Inclusion of the Greylag Goose onto the General License

[kent]

The only thing I really want to know is what the real agenda of BASC and NE is. Also are they the same (I hope not). There has been nothing suggested by BASC that meets its articles and memorandums only that which runs directly against it, the fight is elsewhere at present and I have let this be but I am sure going there after the conclusion. I am dead against leaving BASC now until this is settled because we have no say as non members at all. The trust however is broken

[Greymaster]

An SGM resolution is the only way to go to make Council take note, but it would take a Wildfowler to drive the requisition. A template has been suggested earlier, but words on here are good for mobilising the support. The two BASC employees have done well to occupy yourselves in argument, rather than collecting signatures. Imagine if you were half way towards your 1300 target as the deadline approached. The mere fact of an SGM process under way may have caused a rethink by Council, but the two BASC representatives have got you arguing about bag numbers rather than collecting signatures.

 

Remember, once you have secured an SGM the principle will have been established that Council must take note of members views, and canvas their opinions and not interpolate from spurious and incomplete statistics.

 

If you fail to mobilise I will be more dismayed about that than Council riding roughshod over vehement and wordy argument.

 

A brand new communications centre the BASC might have, but it seems to be used only to broadcast Council's views and not receive member input.

[kent]

What are you actually saying 4 days from submission to NE closes?

[David BASC]

Kes, you ask who wants greylags onto the GL. The answer is its NE's proposal to add them to the GL. If you look at an earlier post I made it clear that this is what will tend to happen to species where the counts are healthy / growing that are covered by either an individual or class licence where applications are constantly made and not rejected - why keep them on an application only basis?

 

This view is agreed on as being sensible by BASC, CA, NGO, GWCT......

 

I have heard and listened to the concerns of many on here that this will result in massive overshooting of greylags in the summer, well the same concerns were raised over canadas, but not come to fruition. How many inland canada shoots do you know of operating in your area Kes during the spring /summer? (March to July)

 

I have also been speaking to a colleague today who has being looking at the bag returns of canadas in one area that has been mentioned on here where canada bag returns seem to have fallen, looking at the bird counts and bag returns over several years, they follow a similar pattern - high bird counts = higher bag returns, as counts fall, bag returns fall, as counts rise, bag returns rise and so on.

 

And that's one reason where having bag return data an be very useful - to compare against counts. I appreciate some clubs done want to share their data, that is their prerogative.

 

David

[David BASC]

If members want to call an SGM they can, its in the rules. If that SGM which ahs been mooted earlier on this thread has failed to materialise or even start to get off the ground, you can hardly lay the blame at my or Conors door can you?

 

As to not receiving members input, well as I said we have been asking for members input on this consultation since the end of February, and we have certainly had plenty of it, yes some against, but the majority in favour, not perhaps what you want to hear, but that's the current state of play.

 

David

[Kes]

David,

I have read every post on this thread carefully, I have said I am out and will stay so, but,

 

Kes, you ask who wants greylags onto the GL. The answer is its NE's proposal to add them to the GL. If you look at an earlier post I made it clear that this is what will tend to happen to species where the counts are healthy / growing that are covered by either an individual or class licence where applications are constantly made and not rejected - why keep them on an application only basis?

 

NE say that Jackdaw and Jay should not be on the list. Jackdaws and Jays are very much more numerous than Greys - BASC OBJECT TO THE CHANGE, presumably BASC is unconvinced by NE's proposal? What is the difference with the far less numerous Greys, only the direction of NE's proposals. It is really inexplicable but, as I said I'm out. If however anyone wants my vote for an SGM, start a thread - I'm in.

I absolutely give up.

[spartina2]

 

 

If members want to call an SGM they can, its in the rules. If that SGM which ahs been mooted earlier on this thread has failed to materialise or even start to get off the ground, you can hardly lay the blame at my or Conors door can you?

 

As to not receiving members input, well as I said we have been asking for members input on this consultation since the end of February, and we have certainly had plenty of it, yes some against, but the majority in favour, not perhaps what you want to hear, but that's the current state of play.

