This is coolbert:
War! What is it good for?
Good for the birds? At least during war-time in England it has been.
We have to be perfectly clear what we are talking about here.
Shooting of ground-dwelling game birds in England a popular sport. Was one hundred years ago and is now.
Introduced species such as pheasant released in vast numbers on a yearly basis. A prey in-the-sights-of during season by zealous shot-gun wielding hunting enthusiasts. Native grouse also a popular target for the wild-game crowd. Oddball species such as the woodcock also a popular bird highly prized for the table.
Large landed estates of the English upper-class gentry and specified game preserves during peace time employing a small army of game keepers. The game keeper their mission to ward off out-of-season poachers AND SHOOT RAPTORS.
Raptors those birds-of-prey their quarry to include the game birds so highly prized by the hunting set.
Raptors [eagles, falcons, harriers, hawks] shot on sight, no warning given. Raptors seen as A PEST TO BE ELIMINATED.
Indeed, prior to the Great War [WW1] some species of raptors in England having gone extinct in the wild, such large numbers of the birds shot dead, again, ON-SIGHT no mercy ever given or thought to conservation or preservation. Game birds YES, raptors NEVER!
From the book "The Meaning of Birds" by Barnes. "War is often good for wildlife. Humans concentrate more on killing each other than on killing birds. So the two world ware were good news for British birds of prey. There were fewer gamekeepers on the ground because many were called up, and the whole country had other priorities - - and better uses for ammunition than sport."
Makes sense. Game keepers either volunteering or conscripted for the military their numbers greatly reduced on the "landed estates" and "game preserves", raptors for a period of years allowed to increase and multiply their kind. Human decimation of various species radically reduced. A more sound, sustainable and healthy environment the result.
Thank you war?