Big Mat Posted May 12, 2014 Report Share Posted May 12, 2014 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 Why come back and continue posting if you are going to check the data tomorrow? Your previous post added nothing and showed a huge lack of knowledge ( or an attempt to trick us? ) We have the facts available to us right now and quite frankly i am appalled and angry at BASC selling us down the line. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
motty 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 I'm certain that the club i'm in is on crown land. I shot a decent number of pinks in the 2012/13 season, and I know that a few others in the club shot plenty more than me, certainly more than your records show for all of the crown land over the past few years. I fill in my bag returns accurately. How can anyone trust such poorly collated data? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
muncher 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... Well I shoot over the crown foreshore and every year ive shot more than those figures say absolute hogwash ! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hifly Posted May 12, 2014 Report Share Posted May 12, 2014 David you should be listerning to the members who pay the wages of the BASC staff it's about time you lot grew a pair and man up !!! instead of getting in to bed with Natural England Bet you put up a better fight when the lead shot debate gets going, don't want to upset the landowners and gentry do you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David BASC Posted May 12, 2014 Report Share Posted May 12, 2014 (edited) Thanks motty, I will have a close look at the Crown returns for the Wash area in particular, but as it seems my continued presence on this thread is not welcome by some, although all I am trying to do is listen and help, I will post no more until I have looked at the bag data. PS I have a big enough pair thank you, and as a member I guess I pay as much of my wage as you do.... Edited May 12, 2014 by David BASC Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
muncher Posted May 12, 2014 Report Share Posted May 12, 2014 I'm certain that the club i'm in is on crown land. I shot a decent number of pinks in the 2012/13 season, and I know that a few others in the club shot plenty more than me, certainly more than your records show for all of the crown land over the past few years. I fill in my bag returns accurately. How can anyone trust such poorly collated data? yes your correct motty we as a club lease of the crown. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kes Posted May 12, 2014 Report Share Posted May 12, 2014 Gentlemen, The returns are correct or they are wrong I would expect the latter. However the question is why and also what should be done about it. Can someone get their BASC returns from their club to confirm they were sent and the figures ? Several would help, post them as photocopies on this thread. There could be no claim of heresay then and it should cause a rethink. Evidence is absolutely necessary to establish where the problem lies. For an outcome we need to keep this thread under 'control' or it may be closed if it becomes too confrontational. I want to see the end of this one. P,S. I am still firmly of the opinion that ANY species of Goose, excepting non - native, should NOT be on the General Licence. Please remember that David works for the Chairman of BASC via the Chief Executive and THROUGH him, via the agreed policies of Council, to us, the members. We elected the Chairman (indirectly) who did you vote for on Council and what is his position on this - tell him what you think. Ask him to call for a reappraisal - post his response on here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anser2 Posted May 12, 2014 Report Share Posted May 12, 2014 (edited) From David BASC , Quote "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?2 Over the last 8 seasons the period of the BASC bag data most of my pinks were shot oncrown foreshore. But just ask yourself does the BASC bag returns data ring true? Just click on the following link http://www.thecrowne...al/wildfowling/ Edited May 12, 2014 by anser2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IEH 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 Conor, It seems I've started something by querying the Crown Estate returns! Thank you for the helpful links provided in your post (above). When I look at the population trend link it reads '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.' In fact, when you access the 'population changes in detail' tab the BBS UK count, which covers many more sites than the WBS/WBBS counts, appears to show a decline of 21% over the 5 years 2006 to 2011, and the BBS England count appears to show an even bigger decline of 25% over the same 5 year period. This seems to coincide with Canada Geese being added to the GL and to reflect the experiences expressed by active 'fowlers on this thread. This rather contradicts the BASC position, doesn't it? Edited May 12, 2014 by IEH Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scotslad Posted May 12, 2014 Report Share Posted May 12, 2014 (edited) While it is a poirity to have accurate poputions/bag returns (well as accurate as can be) before u can make any decison. U really need to find out wot Basc has done with the bag returns, but in theory even if Basc have completely screwed them up as long as they have screwed them up the same way all the time it should still be able to give u a general trend and rough index of the birds shot. But it all depends on wot has happened with the data and if it has been consistantly screwed up the same way for years? Possibly would be useful wot trends individual clubs are noticing and if observations of less canada's are backed up by bag returns? But the bottom line for me is there simply is not the demand or need to put Greylag geese on the GL, for past 3 years SL's applications have went down,i severely doubt many farmers are actually using them anyway. Ur talking 30ish licences a year. It's not a lot compared to numbers of other licence applied for Think someone said on the bag returns we have (wether there worth the paper written on?) Greylags have been declining past 3 years but were down 30% last year. That is quite a significant drop. Wether bag returns are accurate that would tend to tally with the fewer licences applied for. But if the 179% increase is correct over 20 years it would take 3 normal/good years of breeding just to get back to where u were 2 years ago and that's without any out of season shooting And the SL's seem to be working fine 2-3 people on here have stated the fact they have got them easily when required backed up by a farmer who has used them who again said not a problem to get 1, so the system doesn't seem to be broken Think kent had a quote/extract from the GL consultation (section 7d?) something along the lines of means must justify the end? for me it is massively overkill to put the Greylag on the GL with very little justification or evidence for it. Where there is far more justifaction or evidence for a few other species that are more numerous and have more SL's granted for them When the SL's are applied for do u have to apply and state the reason for licence ie crop protection (from memory GL2?). If so is there a record of how many licences were applied for purely for crop protection? At moment all the figures seem to be divied into the method of control (ie eggs/nests or killing adults) I could guess that most of the adults could be crop damage but they always mention lethal injection too which is obviously not crop protection Also is there any stats that show wot general areas the SL's are applied for in? From wot i can gather it tends to be very localised problems year on year, yet if they go on the GL its a national scale, just doesn't seem a justifed trying to solve a local problem by shooting them on a national scale Edited May 12, 2014 by scotslad Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greymaster Posted May 12, 2014 Report Share Posted May 12, 2014 i would be happy to join another WAGBI I wonder if BASC would transfer a percentage of its funds to a new WAGBI based on the number of defecting BASC members. Would seem fair. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scotslad Posted May 12, 2014 Report Share Posted May 12, 2014 Just checked my email there and 1 from the GWCT staeing there response the the consultation, they are also backing the inclusion of Greylag to GL1, must admit quite surprised about. But i dare say it all depends on how accurate there figures are, bag returns should be the most accurate measure but depending if the Basc figures are taken as the standard Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fisheruk Posted May 13, 2014 Report Share Posted May 13, 2014 (edited) Just checked my email there and 1 from the GWCT staeing there response the the consultation, they are also backing the inclusion of Greylag to GL1, must admit quite surprised about. But i dare say it all depends on how accurate there figures are, bag returns should be the most accurate measure but depending if the Basc figures are taken as the stan Deleted by me because it was a general comment and and not relating to this post. Sorry. Edited May 13, 2014 by Fisheruk Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scolopax Posted May 13, 2014 Author Report Share Posted May 13, 2014 I think that the BASC returns must be correct, I noticed the lack of Pinks in the crown return a few years ago and concluded that most of the estuaries with pinks could not be crown foreshore. You can also get the situation where the open sand / mud is crown, the greenshore is in other ownership, as most clubs outlaw shooting away from the greenshore (to protect the roosts), then most geese will be shot on the land not under crown control. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kes Posted May 13, 2014 Report Share Posted May 13, 2014 FisherUK, Is it wrong to have a different view, especially where you probably are more in tune with Geese ? I am sure David is more concerned about having his stats correct rather than being shouted at, BASC is loved by some and disliked by others - maybe wildfowlers have a reason to want more representation - you obviously dont. Wildfowlers love geese, without being romantic about it, they are admirable quarry. Wildfowlers are used (generally) to small bags and lots of effort - they are therefore different in the pursuit of their sport than most shooters. The commercialisation of shooting is fine if you put more birds down (and eat them) no-one breeds wild geese or many species that wildfowlers take so they are naturally more conservation minded. Reasonably it could be said the present system works - the turnround for SL's is much less than you quote, especially after an initial approval - read above. If the stats of bag returns are wrong then decisions must be flawed - probably best to bottom that one. Frustration and a passionate love of your sport and its traditions can give rise to what we have seen on here but I would say the Mods are perhaps able to judge that and close the thread if they judge that David is being unjustly targeted as he makes the forum a better place. I am NOT (first) a wildfowler, I like to conserve wildflowers and put up nest boxes for birds and bats. I support their concerns - The greylag is our goose, not introduced, a beautiful, intelligent bird. Why would you want to put it on a GL like woodpigeon and take a jackdaw and jay off ? Just MO Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fisheruk Posted May 13, 2014 Report Share Posted May 13, 2014 Am I the only one who is heartily fed up with the vitriol being spat out against David and BASC on this thread. Canadas have not been exterminated by their inclusion on the GL. Greys will only be shot under a GL on farmland, parks, and golf courses by people authorised to shoot there. My experience of shooting Canadas in such circumstances is that after the first shot or two, there's take off and depart for a safer place. There are still plenty of Canadas about for people to shoot for no other reason than the sport of it on the foreshore when the closed shop clubs deem it sporting. Wildfowlers seem to miss the point that on the foreshore and marshes geese are doing no harm and the clubs that control most of the shootable land will not loose their control of that land. The GL does not grant the right to roam with a gun!! Reality is that in my lifetime Canadas have grown in numbers from a rarity to nuisance proportions. I see the same thing happening with greys. Resident greys were a rarity a few years ago and now they are popping up in places never seen previously. It is no use to bleat on about the availability of SLs for controlling nuisance situations. I don't see process as a move just to save administration money, but rather a response to make nuisance control practical. Where a nuisance arises to have to wait 3-4 months for a SL to be granted is enough to make most folk not bother. The practical answer at present is to hit them hard in the season in these nuisance locations when the season permits and that is probably more damaging to populations than the occasional shooting to move them on when a nuisance arises. Most of the organisations have supported this proposal and I do also. Perhaps those who call themselves Wildfowlers should take a long deep breath and realise that they are in the minority in this issue. It is a sad situation to see the vitriol and what amounts to verbal bullying and abuse coming through this thread. It is time to stop. Enough and IMHO too much has been said. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kes Posted May 13, 2014 Report Share Posted May 13, 2014 Interesting timeshift here - I read your post fisherUK - posted a reply and your original appeared after mine ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fisheruk Posted May 13, 2014 Report Share Posted May 13, 2014 I have said what I have said and been careful in what I have said. I respect other people's views, but expect others to respect mine. I am not bashing Wildfowlers, apart from those who have IMHO stepped over the mark in the way that they have expressed their opinions. I am not a member of BASC. David I appreciate your measured response to some of these aggressive posts. I also appreciate your posts generally on other issues. I am saying no more on this thread. Best regards to all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David BASC Posted May 13, 2014 Report Share Posted May 13, 2014 Morning, Motty, muncher, Big Mat and Anser, could you PM me the name of you club so I can check specifically the Crown Estate bag returns for your clubs, of course I will not post the bag returns on here! Thanks David Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kent Posted May 13, 2014 Report Share Posted May 13, 2014 I think that the BASC returns must be correct, I noticed the lack of Pinks in the crown return a few years ago and concluded that most of the estuaries with pinks could not be crown foreshore. You can also get the situation where the open sand / mud is crown, the greenshore is in other ownership, as most clubs outlaw shooting away from the greenshore (to protect the roosts), then most geese will be shot on the land not under crown control. I agree, the crown foreshore is mostly the sand and roosts. Shooting away from the fret edge, near the roosts, digging in etc. is nearly always banned. Hate to say it but members misrepresenting were birds were shot might be a way of persuading the clubs to keep on the more expensive leases that are often in private hands. Bag returns though are of limited use under specific circumstances and are best used as a loose guide, there is too much that can effect them unconnected to that being studied Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kent Posted May 13, 2014 Report Share Posted May 13, 2014 I have said what I have said and been careful in what I have said. I respect other people's views, but expect others to respect mine. I am not bashing Wildfowlers, apart from those who have IMHO stepped over the mark in the way that they have expressed their opinions. I am not a member of BASC. David I appreciate your measured response to some of these aggressive posts. I also appreciate your posts generally on other issues. I am saying no more on this thread. Best regards to all. So your not a BASC member, Your not a Wildfowler? Prob best you do that then Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grandalf Posted May 13, 2014 Report Share Posted May 13, 2014 Gentlemen, Can an old fowler request a little restraint in some of the remarks on this forum? I am strongly against BASC's decision but it was taken by the Council - not David or Conor. They are having a bad and difficult time trying to justify that decision - but they did not make it. Whilst we are engaging in this discussion in our leisure time they are doing it as part of their employment. The last thing we want is for the moderators to pull the plug so that our main point of contact and discussion with BASC ceases. Just a little easier with some of the phrases being used - We are all Fowling Gentlemen. Now then BASC, about these figures - it seems that the Crown Agents figures are probably not the best ones to use. There is a difference between green saltings and mud. Only one pace between the two but it can account for a world of difference with the returns posted by clubs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David BASC Posted May 13, 2014 Report Share Posted May 13, 2014 Grandalf, Thank you for your question. Yes there is a difference , those who shoot around the Wash inland near to Crown foreshore land may well be shooting lots of pinks, but I suspect they are not actually shooting on Crown foreshore so they are not on the Crown bag returns that come to us and are then published on the NE web site. As I have said earlier, it would be great to get more data on bag returns so a clearer picture evolves, and I cannot personally see why anyone would disagree in principle, but at the same time I know full well that some clubs would not dream of sharing their data...so what's the way forward to get accurate bag returns from around the UK - I am open to ideas. At the same time we have a few members on here who were adamant they were shooting pinks on Crown land around the Wash, and using that as their reason to say, among other things, I was attempting to trick people on bag data - my offer for them to get in touch, tell me their club , so I can check their club returns is still there... David Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
derbyduck Posted May 13, 2014 Report Share Posted May 13, 2014 strongbow, you asked about the purpose of the action alert BASC email we sent members last week - this was to encourage people to respond to the consultation calling for the general licences to be simplified. The message was: BASC calls for general licences to be simplified General licences were introduced more than 20 years ago as a legal necessity to comply with European law. The reasons were complex but the principle was simple – to permit people to continue to carry out necessary control with no added burdens. As with the quarry seasons people only needed to know what species were on the list. However, following two decades of gold-plating the general licences in England are now so complex that they are confusing to the average user. The 48 pages of proposed changes in this consultation would make the terms and conditions even more complex while also making it a legal requirement for users to have read and understood up to ten pages of legal text in each general licence. In essence Natural England is continuing the trend of its predecessors in shifting national legal responsibilities onto licence users. BASC believes in reducing red tape for shooting. The situation today is far removed from 1992 when Ministers assured stakeholders that the introduction of general licences was a legal device but one which would continue to allow necessary control with no added burdens. The general licences need only to list the species legally affected and the legally permitted methods – all on a single page. Why do you want members to get intouch with NE to make the general licences simpler ? surely it makes more scense to make the existing special licences simpler ? by asking us to do this you are making it look as we agree with greylags and mallard going on the general licences ! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David BASC Posted May 13, 2014 Report Share Posted May 13, 2014 More people shoot under General licence than Class or Individual. The General licence is long and over complex in our view. Remember many species are controlled under general licence, and the two issues - i.e. the review of species to be controlled at the moment and our ask to review the complexity of the general licence in total are unrelated If you do not agree with the NE proposals of mallard and greylags than please say so by engaging in the consultation process as I have said before. best wishes David 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.