Inclusion of the Greylag Goose onto the General License

[scolopax]

BASC seem to have taken a horribly simplistic stance on the GL, oppose any species being taken off and support any species being put on.

 

I was well aware of the consultation and naively thought there would be no need for a response from myself, as BASC, the Wildfowlers parent body, would ensure that it was kicked into the long grass in the interests of their members.

[scotslad]

Correct me if i'm wrong but i thought the but i thought the WLC had a split decison and not enough members to come to a decison? If it was unanimous i would of sent a very strong message to Basc but it wasn't. Wot does that say?

 

Ur right there are 2 or 3 types of shooter, the killers won't really take there gun out till the partridge or pheasant season starts and wold not bother getting it dirty to shoot of few geese.

 

But most rough shooters are no different to wildfowlers either on there own or a group will happily walk all day with there dogs and not even get a shot but still enjoy there day just as much

The vast majority of shooters will have no interest in shooting geese out of season (to b loody heavy to carry) and quite often will not have any on there grounds anyway.

The problem lies in 1 or 2 rogues that if they have acess to decent ground and numbers of birds they will fill there boots, then chinese whispers will take the enlarged bags round the wildfowling commmunity.

 

I have banged on about bag returns for the past few pages now, which everyone seem's to rubbish.

U claim canada numbers are down since the GL, but have little evidence to prove it (1 count has them down 30% ut others have them up slightly or steady)

Ur relying on other people to go out and survey them. Have u any idea how hard and how difficult and expensive it can be to accurately survey geese that can move about so much? Also whos carrying out the surveys WWT/RSPB? are they not the same mobs who want the GL so they can cary on killing with no paper trail?

 

For me if a large mojority of clubs on a national level handed all the data and bag returns in so it could be properly analyised, while it is not exactly related to population it can give u a good accurate index of wots going on nationally.

If figures showed Canada's rising gradually up till 2008 when went on GL then showed numbers declining intially gradually getting steper, then that would support ur worries about it being on the GL and would be good evidence along with other counts for getting Canada's taken of the GL.

 

If u don't take ur head out the sand and start doing something with ur returns, in 5 years time when Greylags are dramatically declined u will be in the exact same position u are now shouting and screaming throwing the toys out of the pram because no one's listening. Give them the cold hard facts and don't give them the choice and make them listen.

These desk jockeys at NE won't give a stuff about ur geese they just need something to put in there spreadsheet that suppports wot u want

 

Think scalopax is spot on above and i think all the other shooting orgs have done the exact same. Like him i thought wildfowlers/Basc would have been the 1 to oppose it too

Edited May 18, 2014 by scotslad

[David BASC]

Morning Biddy, as I said its the Chairman of the Wildfowling conference that controls the meeting, that's the role of the Chairman. I believe you are correct that not all members of the WLC were there and as Council had not yet met to discuss the response , and given that its Councils decision to decide what BASC's policy position should be it would be wrong for the Chief Executive to be drawn on what BASC Councils' decision may be. Feedback was certainly asked for as, if I remember correctly, there were 5 letters / emails from delegates the following week.

 

Riptide, I have no doubt that there is already a system in place with many clubs to help farmers protect their crops on land they rent, indeed I made this point earlier in the thread if you recall, that land under the clubs control would not be overshot as the club would not allow it should greylag go onto the GL, just as they don't allow canadas to be overshot on land they control.

 

But I recall earlier in this thread several people stating that their key concern was that in their view there was a risk of other farmers on land that the club do not currently have shooting rights on overshooting the geese. You make that point yourself in your last post regarding 'summer shooters' not shooting for the pot. So my offer is to help to try and work with clubs to uncover these other farms that the club can work with and set up a management plan just like you do with the farms you currently rent.

 

Bazooka Joe, I understand what you are saying, but as I said earlier NE are issuing individual licences for greylag without opposition and when they get to the point where individual licences are going to be issued anyway, their view is to move that species onto the general licence. If this does happen, than it makes sense to work together to prevent the risk of overshooting but working with farmers to set up a management plan.

 

David

[Fisheruk]

I am afraid need to pitch in again in defence of David. His offer to help Wildfowlers join farmers in crop protection is admirable. The vociferous few who are posting on here are having a rant and assuming they and only their view is right and must prevail. To have your say is fine. To keep on hammering on when you do not agree with another's point of view simply amounts to the tactics of a bully. For someone to say that their view or their experience is more valid than another's is arrogant in the extreme.

