fenboy Posted August 17, 2014 Report Share Posted August 17, 2014 Maybe you should be posting here. http://www.rspb.org.uk/community/default.aspx I see the support act has turned up again ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DNT Posted August 17, 2014 Report Share Posted August 17, 2014 Well DNT I fail to see how Kent members will benefit as having a 1/4 share only ONE of the share holders are allowed to shoot at a time. Also a share holder is allowed SIX Guests a Season eg the person is allowed to apply for SIX Day Tickets be very interested to hear how Kent plan to over come this so ALL there members get a fair cracking. Or as you put are Kent thinking waiting long term and now they have their foot in the door ready to pounce on Another Club/Cubs Lease !!!!! If you had been involved in the travel, meetings, presentations etc., I don't think the word pounce would be your first choice. Marathon might be closer. I see the support act has turned up again ! Let's be fair, there's a lot watching and not commenting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fenboy Posted August 17, 2014 Report Share Posted August 17, 2014 If you had been involved in the travel, meetings, presentations etc., I don't think the word pounce would be your first choice. Marathon might be closer. Let's be fair, there's a lot watching and not commenting. If we are being fair you would have to acknowledge you seem to have far more wildfowlers against your wishes to take over the world than have supported the plan ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DNT Posted August 17, 2014 Report Share Posted August 17, 2014 I too am a little worried about the plans that KWCA have for the future. I hope they fail in their objectives. There's nothing to worry about, other than where to go on the 1st. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DNT Posted August 17, 2014 Report Share Posted August 17, 2014 If we are being fair you would have to acknowledge you seem to have far more wildfowlers against your wishes to take over the world than have supported the plan ! That may well be the case around Norfolk, but not from where I'm sitting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DNT Posted August 17, 2014 Report Share Posted August 17, 2014 Hi DNT do you mind me asking if your trying to be kinda like a UK version of Ducks Unlimited with some of your aims? I think that roll would be better served by the Wildfowling section of BASC. We just want to protect the sport for the future, for a long time we have set back and concentrated totally on Kent. Whilst we were being active in Kent we have watched the loss of Wildfowling ground all around the coast, but at that time particularly in Essex. We have had meetings and discussions with small clubs for some time and have watched them struggle, mostly through no fault of their own. Some have told us that they have had informal discussions with other clubs in the vicinity, but to know avail, and land has gone to either the RSPB, Wildlife Trusts or occasionally shooting syndicates. We just decided to take some action. Once word got out about our joint ventures with other clubs, approaches started to follow. If we had a bottomless pit we could do so much more. The main problem we have is with people who would rather see land lost to the conservationists than have it held under the KWCA banner and still be available to them. I must confess we didn't expect that kind of attitude nor the hysteria that followed which only served to worry people who have nothing to fear. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
motty Posted August 17, 2014 Report Share Posted August 17, 2014 Let's be honest, though, if there were no pinks that visited any Norfolk marshes, Kent would simply not be interested. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Mat Posted August 17, 2014 Report Share Posted August 17, 2014 Let's be honest, though, if there were no pinks that visited any Norfolk marshes, Kent would simply not be interested. I think thats the nail on the head there motty, it'll be our shooting they are after next! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DNT Posted August 17, 2014 Report Share Posted August 17, 2014 I think thats the nail on the head there motty, it'll be our shooting they are after next! I'm afraid your both way off the mark. I' m sure there will be some members who are delighted with the prospect of a pink, but I can assure you that's not behind our plans. We have already been involved in deals where there is not a sniff of a goose, we're coastal Wildfowlers with the salt in our blood ( well apart from when I'm on the fresh marsh ). If people need assistance or we identify a piece of nice saltings that's not under control already, and of course the monies available (getting more difficult for everyone) then we will be there if we can. We're bought up on teal and wigeon and you really have to work for them down here with all the other activities that hinder the true Wildfowller. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anser2 Posted August 17, 2014 Report Share Posted August 17, 2014 (edited) DNT. Yes we our views are very far apart. I want wildfowling to continue well into the future for , the actions of your club is you want shooting to continue for your members and not for all. You do not seem to see what your clubs actions are doing to relations between other clubs and relations between existing clubs and conservation bodies in the area. Or perhaps you do not care as long as you muscle in to the area. If as you say you are receving so many letters and emails of support then why do you not target your efforts to gain new shooting ground in their areas. If you took a straw pole along the North Norfolk clubs I can tell you you would get very little support. In theory the Wide Spaces Fund is a very good idea and it is doing very good conservation work in the SE. But it is clear thats role is one of conservation from its website http://www.wildspacesfund.org.uk/donate.htm. There is no mention of the Fund buying shooting rights and anyone from the public donating to the fund would have little idea their money was going to buy shooting rights. To quote your chairman " The way we operate WSF is completely transparent if you look at it closely and think it through!" Its so transparent I must be able to see through it. The only mention of wildfowling is here - Wild Spaces Fund is the conservation and land preservation arm of The Kent Wildfowling and Conservation Association . And that is in tiny writing similar to what you would expect in a hidden clause on your insurance policy. I doubt any member of the public would have any idea that their money would be used to fund shooting rights.Is shooting allowed on any of the other WSF sites ? When the WSF is used purely for conservation purposes then I aplaude it and perhaps every club should be doing the same thing , but when its being used to milk money from the public for other uses not stated on the web site then that is a very different story. I would think the Charity Commision would take a very dim view of this as In my opinion its very close to a fraud. Edited August 17, 2014 by anser2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jono 4 Posted August 17, 2014 Report Share Posted August 17, 2014 (edited) So why if Kent manage Thornham so well and have a really good working relationship with NE, for the greater good of all their members, have NE reduced the consent to shoot to three days a week, I suspect mainly due to shooting pressure. If Kent Widfowlers are so much better at the management, how did Thornham Club had the shooting unrestricted for 6 days a week,NE were comfortable with the club due to the low levels of shooting pressure, I know that bags taken by guns have reduced over the past 3 season and the pinks have largly left the roost. How can the take over be seen to be beneficial to the wildlife of the North Norfolk coast if NE see fit to enforce a reduction in shooting pressure to 3 days a week, it was not done on a voluntary basis by the club. You may have saved Thornham Marsh, in your clubs opinion, but that is just it its an opinion, those of us who live locally may not have the same opinion, which we are also entitled to. If Kent Wildfowlers are so protective of the wildfowl and right to fowl why take the shooting on a piece of ground where it was not threatened, two clubs are happily managing the shooting with the blessing of NE, working with them to shoot on a unrestricted basis, how long will that last based on NE's experience of the goings on at Thornham? as you have said you will only work with the clubs if they do things your way, now that smacks of a large club bullying two smaller ones. Also strange that when I shot in Kent last year I heard a rumour that the club were very close to securing more shooting on the North Norfolk coast, looks like we are all aware that the Club had been working hard for nearly a year on securing the shooting held by other clubs. Whats next for Kent, Kings Lynn or Fenland lease, or straight to the golden goose of Wells, what a great jewel in the Kent Crown? So this is an improvement for all concerned and Kent Wildfowlers are the great saviours of all of us Yokels who surely will want to be a member of a super club? Not really for me sooner do my own thing, not be dictated to booking tickets even if the best marshes are available, told what days I can shoot, goes against the spirit of wildfowling, yes I do have a vested interest in Brancaster I am common rights holder, I am a local, and wouldn't say things have improved for the wildfowlers or more importantly the wildlife with the arrival of our saviours from Kent, but then that just an opinion and whilst I am not a member of our saviour super club I am entitled to it. Edited August 17, 2014 by Jono 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
6.5x55SE Posted August 17, 2014 Report Share Posted August 17, 2014 DNT. Amazing you only pick me up on my choice of word " Pounce " and not reply to the other facts I stated !!!!!! I noted during the Thornham Saga that Kents Web site claimed of securing a lease with access to 100,000 Pinks ( i see the picture is no longer ) which anybody in know will know that statement was/id total BULL. I'm sure others as I did see it as miss selling membership. So is this the case again with Brancaster !!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
