Inclusion of the Greylag Goose onto the General License

[David BASC]

I can but refer you to post 88 above which is a copy of a reply to a member here from one of my colleagues. It sets out the facts, BASC's position and the background clearly.

 

David

[holloway]

I certainly never said it did not happen I simply asked for examples.

 

I don't know off hand how many prosecutions there have been but I will see if I can find out

 

I agree that these seems to be a lack of knowledge and understanding of the GL among some shooters

 

David

On the contrary David there is a real lack of knowledge and understanding from BASC as to how these Licenses can be abused, i bet there never has been a prosecution and thereby you have the reason as to why many of your loyal longstanding members are disappointed that you should have thrown Greylags to the wolves as it were.

[David BASC]

I go back then to my question - when have the licences been abused for Canada geese for example? Are you assuming that paying to shoot is in some way an abuse of the GL?

 

David

Edited May 1, 2014 by David BASC

[andrewluke]

I go back then to my question - when have the licences been abused for Canada geese for example? Are you assuming that paying to shoot is in some way an abuse of the GL?

 

David

 

when people start paying for shooting they usually want more than their monies worth!

[kent]

I go back then to my question - when have the licences been abused for Canada geese for example? Are you assuming that paying to shoot is in some way an abuse of the GL?

 

David

 

How can you ask such a dumb question? There is no assumption in what is plainly obvious. Have you not been listening to the examples?

[kent]

Thank you for your email. BASC council decided on BASC's position re the General Licence consultation. Below is some back ground information on how the decision was made. As suggested on the BASC website http://basc.org.uk/blog/media/consultations/english-general-licences-consultation-have-your-say/ BASC does recommend that individuals respond directly to Natural England.

 

Background

There is a proposal to add feral greylag geese and mallard to general licences which deal with the specific problems of crop protection and the preservation of public health and safety. Anyone controlling these birds must comply fully with the terms of the relevant general licences and must have the full permission of the land owner or occupier.

 

BASC’s position

BASC supports the proposal to add greylag goose to general licence GL04 to prevent serious agricultural damage or disease as it applies to breeding feral greylag geese in England. BASC recognises the potential for these birds to cause serious crop damage. BASC seeks confirmation that the breeding population of greylag geese will continue to be counted annually if this proposed change is made.

 

BASC supports the proposal to add greylag goose and mallard to the general licence GL05 to preserve public health and safety as it applies to breeding feral greylag geese and mallard in England. Permitted control methods would be limited to taking, damaging or destroying greylag geese and mallard nests or to take or destroy their eggs. BASC recognises the potential for these birds to impact on public health and safety. BASC seeks confirmation that the breeding populations of greylag geese and mallard will continue to be counted annually if this proposed change is made.

 

Context to BASC’s position

 

In determining its position, BASC Council drew on feedback from members, the Wildfowling Liaison Committee and the Game shooting and Gamekeeping Committee and considered the following:

 

• The proposals reflect Government’s wish to cut bureaucracy as outlined in the Red Tape Challenge. We are generally in favour of a reduction in bureaucracy relating to shooting and land management. COSTS THATS WHAT WE ARE TALKING ISNT IT? UNFORTUNATLY SOME THINGS NEED MORE CAREFULL MANAGEMENT THAN OPEN GENERAL LICENCE (FREE FOR ALL) ON A NATIONAL SCALE

 

• There is already licensed control of greylags and mallard taking place. AND WHY NOT CONTINUE ITS USE? A PEST IS NOT A PEST FOR WHAT IT IS IT IS WERE IT IS AND WHEN IT IS THERE. THERE HAS NOT BEEN A GROUND SWELL OF SL APPLICATIONS - REMEMBER THE MALLARD IS ITSELF ON THE AMBER LIST! AND MALLARD CONTROL IS ABOUT EGG SPOILING IN PARTICULAR LOCATIONS AND IS MONITORED

 

• For greylag geese in the period from 2005-2011 there were 349 licences issued to destroy up to 90,448 eggs and 457 licences to shoot or kill by injection 15,647 birds. Most of these licences were to prevent serious damage to crops or to protect air safety. IN SIX YEARS PEOPLE HAVE FOUND A TOTAL OF 58 SITES WERE CONTOL IS JUSTIFIED A YEAR, HOW DOES THIS JUSTIFY OPEN GENERAL LICENCE NATIONALLY

 

• For mallard in the period from 2005-2011 there were 78 licences issued to destroy up to 32,440 eggs and 30 licences to shoot or kill by injection 2,471 birds. Most of these licences were to protect public health and air safety. THE FACT THAT SOMEONE WANTS PARKS SANITISED SO THEY DONT GET DUCK POOP ON THIER SHOES SAYS SOMETHING ABOUT THE WAY SOME MODERN PEOPLE SEE THE WOORLD. HOWEVER 13 GENERAL LICENCE GRANTS MAKES OPEN GENERAL LICENCE A JOKE! AND MAKES BASC A LAUGHING STOCK IN FUTURE DEBATES WITH OUR ENEMIES!