I will defend the right of wildfowlers to wildfowl, but equally I expect those who wildfowl to accept that where control is necessary out of season they should support those who have a different job to do.

As I have said before, my experience is that geese are clever. In areas where I shoot Canadas for pest control I shoot on average never more than one at a time. Often none. The sound of a full bore rifle shot is a powerful message and one that geese understand. IMHO it is far more effective to deal with problem geese on the ground than trying to deal with them in flight. I know it is not sport, but again my experience is that it is more effective and results in the destruction of fewer birds.

In areas where shooting of geese is not possible and where Canadas pose a real nuisance eg parks and nature reserves addling eggs is often undertaken. That in my opinion has a far greater effect on reducing numbers than shooting. One reserve that had a massive problem of literally more than a hundred goslings wandering about defacating on footpaths and picnic areas used paraffin wax on nests the following year and instead of hundreds of goslings there were five. Now over the years where you have 20+ pairs producing 5 offspring it doesn't take a rocket scientist to see what action has the greatest effect on long term population numbers.

Much vitriol has been aimed at David and BASC but it should not be forgotten that other shooting organisations have come to a similar view as BASC. I have seen the NGO response as a member of that organisation and there doesn't seem much difference in the position of both organisations. Not everyone can be wrong. Maybe those in the minority need to accept they are a minority and try and accept the view of the majority. After all that is democracy.

Edited May 18, 2014 by Fisheruk

[Kes]

With respect I dont see words like 'rant' and 'vitriol' on this thread. Yes there is passion and a few not so well chosen words, me included, but I suggest you shouldn't denigrate any shooter for being passionate about his quarry and its treatment. Those who are passionate do most, think most and try (usually) to get the best for their sport.

Also, whilst David takes the brunt, that is his choice - he responds often in his own time but his words are BASC's and we cannot divorce from what he says the extreme irritation at what is obviously a very difficult position to justify.

Many on here 'expected' a negative response on Greylag as well as one on Jackdaw etc, me included. I RELIED on BASC to do what I feel is intuitively the right thing.

Farmers are important to sport obviously but those who shoot and are members pay the bills, you generally try and do what the majority want and in this case the majority is silent, because its not their sporting focus but calling that 'majority support' is wrong. This isnt about personalities its about protecting wildlife from completely unnecessary exposure to risk.

I dont think I rant, nor the majority of wildfowlers. If you cant express a different and sometime passionately opposed opinion its hardly a democratic organisation., BASC should not need support in its defence. We all know you cant please everyone, always, but you can, at least, canvas the interested and informed opinion maybe ?

[BuddonNess]

BASC seem to have taken a horribly simplistic stance on the GL, oppose any species being taken off and support any species being put on.

 

I was well aware of the consultation and naively thought there would be no need for a response from myself, as BASC, the Wildfowlers parent body, would ensure that it was kicked into the long grass in the interests of their members.

Spot on ...Exactly what you would expect from supposedly a parent organisation..David most farmers these days charge up to £200 a day for a field geese are working do you really think these guides that pay those prices are going to tolerate guys shooting for nothing.....Get real..

[panoma1]

David BASC is, on his own admission not a wildfowler, presumably the Greylag proposals on the GL will not affect him personally?........so why has he spent many hours in time, at all hours of the day stonewalling all and any negative postings on BASC's position?

 

As for the chairs performance at the Wildfowling conference he lost control of the floor in the Q & A, session when RA got insistently uppity with GB and tried to shout (raised his voice) him down to shut him up!..........like an Alpha male putting a lesser member of the pack in his place!!

 

I am still trying to understand why BASC has taken this apparently unmoveable position, and seemingly is determined to hold it at all costs? I am not persuaded by (I am suspicious of!!) David BASC persistently arguing against every point made by people who oppose the inclusion of the Greylag on a GL irrespective of its merit, apparently for the sake of it!

 

P1

[islandgun]

BASC seem to have taken a horribly simplistic stance on the GL, oppose any species being taken off and support any species being put on.

 

I was well aware of the consultation and naively thought there would be no need for a response from myself, as BASC, the Wildfowlers parent body, would ensure that it was kicked into the long grass in the interests of their members.