6.5x55SE Posted August 17, 2014 Report Share Posted August 17, 2014 You have a better way with words than myself Jono. Well put. Perhaps you should have a word with the Gentleman you get a invite to where you met my Friends son. I'm sure you would find some VERY INTERESTING facts about a certain individual Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jono 4 Posted August 17, 2014 Report Share Posted August 17, 2014 You have a better way with words than myself Jono. Well put. Perhaps you should have a word with the Gentleman you get a invite to where you met my Friends son. I'm sure you would find some VERY INTERESTING facts about a certain individual Thanks Boyd, I think, yes I know the story, terrible course of action, especially when it followed nothing but kindness....... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DNT Posted August 17, 2014 Report Share Posted August 17, 2014 DNT. Yes we our views are very far apart. I want wildfowling to continue well into the future for , the actions of your club is you want shooting to continue for your members and not for all. You do not seem to see what your clubs actions are doing to relations between other clubs and relations between existing clubs and conservation bodies in the area. Or perhaps you do not care as long as you muscle in to the area. If as you say you are receving so many letters and emails of support then why do you not target your efforts to gain new shooting ground in their areas. If you took a straw pole along the North Norfolk clubs I can tell you you would get very little support. In theory the Wide Spaces Fund is a very good idea and it is doing very good conservation work in the SE. But it is clear thats role is one of conservation from its website http://www.wildspacesfund.org.uk/donate.htm. There is no mention of the Fund buying shooting rights and anyone from the public donating to the fund would have little idea their money was going to buy shooting rights. To quote your chairman " The way we operate WSF is completely transparent if you look at it closely and think it through!" Its so transparent I must be able to see through it. The only mention of wildfowling is here - Wild Spaces Fund is the conservation and land preservation arm of The Kent Wildfowling and Conservation Association . And that is in tiny writing similar to what you would expect in a hidden clause on your insurance policy. I doubt any member of the public would have any idea that their money would be used to fund shooting rights.Is shooting allowed on any of the other WSF sites ? When the WSF is used purely for conservation purposes then I aplaude it and perhaps every club should be doing the same thing , but when its being used to milk money from the public for other uses not stated on the web site then that is a very different story. I would think the Charity Commision would take a very dim view of this as In my opinion its very close to a fraud. I say again buying a share in a Common Right is not solely buying shooting rights. WSF are helping preserve a wild space simply by owning a share of a Common Right and taking an interest in the area. At present shooting takes place on several areas that WSF manages and more will follow. The WSF message is the same as the KWCA one Traditional Land Management whilst taking a sustainable harvest in all matters. What's wrong with that? You ask why we don't concentrate our efforts where we have support, we are doing just that. But along the way up came Thornham lost by the local club and in very grave danger of being lost to a closed syndicate. We threw our hat in and came up with a solution that we felt would benefit the many. But some how locally you seem to have been fairly successful along with the local club and their agent of convincing many around you that we came in and stole your shooting. I don't know if you really believe that or you just can't stand the truth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DNT Posted August 17, 2014 Report Share Posted August 17, 2014 So why if Kent manage Thornham so well and have a really good working relationship with NE, for the greater good of all their members, have NE reduced the consent to shoot to three days a week, I suspect mainly due to shooting pressure. If Kent Widfowlers are so much better at the management, how did Thornham Club had the shooting unrestricted for 6 days a week,NE were comfortable with the club due to the low levels of shooting pressure, I know that bags taken by guns have reduced over the past 3 season and the pinks have largly left the roost. How can the take over be seen to be beneficial to the wildlife of the North Norfolk coast if NE see fit to enforce a reduction in shooting pressure to 3 days a week, it was not done on a voluntary basis by the club. You may have saved Thornham Marsh, in your clubs opinion, but that is just it its an opinion, those of us who live locally may not have the same opinion, which we are also entitled to. If Kent Wildfowlers are so protective of the wildfowl and right to fowl why take the shooting on a piece of ground where it was not threatened, two clubs are happily managing the shooting with the blessing of NE, working with them to shoot on a unrestricted basis, how long will that last based on NE's experience of the goings on at Thornham? as you have said you will only work with the clubs if they do things your way, now that smacks of a large club bullying two smaller ones. Also strange that when I shot in Kent last year I heard a rumour that the club were very close to securing more shooting on the North Norfolk coast, looks like we are all aware that the Club had been working hard for nearly a year on securing the shooting held by other clubs. Whats next for Kent, Kings Lynn or Fenland lease, or straight to the golden goose of Wells, what a great jewel in the Kent Crown? So this is an improvement for all concerned and Kent Wildfowlers are the great saviours of all of us Yokels who surely will want to be a member of a super club? Not really for me sooner do my own thing, not be dictated to booking tickets even if the best marshes are available, told what days I can shoot, goes against the spirit of wildfowling, yes I do have a vested interest in Brancaster I am common rights holder, I am a local, and wouldn't say things have improved for the wildfowlers or more importantly the wildlife with the arrival of our saviours from Kent, but then that just an opinion and whilst