 

• BASC does not believe that greylag geese or mallard should be viewed as pests and understands that these proposals are not about reducing the population, but about people being able to respond quickly to prevent serious problems occurring. WELL THATS JUST SAYING ONE THING AND DOING ANOTHER IN THE PROCESS OF GAINING PR IN BOTH CAMPS, IT CANNOT BE DONE! PICK A TEAM AND PLAY ON IT THAT IS WHY WE PUT YOU WERE YOU ARE

 

• The population of breeding greylag geese has increased by 179% in the last 20 years and the breeding mallard population has increased by 20% in the same time period. Because control will take place during the breeding season migratory birds will not be affected. BASC is also seeking confirmation that the breeding populations of greylag geese and mallard will continue to be counted annually if the proposed changes to the relevant licences are made. MALLARD NON THE LESS ARE IN DECLINE AS A WINTER BIRD LONG TERM, THE SPECIAL LICENCES THAT HAVE BEEN ISSUED PROVES NO NEED. GREYLAG IN ITS LOWLAND RESIDENT FORM WERE HUNTED OUT 100 YEARS AGO, IT ALSO TAKES LONGER FOR A GOOSE TO RE-PRODUCE SO THE EFFECT OF YEAR ONE WILL NOT BEE SEEN THE FOLLOWING YEAR

 

• Woodpigeon can cause serious agricultural damage; and as a responsible organisation BASC needs to recognise the damage that feral greylag geese can cause to crops and the resultant impact on the farming community. MENTION OF WOODPIGEON BRINGS TO MIND SACRIFICE MALLARD AND GREYLAG TO DIVERT ATTENTION FROM THE REAL ISSUE

 

• Fears for the Canada goose population were also expressed by some members ahead of that species' addition to several general licenses in England and in Wales. Those fears have not been realised, with populations continuing to grow and bag returns increasing on the foreshore. FOWLERS HAVE INCREASED THIER TAKE NOT BY AVAILIBILITY BUT REAL FEAR OF SUMMER GL CULLING. I FEAR YOU WORKING ON BAD STATS NUMBERS ARE DECREASING IN AREAS OF CULLING. LAKE WINERMERE CANADAS HAVE CERTAINLY REDUCED. FURTHERMORE I PREVENTED A RETAILER FROM ILLEGALLY SELLING CANADA BREAST MEAT (HE WRONGLY WAS INFORMED IT WAS LEGAL AS IT WAS PART OF AN OFFICIAL CULL AND HENCE EXEMPT) THE REASON THE SALE OF GOOSE MEAT IS BANNED IS THE THREAT OF COMMERCIAL GUNNING, NOW IN MODERN TIME WE HAVE PEOPLE WHO WILL PAT GUIDES FOR THE CHANCE AT MURDER OVER DECOYS

 

Regards

 

Paul

 

Paul Williamson MRICS FAAV MBA

Rural Land Development Manager

The British Association for Shooting and Conservation

Marford Mill

Rossett

Wrexham

 

 

 

The response I will be sending back is above

[islandgun]

Well said Kent.

I was interested to read the name feral in connection to Greylag and Mallard, My understanding of the word feral is an animal bred in captivity and released into the wild, this surely does not apply to Mallard as they are wild duck pure and simple and i think it's a grey area for Greylag, The Geese here, (western Isles) breed in the wild or arrive as passage migrants from Iceland. Do you have migrant winter visitors down south and can it be proven?, if so I can see an argument that they should not be included in the GL as they are not feral but wild.

IG

[Grandalf]

This hits the crux of the matter. BASC employees are paid by the membership to represent shooters not farmers. Hardly any shooter on this forum is saying anything other than greylags should NOT be on the general licence. Instead of accepting that - BASC employees are going to great lengths to convince their employers that they don't know what they are talking about and that their arguments are just emotive nonsense.

Now I know that all you BASC chaps are super blokes (and many of you I would class as friends) and that BASC is a super organisation - but in this instance you have got it all wrong - We, the membership do not want the greylag to be placed on the general licences.