I heard that the AA want pheasants on the GL due to RTA,s , unnatural England are aggressively pursuing French partridge as non native and parks all over, are replacing Mallard with yellow plastic ducks

[motty]

David Basc, you must surely realise that these geese will be shot by many when they are not being a problem. I'm not sure why you keep saying we need to work with farmers on this one. I have already mentioned that on one of the farms I shoot that there are several hundred greys in residence. The farmer has not let me shoot any as he doesn't get any problems with them. But what about the surrounding farms? I know that the greys going about their normal business (out of season) will be shot, just because they were unlucky enough to fly over the wrong shooter.

Let's not forget, there are plenty of idiots out there (most people will know of at least one) that raise a gun to ANYTHING, regardless of where or when, protected or not.

[fenboy]

Scotslad, most of those fowlers who opposed our stance on the GL did not send us a copy of their NE consultation comments so I cant answer that question I am afraid.

 

Houseboat, with regard to the wildfowling conference, its the Chairman of the conference that decides what's discussed not Richard..

 

If you or you club don't want to take me up on this offer and work together to make sure farmers get their crops protected and fowlers help set up management plans with farmers that's your prerogative, but the offer remains on the table. Note I said control the geese with a management plan not necessarily shoot the geese, and as Kes has said, if there is a flock of geese on a field hitting the crops, how many will be shot before they all fly off?

 

Given that one of the key concerns raised on this forum is that inland shooters will overshoot geese , and I have offered to help find a solution to this potential problem I am surprised that you have turned you back so quickly, who would you rather have helping farmers protect their crops from geese, wildfowlers or these inland shooters who some have (wrongly in my view) claimed will simply ''murder loads of geese for the sale of it?

 

David

 

A good plan , but do you really think any true wildfowler will have the slightest interest in shooting geese out of season , I very much doubt it !

 

What gets me is that BASC has favoured these proposals on behalf of their members without even considering asking their thoughts before hand .

[David BASC]

Fenboy, what I have repeatedly said is that clubs could look to set up a management plan with farmers, I have never suggested fowlers would go out shooting loads of geese outside the season. As others have said on this thread who are already involved in this sort of activity very few geese are shot, but the farmer gets, on the back of a phone call, a responsible person on his land to help. That person may walk the geese off, fire a couple of shots, or even shoot a goose or to - what ever the circumstances dictate at the discretion of the club member.

 

Motty, I understand that this is a key concern of club members, that others will indiscriminately shoot geese, hence my suggestion of clubs setting up management plans with farmers and thus prevent the indiscriminate people who as you say may raise a gun to anything regardless of whether its protected or not getting access to the land.

 

BuddonNess, I fully appreciate the concept of commercial goose shooting and I know its very popular in Scotland, but tends only to be commercially viable in the late summer / early Autumn onwards when the geese start to flock up, never the less most farmers are not interested in setting up commercial goose shoots on their land, that's a simple fact, because the vast majority of farmland does not have a commercial goose shoot on it. So the opportunity is certainly there for clubs to work with farmers to set up management plans that both protect the farmers crops as well as ensuring geese are not over shot.

 

The idea is there and already being used by some clubs as mentioned earlier, my offer to help clubs expand this network is on the table.

 

David

[Big Mat]

So now David you are trying to mitigate the issue by making us the ones who shoot the geese?

 

I'm sorry but you are just completely off the mark with all of this.

 

Something is obviously going on in the Mill and it is not something that is going to benefit shooters!

[islandgun]

David Basc, you must surely realise that these geese will be shot by many when they are not being a problem. I'm not sure why you keep saying we need to work with farmers on this one. I have already mentioned that on one of the farms I shoot that there are several hundred greys in residence. The farmer has not let me shoot any as he doesn't get any problems with them. But what about the surrounding farms? I know that the greys going about their normal business (out of season) will be shot, just because they were unlucky enough to fly over the wrong shooter.

Let's not forget, there are plenty of idiots out there (most people will know of at least one) that raise a gun to ANYTHING, regardless of where or when, protected or not.

Absolutely I have Greys on my land and surrounding land 12months of the year, I am very fond of them, I enjoy watching them, they are welcome to the grass they eat, Right now I am working on the loads that will, in a winter gale kill some and my family will enjoy their meat cooked in red wine, this in my eyes is the way of it, unfortunately there are others (including one who shoots the geese and leaves them where they fall,) who will see this GL as a good reason to carry out their target practice all the year round and this is why I appose the GL, and as for Mallard WHAT the !!!!!