I am not a member of our saviour super club I am entitled to it. Jono nobodies threatening or claiming to save the world of Wildfowling. Firstly a few facts, our Wildfowling has not been reduced to 3 days a week it is 3 permits a day. That only came about because the local club and their agent in conjunction with others tried to muddy the water for the owner and us by bringing Common Rights Holders into the Thornham debate. It was very noticeable they never mentioned it when they had the shooting lease. This of course gave NE the ammunition to look at consents and take into account rights of common ( not cared about until we had the lease) and withhold some permits to allow those people or future holders some space. Consents are going to be a big issue in the future in Norfolk and other places, but not because of us but because of local interest bringing matters to a head. Please don't blame us for insisting that we are treated equitably and fairly by NE and others. If you didn't want consents to become an issue you locals should have kept them from the agenda. I did have some sympathy for the hurt you must be feeling at the loss of your shooting, but that's the point you lost it we didn't steal it, but that sympathy has all but disappeared after some of the comments on this and other threads. You've muddied the waters and got NE exercised about consents and bag returns and Common Rights and anything else they can find, so now like us you will in the not too distant future need to negotiate with the powers that be and live with the consequences. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jono 4 Posted August 17, 2014 Report Share Posted August 17, 2014 I say again buying a share in a Common Right is not solely buying shooting rights. WSF are helping preserve a wild space simply by owning a share of a Common Right and taking an interest in the area. At present shooting takes place on several areas that WSF manages and more will follow. The WSF message is the same as the KWCA one Traditional Land Management whilst taking a sustainable harvest in all matters. What's wrong with that? You ask why we don't concentrate our efforts where we have support, we are doing just that. But along the way up came Thornham lost by the local club and in very grave danger of being lost to a closed syndicate. We threw our hat in and came up with a solution that we felt would benefit the many. But some how locally you seem to have been fairly successful along with the local club and their agent of convincing many around you that we came in and stole your shooting. I don't know if you really believe that or you just can't stand the truth. I am not sure Anser2 has such powers as to influence the club and it's agent, more likely the action you have taken. You mention Thornham had been lost, but we only have kent Wildfowlers word for that, is that your justification for taking the land from another club?now your actions at Brancaster, if you want to be involved at a local level, then why continue on the course kent Wildfowlers has chosen, there were 100 objections to the transfer of common rights, never in the time I have held rights have there been that many objections, as yokels I am sure neither anser2 or I could rustle up that level of resentment, quite simply with that level of objection your "taking an interest in the area" , is neither wanted or required, what's next claiming a place on the common rights committee? Forcing your views that you are our saviours as you know far better than the local people on the ground? As said previously a very sad day for Wildfowling. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jono 4 Posted August 17, 2014 Report Share Posted August 17, 2014 (edited) Jono nobodies threatening or claiming to save the world of Wildfowling. Firstly a few facts, our Wildfowling has not been reduced to 3 days a week it is 3 permits a day. That only came about because the local club and their agent in conjunction with others tried to muddy the water for the owner and us by bringing Common Rights Holders into the Thornham debate. It was very noticeable they never mentioned it when they had the shooting lease. This of course gave NE the ammunition to look at consents and take into account rights of common ( not cared about until we had the lease) and withhold some permits to allow those people or future holders some space. Consents are going to be a big issue in the future in Norfolk and other places, but not because of us but because of local interest bringing matters to a head. Please don't blame us for insisting that we are treated equitably and fairly by NE and others. If you didn't want consents to become an issue you locals should have kept them from the agenda. I did have some sympathy for the hurt you must be feeling at the loss of your shooting, but that's the point you lost it we didn't steal it, but that sympathy has all but disappeared after some of the comments on this and other threads. You've muddied the waters and got NE exercised about consents and bag returns and Common Rights and anything else they can find, so now like us you will in the not too distant future need to negotiate with the powers that be and live with the consequences. I am not and never have been a member of Thornham Wildfowlers, never even shot the ground, so I have not lost any shooting, my comments are purely from a moral perspective. Kent Wildfowlers seem to have to justify their actions by the crusade to save wildfowling and ground that would be lost, with Brancaster this was not a threat, yet the club chose to follow the course it did using the same justifications. Personally