That's all there is to it. So get on with what ever you have to do to convince Natural England and any other interested parties that BASC does not want the greylag on the list.

David - Please read my post again.

Anser 2 has since explained all the science and directives.

The members of BASC who are fowlers are all singing from the same hymn sheet. The NO one.

Why are you and others at BASC going to such extraordinary lengths to convince us we are all wrong?

You are there to represent us and for no other reason at all.

We are wildfowlers who want to see conservation of wildfowl. Nothing wrong in that.

The paid officers of BASC are paid to represent us - Now we have a problem...

[David BASC]

Kent, I simply asked is it your view that shooting Canada geese over stubbles in August is an abuse of the GL?

 

Gandalf, I agree BASC exists to support all shooting, and that conservation of habitat to ensure a healthy quarry population is key, the background to our response is clear and I accept that there are several people on this thread who disagree with it.

 

David

[anser2]

I go back then to my question - when have the licences been abused for Canada geese for example? Are you assuming that paying to shoot is in some way an abuse of the GL?

 

David

Of course it is. The GL is there for control of species not farmers to rase finances letting shooting.

 

Kent, I simply asked is it your view that shooting Canada geese over stubbles in August is an abuse of the GL?

 

Gandalf, I agree BASC exists to support all shooting, and that conservation of habitat to ensure a healthy quarry population is key, the background to our response is clear and I accept that there are several people on this thread who disagree with it.

 

David

 

To shoot a GL species when it is not doing damage is against the rules of a GL. full stop. So is that not an abuse of the licence.

Edited May 1, 2014 by anser2

[David BASC]

With all due respect,

 

If you read the GL you will see that there is nothing in the wording of the GL that prevents payment to shoot.

 

Further , if you read the GL you will see that it is not against the GL to shoot a species on the licence when its not actually doing damage at the time you shoot it.

 

David

[kent]

Kent, I simply asked is it your view that shooting Canada geese over stubbles in August is an abuse of the GL?

 

Gandalf, I agree BASC exists to support all shooting, and that conservation of habitat to ensure a healthy quarry population is key, the background to our response is clear and I accept that there are several people on this thread who disagree with it.

 

David

 

Please also except there are more than us few ( on a pigeon forum remember ) that do not side with BASC on this. My view of the mentioned situation depends on circumstance, it seems a strange question to ask if the crop has now gone and they become quarry without even needing the GL in a few weeks or days depending on when in august. The special licence covers any "special needs" and I can only see this as a trick question for you to mention the time delay! yet to be fair I have lost a great deal of my former faith in BASC over the last few days as it seems we the wildfowlers have been thrown to the wolves. I shot Cormorant on SL for a number of years to protect the salmon and seatout stocks on the river I managed and it was only the first application that presented any issues, the following years it was no great shakes as long as you returned, I cannot see the big issue with SL ( I know Abbeystead estate got one for greylag as they were out competing the grouse, fair enough as Grouse can only nest in so many places). To use "future damage" in August for a reason to shoot outside of the season? yeah that's pretty poor IMO but the abuse is far greater if its shooting those birds with guns who are paying as it brings so much more doubt into my mind as to the pest control aspects.

[Grandalf]

Gandalf, I agree BASC exists to support all shooting, and that conservation of habitat to ensure a healthy quarry population is key, the background to our response is clear and I accept that there are several people on this thread who disagree with it.

 

David

 

From what I've read they all disagree with it.

[kent]

With all due respect,

 

If you read the GL you will see that there is nothing in the wording of the GL that prevents payment to shoot.

 

Further , if you read the GL you will see that it is not against the GL to shoot a species on the licence when its not actually doing damage at the time you shoot it.

 

David

 

The powers at NE might just be on a higher moral plane than BASC on this and assume we all have the same ethical standards towards our quarry and wildlife. Your comments certainly lead me to think as such. Standards are slipping and slipping fast at that for such an excuse to be made.

 

Look on it this way if I have rats and call in a pest control firm the I have a rat problem. If I rent the rat killing out to people who call themselves sportsmen I don't really have a problem do I now ?

[scolopax]

And another thing!!!

 

This use of the word feral is totally inappropriate and is intended to lower the resident greylags standing, feral goose, feral pigeon association.

 

The greylag goose in England and Wales is re introduced or resident. I believe the BTO and WWT use both, not feral.