 

David

 

 

David, Good Evening.

 

May I ask some questions of yourself and BASC?

 

Your statement re Members input: what number were wildfowlers and just how many "inputs" did you receive prior to the council making their recommendation???

 

Of that input what % for/against??

 

Now you mentioned Bag returns, how many clubs have returned these figures to BASC for there to be a basis for that shocking decision??

 

 

I understand that both yourself and Connor are in a difficult position, however have you ever heard the term broken covenant???

 

 

Well you have now.

 

 

regards

 

sp2.

Edited May 15, 2014 by spartina2

[Kes]

here is the CA response to NE's consultation (part)

 

Response:We support the proposed addition of Greylag and Mallard to general Licence WML-GL05 (preserving public health and safety).

We would note that there seems to be an inconsistency of approach in that species are being proposed for addition to General Licences

even where there are few or no Individual Licences being sought according to the 2012 figures quoted in the consultation document, and

yet at the same time it is being proposed that species which are widely controlled to prevent serious agricultural damage, and which have

very sensibly always been included in that General Licence, should be removed despite no evidence or good reason to do so.

At least NE's inconsistency is noted but I am still at a loss why CA etc supports the inclusion of Greys?

[scotslad]

Kes ur last 2 posts are spot on.

 

I have been very critical of Basc on this thread but the longer it goes on the more i see the wildfowlers are not helping themselves 1 bit, infact ur often making things worse for urselves (not returning bags or forwarding reponses makes it impossible for basc to get a clear picture).

It's time to knock the chips of both shoulders and actually start trying to help urself's,

it's fairly obvious a lot of u don't trust Basc but if u don't start doing something with all ur bag returns and data u will be in a far worse mess than u are the now

 

Did ur own Joint wildfowling comitee? (was well back in the thread) not have a vote on this that wasn't even 100% against the inclusion. So if ur own comitee of die hard wildfowlers are slightly undecided and not 100% against it wot are Basc meant to think?

 

Unfortunately now u have to back every thing u see up with numbers no matter how obivios it is to u, unless u start producing bags returns how are u ever going to argue for removing species from the GL,

U accuse others of having partial or inaccuate figures yet won't do anything to makes those figures ur complaining about fuller or more accurate

 

5 or 6 pages ago i was all for cancelling our shoot insurance wth Basc and looking elsewhere, i now release wot an impossible job basc have trying to keep u lot happy (But they really do not help themselves at times)

 

Ps Kes i think them like the GWCT are just assuming that less paperwork should be a good thing as long as individuals don't abuse it, and there right it should give more freedom. It just falls down if/when a few abuse the sysrem

Edited May 15, 2014 by scotslad

[Konnie]

 

Ur spot on, althou i feel it won't make any difference wot Basc or anyone else says the GL is already a done deal.

 

The thing shocking me most as a non fowler is ur attitude to handing the returns in. I have no doubt every club will have detailed records going back for years/decades which could really back up ur arguments.

 

Can u not see in 2, 5 or 10 years time when all us inland shooters have decimated greylags and canada's u will still be in the exact same position as u are now. Probably have enough evidence to support getting them taken of the GL but refuse to share that info with anyone and then throw the toys out of the pram when no one listens

 

Basc are wrong on this but the more this goes on i can see why they have so little reliable info, which makes it easier for them to get it wrong,

Unless u start sharing ur returns with some independent body this will only get worse and u have only urself's to blame

bag returns are for dead ones this does not effect anything GL is to control the live ones this info is obsolete nothing on a bag return does anything

[BuddonNess]

David BASC You keep prattling on about bag numbers . That is not the problem here stop trying to confuse the issue, we're not bothered what the other organisations are doing either BASC is suppose to support wildfowlers yet time and time again they fail in their duty. Bag numbers why do we have a limit on greylags on LNRs, How many Canadas were shot on the Tay 1st Sept.2012??? Not all bags are recorded unless duty bound it's got nothing to do with anyone else..