I am happy to negotiate with NE for consent to shoot and have done so gaining consent to wildfowl on previously unconsented SSI RMSAR etc ground I own in the middle of a large bird reserve, with no issues, but then I am not wanting to issue 3 permits a day 6 days a week, or 18 permits a week for nearly 26 weeks a year. Edited August 17, 2014 by Jono 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DNT Posted August 17, 2014 Report Share Posted August 17, 2014 I am not sure Anser2 has such powers as to influence the club and it's agent, more likely the action you have taken. You mention Thornham had been lost, but we only have kent Wildfowlers word for that, is that your justification for taking the land from another club?now your actions at Brancaster, if you want to be involved at a local level, then why continue on the course kent Wildfowlers has chosen, there were 100 objections to the transfer of common rights, never in the time I have held rights have there been that many objections, as yokels I am sure neither anser2 or I could rustle up that level of resentment, quite simply with that level of objection your "taking an interest in the area" , is neither wanted or required, what's next claiming a place on the common rights committee? Forcing your views that you are our saviours as you know far better than the local people on the ground? As said previously a very sad day for Wildfowling. We are only to aware of the trouble stirred up locally, not I am suggesting by yourself or Anser 2 but many very high profile people were talked into action. Unfortunately for you NBC took a different view, you would have thought that out of all those objections someone would have had a reasonable objection that would stand the test of inspection. I find it quite strange that you object to another Wildfowling club coming on the scene, but appear not to mind all the common rights holders who live in other parts of the UK. Perhaps they are friends of friends invited into the exclusive syndicates many of you seem to operate. Please explain why we shouldn't purchase a share of a common right if we wish too? It was not being used by the owner, so how have we deprived anyone of anything? The truth is simple, you don't want anyone to experience shooting on your patch who isn't one of the chosen few. Well we're here and we intend to stay. We are not trying to take over your world but now we are here and you can believe what you like about the ifs and buts surrounding our arrival, but I was there and know the truth, we will be offered other shooting, even if we don't actively seek it. In the end I am happy to let history be the judge. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DNT Posted August 17, 2014 Report Share Posted August 17, 2014 I am not and never have been a member of Thornham Wildfowlers, never even shot the ground, so I have not lost any shooting, my comments are purely from a moral perspective. Kent Wildfowlers seem to have to justify their actions by the crusade to save wildfowling and ground that would be lost, with Brancaster this was not a threat, yet the club chose to follow the course it did using the same justifications. Personally I am happy to negotiate with NE for consent to shoot and have done so gaining consent to wildfowl on previously unconsented SSI RMSAR etc ground I own in the middle of a large bird reserve, with no issues, but then I am not wanting to issue 3 permits a day 6 days a week, or 18 permits a week for nearly 26 weeks a year. Actually it's 5 days a week, and you know those permits won't all be taken. We control over 14 thousand acres of land most of which is under several forms of special listings. We have dealt with consents for a long time now and know what we are doing. I notice you felt it was all right for Thornham to have 6 unconsented days shooting a week because of the low shooting pressure. Well it might interest you to know that we have spoken to a few locals living near the marsh and not involved in the fowling world and they assure us that the use of the marsh is much lighter than under the Thornham management. Of course I can't actually say if that's true, but why would locals in the village make a comment like that to us outsiders if they don't think it's true. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobshooting Posted August 18, 2014 Report Share Posted August 18, 2014 Jono nobodies threatening or claiming to save the world of Wildfowling. Firstly a few facts, our Wildfowling has not been reduced to 3 days a week it is 3 permits a day. That only came about because the local club and their agent in conjunction with others tried to muddy the water for the owner and us by bringing Common Rights Holders into the Thornham debate. It was very noticeable they never mentioned it when they had the shooting lease. This of course gave NE the ammunition to look at consents and take into account rights of common ( not cared about until we had the lease) and withhold some permits to allow those people or future holders some space. Consents are going to be a big issue in the future in Norfolk and other places, but not because of us but because of local interest bringing matters to a head. Please don't blame us for insisting that we are treated equitably and fairly by NE and others. If you didn't want consents to become an issue you locals should have kept them from the agenda. I did have some sympathy for the hurt you must be feeling at the loss of your shooting, but that's the point you lost it we didn't steal it, but that sympathy has all but disappeared after some of the comments on this and other threads. You've muddied