazel to regenerate doesn't rely on mammals as such, or on active management. It can also be explained as solution to living under mature trees.
Yes, that's exactly my problem with it too. It seems ludicrous to me that native species are culled in large numbers to protect the tens of millions of non-native gamebirds, many of which will be injured & left to die, providing more food for the species which are then 'controlled'. Endless cycle
I find that you put across your position with clarity & accuracy and I always have to think very carefully if I'm constructing a counter argument!
Historical prejudice & ignorance must be a factor, even today. There will always be sections of society who claim there are 'too many xxx' based purely on prejudice rather than scientific reality.
Of course, and the same goes for me. Your threads always make me question my own views which is why enjoy reading them so much.
Domestic dogs and cats are functionally pests then, surely? And the only reason those species won't ever be controlled is emotionally motivated.
I guess it depends on what rights one believes that non-human species should have.
Humans continually seem to be amazed when non-human species exhibit complex behaviours that we arrogantly assume to be unique to us. None of these new revelations about non-human intelligence/sentience/behaviours surprise me really!
The Northern Rockies Ecosystem Protection Act is wilderness legislation as it should be—with no special provisions that chip away at the Wilderness Act or weaken the protections Wilderness and wildlife need.
Urge Congress to pass NREPA!
wildernesswatch.salsalabs.org/nrepa-2025/i...
I think you can value animal rights & have beliefs that are grounded in scientific reality. Historically, I'd argue that disregard for animal rights was partly as a result of ignorance of animal sentience & intelligence - they are 'only' animals, so do as you please.
Which 'other equally important issues' are you referring to? And could you not claim that placing importance on those other issues is also an emotive response? A historical disregard for animal welfare is partly what has led us here.
Do people honestly believe that the game shooting industry has a genuine interest in conserving ground nesting bird species? It does seem like a HUGE coincidence that the birds they claim to want to protect benefit from predator control that also benefits the birds they want to shoot.