The Student Room Group

nutty leftist party leader blames the floods on grouse shooting

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/green-party/12102239/Over-managed-grouse-moors-made-floods-worse-says-Green-party-leader-Natalie-Bennett.html


The winner of the award for nutter of the year so far goes to Natalie Bennett for her hypothesis that "Grouse shooting contributed to the floods".

Most irrelevant comment of the month "“Visiting the Moor, I saw the carcass of a rabbit by the roadside, probably hit by a car, rotting undisturbed – a sign that scavengers and predators are cleared from here – an assumption backed by a metal trap on a fallen tree crossing a stream (probably meant for stoat or weasel I was told)."
(edited 8 years ago)

Scroll to see replies

DEATH TO THE LEFT! :fuhrer:

Spoiler

Original post by Mayhem™
DEATH TO THE LEFT! :fuhrer:

Spoiler



Death to the Green party!

Seriously, which nutcases actually vote for them?
Reply 3
Avatar for Maker
Maker
20
OP clearly can't think for him/herself.
The article is titled 'Over-managed grouse moors made floods worse, says Green party leader Natalie Bennett', not 'Over-managed grouse moors made floods happen, says Green party leader Natalie Bennett'.

It does seem like a weak argument just to try and promote her agenda to ban grouse shooting, but she hasn't said that the activity directly resulted in the floods.
Original post by Maker
OP clearly can't think for him/herself.


I might not be Einstein, but I'm pretty certain that grouse moors do not contribute to flooding. Or if they do, I'm pretty certain that it is of negligible impacts, and there are far more important issues to be addressed.

I'm not going to be taking lectures on sustainable living from somebody who thinks that is should be legal to be a member of ISIS or al -Qaeda.
(edited 8 years ago)
While I do sympathise with her cause (no grouse shooting pls) she's made a bit of a tenuous link. However, given the actual title of the article, she may be scientifically sound.
Original post by Craig1998
The article is titled 'Over-managed grouse moors made floods worse, says Green party leader Natalie Bennett', not 'Over-managed grouse moors made floods happen, says Green party leader Natalie Bennett'.

It does seem like a weak argument just to try and promote her agenda to ban grouse shooting, but she hasn't said that the activity directly resulted in the floods.


Exactly. May be a tenuous link, but may be scientifically sound.
Original post by Craig1998
The article is titled 'Over-managed grouse moors made floods worse, says Green party leader Natalie Bennett', not 'Over-managed grouse moors made floods happen, says Green party leader Natalie Bennett'.

It does seem like a weak argument just to try and promote her agenda to ban grouse shooting, but she hasn't said that the activity directly resulted in the floods.


She's blaming the worse extent of the floods on grouse shooting. It's pathetic and stupid. Nobody actually thinks that right?
Original post by abruiseonthesky
Exactly. May be a tenuous link, but may be scientifically sound.


It's as scientifically sounds as saying breathing causes Global warming. Well yes theoretically, because CO2, but its negligible and there are far bigger issues to be addressed.
Original post by AlwaysWatching
It's as scientifically sounds as saying breathing causes Global warming. Well yes theoretically, because CO2, but its negligible.


The title says over-management of the moors for shooting, not shooting itself (the article may say different idk I haven't read it). No shooting = no over-management. Logically sound.
Original post by abruiseonthesky
The title says over-management of the moors for shooting, not shooting itself (the article may say different idk I haven't read it). No shooting = no over-management. Logically sound.


They wouldn't be over managed if there wasn't grouse shooting. It is an irrelevant grammatical error. It might be "scientifically" correct, as I said the same way breathing causes global warming because one releases CO2, but its negligible and there are far bigger issues to be addressed. It's a stupid and laughable argument.
“These comments sadly come from a position of ignorance. The conservation benefits of grouse moor management are well documented.
"Indeed, just this week the combined efforts of grouse moor owners and conservation charities such as the RSPB were formalised with the publication of the Hen Harrier Joint Action Plan, to boost numbers of this bird of prey.
“Blaming grouse moors for flooding is far too simplistic.
“If you were to visit a grouse moor as Natalie Bennett has apparently done, you would see five times as many threatened waders as you would on a moor without a gamekeeper and maybe a black grouse - 96 per cent of which live on the edges of moorland managed for grouse shooting.
"This is testament to the nearly £250 million shoot providers spend on conservation each year.”
Original post by abruiseonthesky
The Green party is kinda the lead on environmental issues. I'd listen to them on that - and I would ignore whatever the government says on the environment. They seem to take what their scientific advisers say and do the complete opposite.


Perhaps, but clearly not on this one.
Original post by AlwaysWatching
She's blaming the worse extent of the floods on grouse shooting. It's pathetic and stupid. Nobody actually thinks that right?


Well you really should've considered the title of your thread a bit more, it's misleading if you think that.
Original post by AlwaysWatching
Death to the Green party!

Seriously, which nutcases actually vote for them?


Me :yy:
Original post by abruiseonthesky
The title says over-management of the moors for shooting, not shooting itself (the article may say different idk I haven't read it). No shooting = no over-management. Logically sound.


Compared to activities such as hill farming and grazing, grouse shooting has very little impact on moors and upland areas. Just go to any moorland that is primarily managed for grouse shooting and see with your own eyes how much more biodiverse they tend to be than land mainly used for grazing.
don't bother criticising Natalie... it will just make her grouse more

:top2:

:getmecoat:
Oh Gordon Bennett!
Original post by Greenlaner
Compared to activities such as hill farming and grazing, grouse shooting has very little impact on moors and upland areas. Just go to any moorland that is primarily managed for grouse shooting and see with your own eyes how much more biodiverse they tend to be than land mainly used for grazing.


You haven't understood her point because she is incapable of making her point rationally.

In the last few years there has been a change in the way some grouse moors have been managed. Ditches have dug that mean the moors drain more quickly. There is a view that this adds to flooding. There is another view to the contrary. When the RSPB looked into this recently, it found that there was insufficient evidence either way. This isn't about biodiversity nor is it about grouse shooting per se but about one particular technique for managing grouse moors. The Bennett woman, if she is capable of understanding this, isn't capable of expressing it.

As the landowners on the tops, usually also own at least some of the land below, they are as much interested in the land below not flooding as they are in the moors.

Quick Reply

Related discussions

Latest

Trending

Trending

Articles for you