[sitty tree]

hello david ive been a wildfowler for 30 plus years now with the same club. foreshore land stops midway between neap and spring tides on the foreshore.anything above this is inland shooting weather covered by water or not. so even though the spring tides cover the a marsh it is still not foreshore. it is inland. our shooting on the foreshore is up to the 20th of feb.inland as you know is up to end of jan. we have four leases from the crown and send bag returns to the basc that gets past on to the crown this is part of our agreement with the crown.our club has never shot greylag or pintail. and started shooting greys last season members requested to shoot greys as neighbouring clubs are shooting greys. we class canadas as having a season on the foreshore till 20th of feb. but inland there is no season for canadas.and are shot because they are Canada geese and no cold weather restriction on these.if greys go on gl there will be rules and restrictions put on them and if shooters did not abide by the gl I think a lot of guns would probably go up for sale.i know a lot of people will know where forshore is.but im shore the basc can confirm all points raised on this topic. our concern is that greylag will be classed the same as canadas and have the same none restrictions. .i got all the lease information from the member of the club who as been signing the leases for the past 30 years. we are not trying to upset people were just trying to pass on some information which might be useful.please don't forget that it is n.e that is asking for this consultation. were lucky to have a gl.please could david clarify these points which may be helpful to everybody.

[scotslad]

It's me whos pratting on about bag number because u can use them to guage a population. Konie Do u really not see it? Do u honestly think we should just take wot u say as gospel?

The GWCT spend millions every year proving things that me and u take for granted, sadly that's the way things are now, years on the ground observing birds and populations counts fo nothing unless u can back it up

 

If bag numbers are going down year on year nationwide combined with other counts and info then u have a good case to go to NE and get species taken of the GL. If u have no returns how can u prove geese numbers are dropping, u don't sem to believe any other counts unless it fits with wot u want

If returns are so pointless why do all clubs keep them

9 times out of 10 if more birds about 1 season u will have more in the return at end of season.

[BuddonNess]

Scotslad bag numbers only tell you what is missing from those counts and as I say not all areas are covered by the need for bag returns. The reason I mentioned The day in question is because I doubt if anyone would have reported the number kill by a party of visiting fowlers that morning...

[David BASC]

Spartina,

 

Good evening, and thank you for your questions.

 

I will ask my colleague who has been collating the email responses if members identified their shooting preference.

Very few inputs came in before Councils draft position was posted on the web as far as I know but again I will check.

We did ask all club reps at the Wildfowling conference, to look at the NE proposal and send us their thoughts, I think 5 did.

The last set of totals I saw, all be it about 2 days ago, was 90% for our drat response

Approximately 2/3 of our clubs send returns

Yes I have heard of the term broken covenant

 

Regards

 

David

[David BASC]

silly tree, good evening,

 

Yes its NE that set the consultation in motion, the GL gets and annual review

Yes breaking the terms of the GL could land people in trouble

Yes we are lucky to have a GL, shooting would be far worse off without it

 

If I have missed nay of your questions, I am sorry, please let me know

 

David

[sitty tree]

thank you david and good evening.just the question about the greys and none restrictions. thank you .

[IEH]

I have heard and listened to the concerns of many on here that this will result in massive overshooting of greylags in the summer, well the same concerns were raised over canadas, but not come to fruition.

 

I have also been speaking to a colleague today who has being looking at the bag returns of canadas in one area that has been mentioned on here where canada bag returns seem to have fallen, looking at the bird counts and bag returns over several years, they follow a similar pattern - high bird counts = higher bag returns, as counts fall, bag returns fall, as counts rise, bag returns rise and so on.

 

And that's one reason where having bag return data an be very useful - to compare against counts. I appreciate some clubs done want to share their data, that is their prerogative.

 

David

 

So, taking your perfectly reasonable hypothesis that bag returns mirror fluctuations in populations/counts, how can you continue to argue that there has been no detrimental effect upon the Canada population following their addition to the GL when the BTO say 'Annual breeding-season monitoring in a wider range of habitats through BBS has shown similar strong increases in England and in the UK as a whole but with significant reversals over the last five years.'?

