Terry P Posted May 12, 2014 Report Share Posted May 12, 2014 Conor, you attempt to imply that not many wildfowlers had bothered to send their replies to BASC, I think you quoted only 2 were againt maybe the case, but how many have side stepped BASC and sent their response straight to NE, I have as I wanted to make sure it reached them and I know several others that have done the same. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Conor O'Gorman Posted May 12, 2014 Report Share Posted May 12, 2014 Terry, since the consultation opened we have invited comments on all the propoals and we are currently inviting people to send us a copy of their response. I agree, not everyone will do so. Best wishes Conor Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Conor O'Gorman Posted May 12, 2014 Report Share Posted May 12, 2014 (edited) IEH/Reabrook/Barls2-9-12/Kes You queried the background to the following statement on the BASC website: BASC Council recognises that 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. Hope the following helps: The average bag per visit for the 5 years before 2005 was 0.12 Canada geese per visit and the average bag across the entire Crown Estate was 527 Canada geese per year. For the 5 years after 2005 it was 0.14 Canada geese per visit and 557 Canada geese per year. Canada goose breeding/winter distribution and abundance maps 1968-2011 Canada goose population trend 1980-2012 Edited May 12, 2014 by Conor O'Gorman Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kent Posted May 12, 2014 Report Share Posted May 12, 2014 Terry, since the consultation opened we have invited comments on all the propoals and we are currently inviting people to send us a copy of their response. I agree, not everyone will do so. Best wishes Conor The response they will have received will be the same as mine, three std responses as flaunted about on here. Ears firmly shut this thread pretty much shows it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
holloway Posted May 12, 2014 Report Share Posted May 12, 2014 IEH/Reabrook/Barls2-9-12/Kes You queried the background to the following statement on the BASC website: BASC Council recognises that 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. Hope the following helps: The average bag per visit for the 5 years before 2005 was 0.12 Canada geese per visit and the average bag across the entire Crown Estate was 527 Canada geese per year. For the 5 years after 2005 it was 0.14 Canada geese per visit and 557 Canada geese per year. Canada goose breeding/winter distribution and abundance maps 1968-2011 Canada goose population trend 1980-2012 Conor statistics show canadas shot on crown estate leases last season were down 226 from the year before, can you give a one word answer right or wrong.(bet you cant) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Conor O'Gorman Posted May 12, 2014 Report Share Posted May 12, 2014 holloway - right. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reabrook Posted May 12, 2014 Report Share Posted May 12, 2014 IEH/Reabrook/Barls2-9-12/Kes The average bag per visit for the 5 years before 2005 was 0.12 Canada geese per visit and the average bag across the entire Crown Estate was 527 Canada geese per year. For the 5 years after 2005 it was 0.14 Canada geese per visit and 557 Canada geese per year. And what is the average for the full 9 years of the Canada being included on the GL. Or does that not reflect what BASC is trying to portray? I have witnessed first hand how the Canada Goose has been treated in that period and have no doubt that Greylag will receive the same treatment. Is BASC to continue to bury its head in the sand and hope this furore goes away? I can assure you it won't. And as for your colleagues assertion that it is merely a vocal few I can assure you it isn't. At the risk of repeating myself, time to man up BASC, admit your wrong and prevent any further damage to an organisation I have supported for over 30 years Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
motty Posted May 12, 2014 Report Share Posted May 12, 2014 The BASC are both ignorant and arrogant. The future of protecting our shooting is in far worse hands than I feared. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Conor O'Gorman Posted May 12, 2014 Report Share Posted May 12, 2014 Reabrook, will do tommorow, best wishes conor Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
House Boat Posted May 12, 2014 Report Share Posted May 12, 2014 Houseboat (Ian) Would I be correct in saying that our club (KLWNWA), like so many others, have no choice but to be in BASC, because of the terms and conditions of the Crown Estates lease? Cheers Andy Yes Andy that is correct, I think all crown leased clubs have to belong to BASC. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anser2 Posted May 12, 2014 Report Share Posted May 12, 2014 I have just seen the 8 year BASC wildfowl bag returns and they make interesting reading. I suspect they are based on a small sample , but its true they do suggest an upward trend for canadas but last year saw a fall in the number shot and though the average was 10% up on the 8 year average. However what is more worrying is that greylag are showing a 30% decline last year over the 8 year average and the bag has been declining for the past 3 years. As I said before the bag returns are might be based on a very small sample as according to the shooting returns for pink feet the most shot in any one year has been 17 and in most years only 5 or 6 are recorded , I have often shot that many in a single flight. I would suggest the BASC bag returns are at best unrealiable and at worst fiction. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David BASC Posted May 12, 2014 Report Share Posted May 12, 2014 Fiction?! Please are you honestly now accusing all BASC wildfowling clubs who send in their returns of making up their figures? Really? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Mat Posted May 12, 2014 Report Share Posted May 12, 2014 Fiction?! Please are you honestly now accusing all BASC wildfowling clubs who send in their returns of making up their figures? Really? You explain the numbers of pinkfeet shot then, because i can very much assure you more than that are shot in the season on the wash! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David BASC Posted May 12, 2014 Report Share Posted May 12, 2014 Thank you, I will gladly check on the bag return figures tomorrow David Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anser2 Posted May 12, 2014 Report Share Posted May 12, 2014 (edited) David each year over the past 8 years I personaly shoot more pink footed geese than is shown on the BASC bag returns. I fill in a return to my clubs who then forward culb returns to BASC and I assume you send the numbers to the Crown Estate to be published. http://www.thecrownestate.co.uk/coastal/wildfowling/ As my numbers do not tally with the numbers on BASCs published bag returns then clearly something is not adding up. In some years I have shot 5 or 6 times more pinks that the bag returns for all BASC members! And in every year my personal bag is more than the BASC returns show. As the return is wrong for pink footed geese so how much faith can we have in the bag returns for canadas or greylags. As for me none. Clubs on the N Norfolk Coast , Humber , NW English coast shoot many hundreds if not thousands of pink feet and yet look at the very small return on the BASC foreshore bags for the crown estate. Yet strangly the return for canadas is much higher when almost every wildfowler on here is telling you that they are seeing and shooting fewer. Something here does not add up. I am not saying the returns are a lie , but there is an old phrase " there are lies , dam lies and Statistics " which seems to fit here. Its easy to cherry pick the data to show the stats you want , but I am sure BASC would never stoop that low. Edited May 12, 2014 by anser2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hifly Posted May 12, 2014 Report Share Posted May 12, 2014 (edited) I will second that anser2, you and I know how many pinks are shot on one marsh we both shoot on and it is far more than those figures ! Edited May 12, 2014 by hifly Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
motty Posted May 12, 2014 Report Share Posted May 12, 2014 (edited) Those figures are a joke! I would have thought the figures for pinks killed would be far higher than the amount of canadas killed. If anyone at BASC thinks that those figures are even anywhere close, then we have absolutely no hope. Edited May 12, 2014 by motty Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Mat Posted May 12, 2014 Report Share Posted May 12, 2014 Am i reading it wrong, or does that returns sheet say that there where only 683 wildfowlers? Well that can't be correct either Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grandalf Posted May 12, 2014 Report Share Posted May 12, 2014 (edited) Those figures beggar belief. We shot more pinks than that back in the 60's on the Wash alone. This year in the Norfolk/Suffolk area I don't think I saw a couple of dozen canadas - I certainly didn't shoot at one other than Rockland Broad at the end of the season. Edited May 12, 2014 by Grandalf Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David BASC Posted May 12, 2014 Report Share Posted May 12, 2014 Speaking as an (ex) scientist I would say its not uncommon for two people sampling from the same area to have similar results, particularly when you are sampling from an area that is known to be a key area for pinkfoot. Would you say people from the south coast or southwest for example who said they shot no pinkfoot were making up their results? No of course not. The bag returns as you point out are from Crown Foreshore , and may I assume that the land you shot over is not Crown Land? I think some may recall much earlier in this thread I suggested a very good way forward would be for us all to work together to monitor bag returns, something that seems to have fallen on deaf ears sadly... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
islandgun Posted May 12, 2014 Report Share Posted May 12, 2014 The BASC are both ignorant and arrogant. The future of protecting our shooting is in far worse hands than I feared. i would be happy to join another WAGBI Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
motty Posted May 12, 2014 Report Share Posted May 12, 2014 (edited) Speaking as an (ex) scientist I would say its not uncommon for two people sampling from the same area to have similar results, particularly when you are sampling from an area that is known to be a key area for pinkfoot. Would you say people from the south coast or southwest for example who said they shot no pinkfoot were making up their results? No of course not. The bag returns as you point out are from Crown Foreshore , and may I assume that the land you shot over is not Crown Land? I think some may recall much earlier in this thread I suggested a very good way forward would be for us all to work together to monitor bag returns, something that seems to have fallen on deaf ears sadly... David, what exactly do you mean by this? Edited May 12, 2014 by motty Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David BASC Posted May 12, 2014 Report Share Posted May 12, 2014 Evening motty, What I mean is this - the bag return data on the NE site is from Crown Foreshore land only. In areas of foreshore where the pinks that to come over in winter tend not to be on Crown land, the Wash area up to the Humber is a prime spot for pinks, as is the NW coast, but not south coast or south west As we say in our draft response, 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. Working together to gather good data has to be a good thing in my view - would others agree? David Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Mat Posted May 12, 2014 Report Share Posted May 12, 2014 Evening motty, What I mean is this - the bag return data on the NE site is from Crown Foreshore land only. In areas of foreshore where the pinks that to come over in winter tend not to be on Crown land, the Wash area up to the Humber is a prime spot for pinks, as is the NW coast, but not south coast or south west As we say in our draft response, 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. Working together to gather good data has to be a good thing in my view - would others agree? David Oh come on David, cut the ****. Clubs on the wash shoot on crown land and shoot more pinks than your bag returns seem to say. Now please explain that and stop coming up with all this **** Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David BASC Posted May 12, 2014 Report Share Posted May 12, 2014 (edited) Big Mat, there really is no need to swear at me is there? I have already said I will be checking the bag return data tomorrow. David Edited May 12, 2014 by David BASC Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.