the waters and got NE exercised about consents and bag returns and Common Rights and anything else they can find, so now like us you will in the not too distant future need to negotiate with the powers that be and live with the consequences. It's not fair DNT, to say the local club, their agent and others tried to muddy the water by bringing common rights holders into the debate, the clue is the ''rights'' bit of the name, neither lease holder, nor owner can take those away arbitrarily, fighting for them is justifiable, even dare I venture, laudable, and anyway, an agreement seems to have been reached, hasn't it? If there's a cost for defending a Right, then so be it, the blame, if it exists, must, in fairness, rest on both sides of the argument and not just on one as you seem to suggest; certainly the alternative is unattractive. The Rights holders have always been treated with respect by the locals, they are locals, they are members, friends, or friends of friends. their rights being attached to village property ownership and not being able to be sold separately, or in part, and again, I thing it worth repeating, they are defending a RIGHT, not a privilege subject to Kent or anyone else, I hope I don't misrepresent your views DNT when I say this. The saddest thing about all this is that we're all wildfowlers, a group with few friends gentlemen and a host of powerful enemies; honestly, I'm a nice bloke, truly, I'm sure there are a host of nice blokes in Kent, for ****s sake......... surely there MUST, be a better way for everyone to conduct themselves, a way that takes any local population with Kent, or whom-ever comes along in the future, in support of a common goal, rather than pushing blokes aside who shot these marshes from boyhood. And don't try telling me I haven't been pushed aside, I'm nice, but I'm not that nice, I know when I've been pushed and I know when I'm in the aside section of ******-over. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fenboy Posted August 18, 2014 Report Share Posted August 18, 2014 Actually it's 5 days a week, and you know those permits won't all be taken. We control over 14 thousand acres of land most of which is under several forms of special listings. We have dealt with consents for a long time now and know what we are doing. I notice you felt it was all right for Thornham to have 6 unconsented days shooting a week because of the low shooting pressure. Well it might interest you to know that we have spoken to a few locals living near the marsh and not involved in the fowling world and they assure us that the use of the marsh is much lighter than under the Thornham management. Of course I can't actually say if that's true, but why would locals in the village make a comment like that to us outsiders if they don't think it's true. DNT you are the master of quoting things you do not have any evidence of " Speaking to the locals " "people phoning you to say what a great club you are and how they wish you had shooting near them " etc, etc I dare say you explained to these "locals not involved in fowling" just how you dumped on their friends and neighbours too ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
panoma1 Posted August 18, 2014 Report Share Posted August 18, 2014 (edited) It's not fair DNT, to say the local club, their agent and others tried to muddy the water by bringing common rights holders into the debate, the clue is the ''rights'' bit of the name, neither lease holder, nor owner can take those away arbitrarily, fighting for them is justifiable, even dare I venture, laudable, and anyway, an agreement seems to have been reached, hasn't it? If there's a cost for defending a Right, then so be it, the blame, if it exists, must, in fairness, rest on both sides of the argument and not just on one as you seem to suggest; certainly the alternative is unattractive. The Rights holders have always been treated with respect by the locals, they are locals, they are members, friends, or friends of friends. their rights being attached to village property ownership and not being able to be sold separately, or in part, and again, I thing it worth repeating, they are defending a RIGHT, not a privilege subject to Kent or anyone else, I hope I don't misrepresent your views DNT when I say this. The saddest thing about all this is that we're all wildfowlers, a group with few friends gentlemen and a host of powerful enemies; honestly, I'm a nice bloke, truly, I'm sure there are a host of nice blokes in Kent, for ****s sake......... surely there MUST, be a better way for everyone to conduct themselves, a way that takes any local population with Kent, or whom-ever comes along in the future, in support of a common goal, rather than pushing blokes aside who shot these marshes from boyhood. And don't try telling me I haven't been pushed aside, I'm nice, but I'm not that nice, I know when I've been pushed and I know when I'm in the aside section of ******-over. Bobshooting, I'm have no doubt you are a nice bloke, so I believe am I, so are a lot of the contributors to this debate!,,, but whilst we are as you say all wildfowlers we are not all the same! what seems to have polarised this debate is (for lack of a better description!) the hav's and have-nots, the majority of wildfowlers (who do not live close to the coast) shoot with wildfowling clubs who allow outsiders (some, controlled!) access to the marshes they control, they realise that not everyone can live by the coast, these are the inclusive clubs that are in my view acting in the best interests of all wildfowlers and contributing to the future wildfowling! and if the need arises they will