 

If they insist on calling them feral then so capercaillie are feral, white tailed sea eagles are feral, red kites are feral, goshawks are feral etc etc

 

The greylags we have are not escaped farm stock or park stock, they are the deliberately relocated progeny of genuine wild resident greylags from the north of Scotland, and are exactly the same bird as the ones who chose to migrate to breed in Iceland.

[islandgun]

And another thing!!!

 

This use of the word feral is totally inappropriate and is intended to lower the resident greylags standing, feral goose, feral pigeon association.

 

The greylag goose in England and Wales is re introduced or resident. I believe the BTO and WWT use both, not feral.

 

If they insist on calling them feral then so capercaillie are feral, white tailed sea eagles are feral, red kites are feral, goshawks are feral etc etc

 

The greylags we have are not escaped farm stock or park stock, they are the deliberately relocated progeny of genuine wild resident greylags from the north of Scotland, and are exactly the same bird as the ones who chose to migrate to breed in Iceland.

Indeed, see post 107, Is there not a case therefore that the GL refers to released and gone feral birds, not wild Greylags

[kent]

And another thing!!!

 

This use of the word feral is totally inappropriate and is intended to lower the resident greylags standing, feral goose, feral pigeon association.

 

The greylag goose in England and Wales is re introduced or resident. I believe the BTO and WWT use both, not feral.

 

If they insist on calling them feral then so capercaillie are feral, white tailed sea eagles are feral, red kites are feral, goshawks are feral etc etc

 

The greylags we have are not escaped farm stock or park stock, they are the deliberately relocated progeny of genuine wild resident greylags from the north of Scotland, and are exactly the same bird as the ones who chose to migrate to breed in Iceland.

 

The BTO suggest that the feral and re-introduced native stock have mixed and as such are not definable genetically and as such should just be termed graylag as are the winter visiting migrant stock. Its well known that many geese are quite ready to interbreed were circumstance is correct and that some migrants will remain to stay with a mate that cannot or has no inclination to migrate, interesting because it makes our greylag internationally important per chance of disaster in the homeland of the migrant stock

An interesting spin off to all this is the mated pair loyalty

[anser2]

With all due respect,

 

If you read the GL you will see that there is nothing in the wording of the GL that prevents payment to shoot.

 

Further , if you read the GL you will see that it is not against the GL to shoot a species on the licence when its not actually doing damage at the time you shoot it.

 

David

David ,you still do not understand what is upsetting us wildfowlers do you? In part it is the high risk of gunners shooting greylags when they are not doing damage that worries us. If they are causing dammage , the SL is fine , but to shoot them in the breeding season just because you can is where the real damage to the wildfowlers sport is going to be done. By removing the breeding stock you are removing the seed crop from our sport. How would a game shooter feel is pheasants were shot just as the hens hatched their chicks. I doubt if they would be very happy.

 

As others have said its all a case or morals and standards , some of us have them , others do not and it seems the management of BASC falls into the latter group. I guess you think its ok for a farmer to take payment for shooting geese when they are sitting on eggs or have baby goslings !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! It may well not be against the GL rules , but that does not make it right.

 

Reading various BTO reports its sometimes stated tha greylag have the potential for a large populaton increase . Its that work potential I have a problem with. Its been arrived at by computer modeling and any computer model is little more than a guess. Back in the 1980s the WWT stated that their computer model showed that pink feet numbers would never exceed 100,000 and we all know how wrong that was .

 

If greylags need population control ( and I do not acept we are anywhere that level yet) an extention on the season of a month or so should be tried first or perhaps an organised shoot in normaly protected areas should be tried before we take such extream measures as puting them on the GL and this is something BASC should have reconised before they got into bed with NE.

 

I am sorry you have come in for this flack as we realy should have had the BASC officer who was responsible for this cock up defending their stance. Maybe the BASC director has a comment to make , if he knows anything about wildfowl or the tradition and ethics of wildfowling ?

Edited May 1, 2014 by anser2

[anser2]

At this piont I guess it would be an idea to refresh our selves what the term feral \ intrduced and so on means or we will start going around in circles.

 

Feral

A species that has been bred in captivity or who's forbears were bred in captivity and have now formed a wild living population.

 

Introduced

A non native species.

 

reintroduced

A species that previously was native to a habitat that has been released from captive or wild stock.

 

Native

A species that is natural to an area.

 

English breeding greylag are reintroduced from both captive and wild stock , having been native to England in the past , but a large part of the population is also feral.