[fenboy]

Fenboy, what I have repeatedly said is that clubs could look to set up a management plan with farmers, I have never suggested fowlers would go out shooting loads of geese outside the season. As others have said on this thread who are already involved in this sort of activity very few geese are shot, but the farmer gets, on the back of a phone call, a responsible person on his land to help. That person may walk the geese off, fire a couple of shots, or even shoot a goose or to - what ever the circumstances dictate at the discretion of the club member.

 

Motty, I understand that this is a key concern of club members, that others will indiscriminately shoot geese, hence my suggestion of clubs setting up management plans with farmers and thus prevent the indiscriminate people who as you say may raise a gun to anything regardless of whether its protected or not getting access to the land.

 

BuddonNess, I fully appreciate the concept of commercial goose shooting and I know its very popular in Scotland, but tends only to be commercially viable in the late summer / early Autumn onwards when the geese start to flock up, never the less most farmers are not interested in setting up commercial goose shoots on their land, that's a simple fact, because the vast majority of farmland does not have a commercial goose shoot on it. So the opportunity is certainly there for clubs to work with farmers to set up management plans that both protect the farmers crops as well as ensuring geese are not over shot.

 

The idea is there and already being used by some clubs as mentioned earlier, my offer to help clubs expand this network is on the table.

 

David

A more simplistic view would be that if they were not put on the licence , then the farmer himself can walk them off.

 

I think in general wildfowlers do enough work regarding conservation without putting the burden of this "management plan" on their shoulders too just because some plank at NE has come up with this bright idea.

 

BASC surely realised that a good part of its membership were wildfowlers and no offence but even the most dim witted among them surely realised that the wildfowlers would be up in arms at this suggestion , yet they were not even consulted before BASC gave their support to the changes.

 

I think a huge own goal has been scored.

[David BASC]

I will repeat - I am suggesting clubs expand what they are already doing in many places, according to an earlier post, where club members are already setting up management plans and helping farmers on land they shoot over control geese in a sensible and sustainable fashion.

 

If this is 'completely off the mark' how come its already happening on some club land and no one seems to have an issue with it?

 

As I asked earlier, who would you rather have managing geese on farmland around you?

 

Similar management plan systems are already operating perfectly successfully in other areas of live quarry shooting.

[DOLLSEYES]

Sent my e-mail.I urge everyone to send a e-mail before 5pm tomorrow the 19th.If you don't take part you can't moan afterwards.

Edited May 18, 2014 by DOLLSEYES

[David BASC]

The problem many farmers face is they are working pretty flat out as it is, so crop damage or stock damage by pigeons, deer, fox, corvids etc will need to be let out to others.

 

If wildfowling clubs do not want to set up these management plans I am sure there are BASC affiliated inland clubs and syndicate that you could work with to this end

[Big Mat]

The problem many farmers face is they are working pretty flat out as it is, so crop damage or stock damage by pigeons, deer, fox, corvids etc will need to be let out to others.

 

If wildfowling clubs do not want to set up these management plans I am sure there are BASC affiliated inland clubs and syndicate that you could work with to this end

 

 

Now we are getting to the real point!

 

 

I have emailed NE with my concerns. I have not sent a copy to BASC, but i have informed them that i have writted to NE and my views on it.

[Terry P]

Just read a post on another forum which stated. 'we are lucky as we can shoot Canada all year round in England'. Guess what he will be celebrating next. Note he states shoot and not control.

 

David the SL works and demand for that is at an all time low. Why does the greylag need to go on the GL if as you have stated the farmer can just get someone to walk them off.

[Konnie]

Fenboy, what I have repeatedly said is that clubs could look to set up a management plan with farmers, I have never suggested fowlers would go out shooting loads of geese outside the season. As others have said on this thread who are already involved in this sort of activity very few geese are shot, but the farmer gets, on the back of a phone call, a responsible person on his land to help. That person may walk the geese off, fire a couple of shots, or even shoot a goose or to - what ever the circumstances dictate at the discretion of the club member.

 

Motty, I understand that this is a key concern of club members, that others will indiscriminately shoot geese, hence my suggestion of clubs setting up management plans with farmers and thus prevent the indiscriminate people who as you say may raise a gun to anything regardless of whether its protected or not getting access to the land.

 

BuddonNess, I fully appreciate the concept of commercial goose shooting and I know its very popular in Scotland, but tends only to be commercially viable in the late summer / early Autumn onwards when the geese start to flock up, never the less most farmers are not interested in setting up commercial goose shoots on their land, that's a simple fact, because the vast majority of farmland does not have a commercial goose shoot on it. So the opportunity is certainly there for clubs to work with farmers to set up management plans that both protect the farmers crops as well as ensuring geese are not over shot.