As noted in my post number 509, to which I note neither you or Conor responded, the BBS England count shows a decline in Canadas of 25% over the period 2006 to 2011. Are we simply supposed to accept that BASC knows better than the BTO here, and that there is no coincidence in this decline, which followed a long period of population growth, suddenly and inexplicably occurring following Canadas being added to the GL?

[David BASC]

scotslad, yes exactly, its the relation between bird counts AND bag returns that help paint a full picture.

 

BuddoNess Why are there bag limits? Well as far as I know many clubs impose bag limits on their members, some will limit the number if visits to the marsh, sometimes this is due to the detail of the shooting consent.

 

Kes you ask why the CA also agree with the NE position of greys, well I cant speak for the CA, but as many of their members are farmer / landowners, perhaps they like BASC have had feedback from the farming community about how much damage can be caused in a single day by a single flock landing on their fields?

 

David

[David BASC]

Silly tree/ IEH yes I understand the concerns that have been expressed that there could be an explosion of inland shoots looking to take more greys, but what I have been told is that because there is no evidence that there has been such a massive increase in shooting canadas since they went onto the GL the and bag returns we have seen show that any increase in inland shooting of canadas has not had an impact on coastal wildfowlers bag returns across the board. There will be local population fluxes that will impact on local numbers and bag returns I agree, but as I say the overall trend on bag returns remain upwards.

 

Also, the WeBS counts for canadas - ie the number of birds seen in wetlands, shows a 25 year increase in canadas of 79% and a 10 year increase of almost 10%

 

David

[Kes]

I said i would stay out of this but ..............

It was a rhetorical question.

Also since when does BASC represent farmers before wildfowlers, even given the delay between their respective positions being known ?

Do farmers pay subs to have their interests given preferential treatment ?

 

Rather surprising statements and interpretation from BASC. I will not say another thing because there is absolutely no point..

[IEH]

David,

 

Thank you for replying. Unless I'm mistaken the BBS count covers something around 5 times the number of sites of the WBS/WBBS counts. In my view the BBS count should therefore be considered as more representative.

 

My real point was the sudden decline in Canadas counted since 2006, which is absolutely supported by the experiences of many of those practical wildfowlers who have posted in this thread.

 

Since this decline coincides with their addition to the GL, I find the BASC assertion that there has been no detrimental effect upon the population questionable, at best. I do not dispute that historically (prior to 2006) population growth was strong but I'm concerned about what has happened following their addition to the GL.

[scotslad]

This is going to be my final post on this

 

But mibee it's time for the wildfowlers to be proactive and actually use ur bag returns to try and show that canada numbers are down. Even get a wildfowler or group who have degrees in biology/ecolgy type stuff to try and put some evidence together using ur bag returns as well as other counts. I believe wot u say is right and the GL has affected Canada numbers, but u have to prove it to a bunch of desk jockeys at NE that probably couldnae tell a goose from a swan

 

The big probelm is until u take regional or national figures there will be a lot of season to season year to year varibility, 1 marsh/club/region may be down 'x'' many but the neighbouring marsh/club/region may be up by '2x' and by the time u add in weather and 101 other factors, but it is a start and will give u a proper idea of wots happening. Only then can u really argue with NE or Basc and hold them to account

 

All that will hapen if u don't get organised and try a put all ur heads together and look at the figures, is in 5 years time when both Greylag and Canada's are in massive declne u have very little hard facts to take to Basc or direct to NE.

All u can do is shout and scream and throw ur toys out of the pram,

[sitty tree]

good morning david . thank you for your replys.

[DOLLSEYES]

I'm in 3 North West wilfowling clubs.One of them,where the BASC Wildfowling officer is a member and the chairman sits on council, yet the club has a mallard release scheme and a club rule of 2 grey geese per visit.Another of the clubs has put alot of mallard nesting tubes out on its ground and the other club has a rule of no grey geese shooting.All these measures are to try to get numbers back up .All 3 clubs are BASC affiliated.Personnaly I think putting Greylags and Mallard on G.L stinks and BASC are hypocrites and if I had a choice I would drop out of them tomorrow.BASC seems to be against wildfowlers and represent their intrests poorly these days.