have my absolute support, on the other hand you have the closed clubs that have since the inception of the club system which replaced free for everyone wildfowling, to this day steadfastly refuse to allow anyone except a small number of Local members to shoot the marshes they control. I resent these so called clubs because they do nothing for the future of wildfowling or the wildfowling community as a whole! to the contrary they damage wildfowling because they exclude true wildfowlers solely so they can keep the shooting for themselves, consequently they actually contribute nothing to the sport of wildfowling and remain outwith the mainstream wildfowling community, their choice! but when a big conservation organisation (or anyone else) casts its eyes on their bit of exclusive marsh they have neither the finances nor the friends in wildfowling to compete for the land, instead of wringing their hands at the loss of their exclusive shooting they should perhaps think of joining the fight for the future of mainstream wildfowling at the moment it seems they are so "dog in the manger" that rather than let any outsider in they would sooner see the land fall under the control of an anti-shooting conservation organisation and be lost forever to wildfowling, than let another pro wildfowling body get it! That is why though we are all wildfowlers but we are certainly not all the same! P1 Edited August 18, 2014 by panoma1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anser2 Posted August 18, 2014 Report Share Posted August 18, 2014 DNT Quote "I say again buying a share in a Common Right is not solely buying shooting rights. WSF are helping preserve a wild space simply by owning a share of a Common Right and taking an interest in the area. At present shooting takes place on several areas that WSF manages and more will follow" I have never seen such rubbish in print. In no way is the WSF preserving Brancaster it will be preserved by existing common right holder without any input from Kent WA and in any case the site is already preserved by its many conservation desgnitions , ie NNR , SSSI , SAC , SPA and so on so your exauce does not wash and shows your club for the sham it is. Secondly if you admit shooting on WSF areas why do you not include this fact on your web asking for donations from the public. Its like giving money to Oxfam and finding out its being used to buy arms for terrorists. Any club that runs such a fraudlant web site shows its true ethics and they do not reflect well 0n the wildfowling community. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobshooting Posted August 18, 2014 Report Share Posted August 18, 2014 Bobshooting, I'm have no doubt you are a nice bloke, so I believe am I, so are a lot of the contributors to this debate!,,, but whilst we are as you say all wildfowlers we are not all the same! what seems to have polarised this debate is (for lack of a better description!) the hav's and have-nots, the majority of wildfowlers (who do not live close to the coast) shoot with wildfowling clubs who allow outsiders (some, controlled!) access to the marshes they control, they realise that not everyone can live by the coast, these are the inclusive clubs that are in my view acting in the best interests of all wildfowlers and contributing to the future wildfowling! and if the need arises they will have my absolute support, on the other hand you have the closed clubs that have since the inception of the club system which replaced free for everyone wildfowling, to this day steadfastly refuse to allow anyone except a small number of Local members to shoot the marshes they control. I resent these so called clubs because they do nothing for the future of wildfowling or the wildfowling community as a whole! to the contrary they damage wildfowling because they exclude true wildfowlers solely so they can keep the shooting for themselves, consequently they actually contribute nothing to the sport of wildfowling and remain outwith the mainstream wildfowling community, their choice! but when a big conservation organisation (or anyone else) casts its eyes on their bit of exclusive marsh they have neither the finances nor the friends in wildfowling to compete for the land, instead of wringing their hands at the loss of their exclusive shooting they should perhaps think of joining the fight for the future of mainstream wildfowling at the moment it seems they are so "dog in the manger" that rather than let any outsider in they would sooner see the land fall under the control of an anti-shooting conservation organisation and be lost forever to wildfowling, than let another pro wildfowling body get it! That is why though we are all wildfowlers but we are certainly not all the same! P1 I was trying to address what I saw as the unfair comments about the Common Rights Holders being criticised for standing up for those Rights, and the consequent actions of NE being solely the fault of the Locals, ''muddying the water''. I maintain that I was correct, but DNT can speak for himself on that subject. To you I would say that I think an uninterested observer would think that fault, if fault there was, and blame for any troubles arising from that, must be shared on both sides of the row. Kent now own a 1/4 share of a Common right at Brancaster...........I'm sure they will defend that right if needed, it's hypocritical to criticise someone else doing the same. As for the rest of your comments, we'll never agree, but it's better to talk, which is what I think Kent didn't do enough of at Thornham. Anyway, good luck to us all on the 1st. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts