Inclusion of the Greylag Goose onto the General License

[kent]

I certainly did not say there would be no out of season shooting now did I? As you probably know there is already 'out of season' shooting under licence.

 

Species will move onto the GL for a variety of reasons, typically public health, crop damage, and if individual or class licenced are common being granted without opposition, the question rightly arises as why carry on with the need to apply for an individual or class licence when NE will almost certainly grant anyway. Hence the move to GL.

 

You ask how can any of us be sure the vast majority of inland shooters might not shoot at least 1? Well its not happened with candas has it? Is there any evidence at all you can call on Kes that suggests the vast majority of the 400,000 inland shooters have gone out and shot at least 1 Canada each year its been on GL?

 

Based on the feedback to our draft response to the current consultation, the vast majority of BASC members who have been in contact support Council's position.

 

I refer you back to the number of special licences requested each year not exactly vast is it now 2012 a grand total of 12 - yes a whole dozen across England and wales in a year! Obviously we have one heck of an issue with these pesky Geese ruining public health and agriculture length and breadth our nation Counter that straight from NE, tell us again how we are being selfish, acting on poor data etc? David, spin it however you can BASC look very, very bad on this and you cannot argue black is white or darkness is light. So what I suggest is you have a word in the ear of those who set out on this road and retract the recommendation as an error. You mention quite a bit about the thread getting closed it appears you might be glad of that and frankly I couldn't blame you, your job here must be like trying to sell steak dinners at the vegan AGM

Most likely we were sacrificed to save the Jackdaw, Jay and hooded crow and by doing so BASC enraged 7000 wildfowlers, the same class of guys that founded BASC as WAGBI. This is a far greater mistake than it at first appears for conservation and the long term future of BASC. The fragmentation and ostracising of interest groups within our sport will become the end of us all but BASC chiefs are seemingly ok with that (hardly surprising when we look at the background of some of them)

[riptide]

Stevo ,,May I ask if you have sent any bag returns in as a shooter but not a wildfowler All the Wildfowling clubs that use Basc to negoatiate their Crown Foreshore leases have to send in a bag return by 1st April each year ..As I do it for my club it takes a fair bit of time and I like to get it correct ,we even have in place a fine for those that dont get their returns back to me on time ..So for you to say to tar me with the facts as you see them of us not doing it correctly is utterly wrong ..I can shoot on my own land behind a sea wall and like you do not have to send or tell anyone what I have shot !! But as a member of a club I have to fill in bag returns foir wereever and whatever be it duck or game or vermin that I shoot ON CLUB GROUND .So to repeat We as Club Wildfowler send our returns in each year for anything we shoot on the crown land .

 

But this bit is important If a club or indiviual leases Foreshore /crown shooting direct or as a sub-lease as we do then we send our returns to our landlord or direct to crown agents so as I understand it Basc does not get to see these returns ..And so Basc will not have a compleat record ..

 

I do hope this explains the system to you ! And that you can now see that putting the Greylag on GL will allow it to be taken with no records and no control any day of the year even in the breeding season with the proviso that you can show it might have been or is about to cause damage !! This is of great concearn to me as they are already so it seems on a downward trend . Far better to leave them on the SL as then they are recorded and their long tearm sustainability can be checked ..

 

Riptide

Edited May 15, 2014 by riptide

[riptide]

David I note that you have included the words ""Draft"" and ""Proposed Responce"" in two of your posts on this page no 29 .....Does that mean that Basc has not sent its reply to the consultation in to NE yet !!!!! If so interesting as all along I and others have been complaining of as we see it BASC having already replyed !!!! mmmmmmmmm food for thought !

 

Riptide

 

PS As its only the 15th and I have been busy getting my SPS application together and sent in on time ,now done ,I can now turn to my clubs responce and also a reply from my self on behalf of the EJCWC and not forgetting my own personel views as well !!! All will be coyped and sent to Basc as well ..

[David BASC]

Response closes in a few days - final draft of the BASC response is being finalised today I think.

 

Kes, I think you have answered your own question as to why responsible people will show restraint.

 

 

Bird number and breeding bird numbers were sourced from for example Webs and BBS; bag returns were from the clubs who shoot on crown foreshore.

 

As I have said several times now we all need to work together to get data that we are all happy with, regardless of what NE decides to do with its proposals on the GL

[scotslad]

Do some off u not understand how these things work nowadays?

 

By not handing full returns in to Basc it is impossible for them to argue ur cause

But also by sending ur response straight to NE is the exact same, if in the future Basc can say only a tiny % forwarded to them showed any critism of propasals so can assume the got decisions right!