Edited May 1, 2014 by anser2

[David BASC]

Anser,

 

By the sounds of it we can agree that if a species, in this case Greylags, are causing damage to crops they should be managed and shooting is one option all be it under licence.

 

Contrary to what you think I am very aware of the concerns that that there will be groups of shooters targeting geese in their breeding season, and as some have said this would open up the opportunity for commercial shoots to start operating inland goose shooting.

 

However and please correct me if I am wrong, but after the wildfowling season as we pass into Spring and Summer, its my understanding that the geese break from their flocks and pair up to breed and raise their young in and around inland waterways such as ponds etc. As such commercial shooting like the inland goose shooting that occurs in the season would be a non runner as the density of geese would be so low in any given area.

 

I cannot personally see anyone wanting to pay a farmer £x to walk around his farm shooting the odd goose sitting on a nest can you? OK I accept fully that not every shooter may have the same standards as you, me or probably almost everyone we know but never the less does anyone on here think that such an activity would be attractive?

 

No I do not think it is acceptable to shoot a nesting bird and its young. I would never do it, and I don't think anyone on here would either.

 

To the very best of my knowledge the nest shooting has not been happening to Canada geese since they went on GL, so I struggle to see how there would be an incentive for anyone to do this to Greylags.

 

David

[-Mongrel-]

Just out of interest. Since the canada geese went on the GL, how have their population numbers fared?

[anser2]

But David that is the very thing that has been happening with canada geese. There were several videos on Utube a few years ago showing some pr*ts shooting a pair of canadas while their goslings swam around them. Its when they are breeding and have goslings that much of the damage is done. True its unlikely that anyone is going to pay to shoot when the birds are sitting but some other

" sportsmen " will shoot the parents. When guns are likely to pay for the shooting is once the young are new on the wing in July or August. At that time the young and adults are easy prey being unwary and weak flyers and not doing much crop damage on stubbles.

 

The evidence for puting greylags on the GL is weak in the first case with just 50 odd farmers in 2012 asking for a SL so where is the justification for putting them on the GL? I know to cut red tape ! But just to do that is not worth risking a valuable sporting bird?

A debatable point Mongeral, read the past posts.

Edited May 1, 2014 by anser2

[David BASC]

Anser, sadly I have no doubt that there are some fools out there, and I agree a trawl though You Tube will bring up plenty of examples of people shooting in a way that you or I, or for that matter any reasonable person would find wrong.

 

From what has been posted above, there is inland shooting of Canada's as they flock up in late summer / early autumn, and of course a lot of inland shooting of all legitimate species as we move into September onwards, and I dare say that these inland shooters targeting the geese as they come into stubble fields will put in the bag in one day more than the average 'fowler bags in a season

 

Never the less, and to answer Mongreal's question, the population of Canada's has increased, and based on the bag returns from about 100 clubs, the number shot by 'fowlers has also increased.

 

David

[islandgun]

At this piont I guess it would be an idea to refresh our selves what the term feral \ intrduced and so on means or we will start going around in circles.

 

Feral

A species that has been bred in captivity or who's forbears were bred in captivity and have now formed a wild living population.

 

Introduced

A non native species.

 

reintroduced

A species that previously was native to a habitat that has been released from captive or wild stock.

 

Native

A species that is natural to an area.

 

English breeding greylag are reintroduced from both captive and wild stock , having been native to England in the past , but a large part of the population is also feral.

Thanks for the explanation's arnser,

The point i was trying to make earlier was that the proposal for the GL referred to feral greylag and Mallard your definition is that feral greylag were bred in captivity, but I think they were taken from the wild and bred in captivity, There remains wild greylag geese that have never been feral and have always been" just wild," as are mallard, If the document states that feral birds may be killed under the GL then they are clearly not including wild birds,

If this is so then there is no case for putting wild geese or mallard on the GL. or at least a loophole that may be pursued

Edited May 1, 2014 by islandgun

[birdsallpl]

Thanks for the explanation's arnser,

The point i was trying to make earlier was that the proposal for the GL referred to feral greylag and Mallard your definition is that feral greylag were bred in captivity, but I think they were taken from the wild and bred in captivity, There remains wild greylag geese that have never been feral and have always been" just wild," as are mallard, If the document states that feral birds may be killed under the GL then they are clearly not including wild birds,

If this is so then there is no case for putting wild geese or mallard on the GL. or at least a loophole that may be pursued

 

I believe you are right Island gun. All the domestic geese within the UK have there origins from the wild grey geese I believe even before Roman times. Not sure where the reference came from but should be easy enough to confirm