And next time there is something similar they might vote the same way as that is wot there evidence tells them.

 

As far as i'm corncerned the wildfowlers are there own worst enemy and pretty hypocritical, to critise BASC for not having the right return figures or listening to ur views when u don't actually send either ur views or the returns in. Mibee Basc needs to polish there crystal ball a bit more.

 

 

Do the GWCT not have a gamebag census? Until u start gathering ur returns it will never improve, possibly u could get the GWCT to do something as an impartial 3rd party

 

 

As for the mallard it must be made clearer there only on the GL for nest destruction for environmental health if they have nested in a stupid place (think a flue pipe was the example) it will probablyonly affect a tiny numer of them. And to be fair its probably only keeping people legal as they probably already destroy the nest's if they find them in a flue when they are doing work.

[m3vert]

Ive read through this over the last week or so. I am not a member of BASC, and I am certainly no widlfowler. However to me (the untrained) BASC's position looks ridiculous, if there were so few SL applied for, it in no way whatsoever justifies Greylag being on a GL!

 

Youve got it wrong, admit it and do the right thing. Otherwise I would prepare for a mass exodus of members!

[David BASC]

Motty, no bag return from FWA, as they do not shoot on the tidal areas they do not have to submit mandatory returns to us to go onto the overall report to NE that's published on their web site.

 

We did ask for bag returns anyway as this is a key area for pinks, like others in the area, but were refused.

 

David

[Guest stevo]

Stevo ,,May I ask if you have sent any bag returns in as a shooter but not a wildfowler All the Wildfowling clubs that use Basc to negoatiate their Crown Foreshore leases have to send in a bag return by 1st April each year ..As I do it for my club it takes a fair bit of time and I like to get it correct ,we even have in place a fine for those that dont get their returns back to me on time ..So for you to say to tar me with the facts as you see them of us not doing it correctly is utterly wrong ..I can shoot on my own land behind a sea wall and like you do not have to send or tell anyone what I have shot !! But as a member of a club I have to fill in bag returns foir wereever and whatever be it duck or game or vermin that I shoot ON CLUB GROUND .So to repeat We as Club Wildfowler send our returns in each year for anything we shoot on the crown land .

 

But this bit is important If a club or indiviual leases Foreshore /crown shooting direct or as a sub-lease as we do then we send our returns to our landlord or direct to crown agents so as I understand it Basc does not get to see these returns ..And so Basc will not have a compleat record ..

 

I do hope this explains the system to you ! And that you can now see that putting the Greylag on GL will allow it to be taken with no records and no control any day of the year even in the breeding season with the proviso that you can show it might have been or is about to cause damage !! This is of great concearn to me as they are already so it seems on a downward trend . Far better to leave them on the SL as then they are recorded and their long tearm sustainability can be checked ..

 

Riptide

My response was a reaction to something that I MISSREAD . I took it completely in the wrong context . For witch you will see I instantly apologised .

 

And for what it's worth . I have records of everything I have shot. Times. Dates. Bag . Your name it . However as I only shoot pests/vermin . I dont shoot any type of game at all . So as there is no need to sumbit my bag tallys for vermin/pests . I do not . That said if the there was a requirement then I would have ALL of the information required to hand

[riptide]

Good morning Scotslad may I respond to you on your comments above .Yes we understand how things work !!!

 

We hand our full returns into Basc each year as near to the 1st April as we can ..They are the returns requied as per conditions of our lease from the Crown forshore which we lease !! These leases are organised and put in place with help from Basc ..They can be 30 /40 pages of infomation .

 

Were clubs or indiviuals lease direct from the Crown or via a third party / landlord we have to send our bag returns to them direct ..All other shooters ,,The Vast Majority ,,do not have to send any returns in for any waterfowl they might shoot on their own or rented /guest shooting grounds /lakes /rivers/ponds/resvoires /old sandpits and so on !!

 

I agree all who are Basc members should and in my view must send their replys to NE and a copy to Basc so that Basc know what their responce is !!

 

As to Mallard if you look at the figures it was something in the order of 90,000 eggs ,I dont call that a tiny number ,and the flue pipe bit was more to do with small birds like Robins/piead wagtails if you look at the NE Consultation you would have seen that .. To me no problem as its such a small rare thing it is to make sure the person involved is leagel ! Mallards dont ofton nest in flue pipes !!

[kent]

Do some off u not understand how these things work nowadays?

 

By not handing full returns in to Basc it is impossible for them to argue ur cause

But also by sending ur response straight to NE is the exact same, if in the future Basc can say only a tiny % forwarded to them showed any critism of propasals so can assume the got decisions right!

And next time there is something similar they might vote the same way as that is wot there evidence tells them.

 

As far as i'm corncerned the wildfowlers are there own worst enemy and pretty hypocritical, to critise BASC for not having the right return figures or listening to ur views when u don't actually send either ur views or the returns in. Mibee Basc needs to polish there crystal ball a bit more.

 

 

Do the GWCT not have a gamebag census? Until u start gathering ur returns it will never improve, possibly u could get the GWCT to do something as an impartial 3rd party

 

 

As for the mallard it must be made clearer there only on the GL for nest destruction for environmental health if they have nested in a stupid place (think a flue pipe was the example) it will probablyonly affect a tiny numer of them. And to be fair its probably only keeping people legal as they probably already destroy the nest's if they find them in a flue when they are doing work.

 

Again Mallard are not an issue nesting in Flues, that's robins and the like on a separate part of NE proposal

[kent]

Response closes in a few days - final draft of the BASC response is being finalised today I think.

 

Kes, I think you have answered your own question as to why responsible people will show restraint.

 

 

Bird number and breeding bird numbers were sourced from for example Webs and BBS; bag returns were from the clubs who shoot on crown foreshore.

 

As I have said several times now we all need to work together to get data that we are all happy with, regardless of what NE decides to do with its proposals on the GL

 

For pities sake change your stance while you still can - it will be seen as a good thing that you listened rather than ignored those who understand and care

[kent]

Motty, no bag return from FWA, as they do not shoot on the tidal areas they do not have to submit mandatory returns to us to go onto the overall report to NE that's published on their web site.

 

We did ask for bag returns anyway as this is a key area for pinks, like others in the area, but were refused.

 

David

 

under the given circumstances has BASC not considered how further lack of trust between wildfowling clubs and BASC might play out long term?The fact you have already been refused is indicative of lack of trust, why not heal this rather than build more walls when we really need is bridges? Review the BASC submission and make a start

[Grandalf]

final draft of the BASC response is being finalised today I think.

 

 

And I do hope that the BASC Council has enough louse to realise that most of their fowling members do not agree with their original decision and that there is enough 'reasonable doubt' about the accuracy of the statistics to reverse it and not support the proposal.

[Barls2-9-12]

http://www.middevongazette.co.uk/Controversial-plans-allow-mallard-nests-destroyed/story-21034934-detail/story.html

 

Dont know if this has been put on here already a good read..

[kent]

http://www.middevongazette.co.uk/Controversial-plans-allow-mallard-nests-destroyed/story-21034934-detail/story.html

 

Dont know if this has been put on here already a good read..

 

 

This represents only a small fraction of what shooting and BASC will suffer at the hands of the press Nationally and locally and I just fail to see why the penalty shot is aimed at it own goal when the Wildfowlers oppose it, its a mistake pure and simple we all make them but this time we have a very small window to fix it. The numbers make BASC look unqualified fools in my mind (imagine what an anti shooting weapon this could become in future years if or when numbers crash) and take away from the Jackdaw argument not add to it. If you think Badgers create bad PR what about those who go to feed the ducks or enjoy seeing the geese flighting over their homes. This will not stay a secret little document that nobody knows or cares about this time around and seriously risks the word "conservation" in the name

[motty]

Motty, no bag return from FWA, as they do not shoot on the tidal areas they do not have to submit mandatory returns to us to go onto the overall report to NE that's published on their web site.

 

We did ask for bag returns anyway as this is a key area for pinks, like others in the area, but were refused.

 

David

Maybe I miss-understand what a tidal area is, then. Where I shoot, between the river Ouse and Nene, the tide covers the marsh. Is that not tidal, or am I just stupid?

[David BASC]

Motty,

Fact is its not crown foreshore and the bag returns are not compulsory, we asked the club refused

 

If the clubs won't give us the data then there is little else we can do, but rely on the data we do have access to, its as simple as that

 

Kent,

Lay the blame about why clubs will not pass data where you like, the facts remain the same

[kent]

Motty,

Fact is its not crown foreshore and the bag returns are not compulsory, we asked the club refused

 

If the clubs won't give us the data then there is little else we can do, but rely on the data we do have access to, its as simple as that

 

Kent,

Lay the blame about why clubs will not pass data where you like, the facts remain the same

 

The very fact BASC were not freely issued them suggests a trust issue, hardly surprising under the current situation of betrayal

[kent]

Maybe I miss-understand what a tidal area is, then. Where I shoot, between the river Ouse and Nene, the tide covers the marsh. Is that not tidal, or am I just stupid?

 

No you don't, that's someone else

[David BASC]

Motty,

 

just to clarify Fenland’s Crown Estate lease was issued and managed by the Crown Estate Rural Team and does not include a requirement to submit annual bag returns via the JTG process, ie to BASC, even though its tidal

 

David

[Konnie]

Motty FWA in my opinion are correct as is any other club, organisation or group that does not give BASC this info the GL is to control the living birds not those that are already shot. this info is not relevant only to be used against us further down the line This is casting a VERY large shadow over BASC,s agenda, I feel its losing its way as a organisation and becoming more of a business.

 

 

soon be time to get about 3 letters letting me know I,ve not renewed my membership, one for each club, so pleased they spent loads of OUR members money on a new communications centre. like the shooting equivalent to MP's.

[riptide]

We must not get side tracked with the smaller detail like which clubs do returns to basc who then pass them on to representitives for the Crown estste or the others that deal direct or with a landlord .On a small bit of NNR I deal direct with NE who lease from the crown and on other bits we deal with Basc who then report to the crown .. THE main issue is should greys go on the GL or remaine on SL ,it seems the vast majority who have been posting are happy with them staying on a SL which is far away better than letting them go on a GL as it seems BASC council is going to recommend to NE ,,They could so easily have agreed to some of the consultation proposals and not others . On Greys moving to a GL to allow round the year shooting they should in my humble opinion have begged to differ !! In fact still could if they were to contact all council members to comfirm that is what council still are minded to do .. The problem is the majority of Council members will not have seen all the posts and comments ,facts and figures that have been shown on these forum pages and probaly might not even be aware of our disgruntelment at all !!!!

 

Riptide

[kent]

We must not get side tracked with the smaller detail like which clubs do returns to basc who then pass them on to representitives for the Crown estste or the others that deal direct or with a landlord .On a small bit of NNR I deal direct with NE who lease from the crown and on other bits we deal with Basc who then report to the crown .. THE main issue is should greys go on the GL or remaine on SL ,it seems the vast majority who have been posting are happy with them staying on a SL which is far away better than letting them go on a GL as it seems BASC council is going to recommend to NE ,,They could so easily have agreed to some of the consultation proposals and not others . On Greys moving to a GL to allow round the year shooting they should in my humble opinion have begged to differ !! In fact still could if they were to contact all council members to comfirm that is what council still are minded to do .. The problem is the majority of Council members will not have seen all the posts and comments ,facts and figures that have been shown on these forum pages and probaly might not even be aware of our disgruntelment at all !!!!

 

Riptide

here, here

[scotslad]

We must not get side tracked with the smaller detail like which clubs do returns to basc who then pass them on to representitives for the Crown estste or the others that deal direct or with a landlord .On a small bit of NNR I deal direct with NE who lease from the crown and on other bits we deal with Basc who then report to the crown .. THE main issue is should greys go on the GL or remaine on SL ,it seems the vast majority who have been posting are happy with them staying on a SL which is far away better than letting them go on a GL as it seems BASC council is going to recommend to NE ,,They could so easily have agreed to some of the consultation proposals and not others . On Greys moving to a GL to allow round the year shooting they should in my humble opinion have begged to differ !! In fact still could if they were to contact all council members to comfirm that is what council still are minded to do .. The problem is the majority of Council members will not have seen all the posts and comments ,facts and figures that have been shown on these forum pages and probaly might not even be aware of our disgruntelment at all !!!!

 

Riptide

 

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

[Kes]

David,

Thank you for your response which again misses the point, I am however becoming too frustrated to argue the point.

Simply put, if BASC members decide not to shoot Greys then why doesnt that tanslate into an objection to them being included on the GL by their representative organisation ?

Who wants the GL status apart from BASC and therefore why?

We hope any shooters dont shoot Greys in the breeding season but by law they can so why is BASC risking Greys, bad publicity, flying the face of wildfowlers, and suggesting the good will and common sense of members is a substitute for a reasoned objection to Greys being on GL ? There must be a reason.

 

When I compare BASC's attitude to people who use lead shot illegally and then this expectation of not shooting Greys, the contrast in their compliance is juxtaposed and BASC's position is irreconcilable.

Wildfowlers conform with the ban on lead shot - we have been told that and yet their voice goes unheard.

 

This is my last post on this matter as I am stunned that so many wise and knowledgeable voices raised in concern, bad fact (bad figures) and doubtful outcomes (bad shooting publicity, risk to Greys), has moved no-one to act. It hardly seems concerned representation,

You said BASC membership was growing, I suspect, not as fast as it might be and maybe, fittingly, when the number of Greys start to reduce, so will membership as wildfowlers and conservation minded shooters 'peel off''.

It really does look like no-one is listening.