 

The idea is there and already being used by some clubs as mentioned earlier, my offer to help clubs expand this network is on the table.

 

David

the first bit addressed to fenboy are you real you really should get out more do you think a farmer is going to do this, a lot of land is already shot by people what you are doing is turning greys into large pigeons. I am a farmers son so actually know what I'M talking about Game is managed and shot with respect PESTS are controlled without mercy. not many PEST shooters for farmers get a second chance walking from a field saying I think I've shot enough

[Big Mat]

the first bit addressed to fenboy are you real you really should get out more do you think a farmer is going to do this, a lot of land is already shot by people what you are doing is turning greys into large pigeons. I am a farmers son so actually know what I'M talking about Game is managed and shot with respect PESTS are controlled without mercy. not many PEST shooters for farmers get a second chance walking from a field saying I think I've shot enough

 

Not related to what you have posted, but have the club met and discussed this and what is their stance on it? I presume they are against the changes.

[David BASC]

I think previous posts by others show clearly that this sort of managed control is already going on within many clubs, and indeed beyond, there was a very good pragmatic post from a forum member who currently controls geese on farmland for example, and I have simply offered help to expand this, regardless of whether greylags go onto the GL or not.

 

Terry, as I have pointed out, its NE policy that as a species that is currently controlled under the Individual licence is not under threat, and licences are being issued almost without exception, its NE's policy to move them to General licence.

 

David

[Kes]

Terry, as I have pointed out, its NE policy that as a species that is currently controlled under the Individual licence is not under threat, and licences are being issued almost without exception, its NE's policy to move them to General licence.

 

David

David, could I hijack your response and ask how e.g. the Jackdaw is different and going the other way? Its not under threat and a pest species, probably more so than the Greylag so why move it to SL?

It doesnt make sense and anyway BASC can oppose policy from EN thats what consultation is about? Its not as if the proposal is written in stone??

[spartina2]

I am afraid need to pitch in again in defence of David. His offer to help Wildfowlers join farmers in crop protection is admirable. The vociferous few who are posting on here are having a rant and assuming they and only their view is right and must prevail. To have your say is fine. To keep on hammering on when you do not agree with another's point of view simply amounts to the tactics of a bully. For someone to say that their view or their experience is more valid than another's is arrogant in the extreme.

I will defend the right of wildfowlers to wildfowl, but equally I expect those who wildfowl to accept that where control is necessary out of season they should support those who have a different job to do.

As I have said before, my experience is that geese are clever. In areas where I shoot Canadas for pest control I shoot on average never more than one at a time. Often none. The sound of a full bore rifle shot is a powerful message and one that geese understand. IMHO it is far more effective to deal with problem geese on the ground than trying to deal with them in flight. I know it is not sport, but again my experience is that it is more effective and results in the destruction of fewer birds.

In areas where shooting of geese is not possible and where Canadas pose a real nuisance eg parks and nature reserves addling eggs is often undertaken. That in my opinion has a far greater effect on reducing numbers than shooting. One reserve that had a massive problem of literally more than a hundred goslings wandering about defacating on footpaths and picnic areas used paraffin wax on nests the following year and instead of hundreds of goslings there were five. Now over the years where you have 20+ pairs producing 5 offspring it doesn't take a rocket scientist to see what action has the greatest effect on long term population numbers.

Much vitriol has been aimed at David and BASC but it should not be forgotten that other shooting organisations have come to a similar view as BASC. I have seen the NGO response as a member of that organisation and there doesn't seem much difference in the position of both organisations. Not everyone can be wrong. Maybe those in the minority need to accept they are a minority and try and accept the view of the majority. After all that is democracy.

With the greatest of respect, if you can't figure out why

 

"Much vitriol has been aimed at David and BASC but it should not be forgotten that other shooting organisations have come to a similar view as BASC"

 

That BASC was meant to represent wildfowlers [and to a certain extent the welfare of their quarry] and has failed to do so in such an underhand manner....

 

I'm lost for words,

[islandgun]

Terry, as I have pointed out, its NE policy that as a species that is currently controlled under the Individual licence is not under threat, and licences are being issued almost without exception, its NE's policy to move them to General licence.

 

David

This is my problem "It,s NE policy to move them to the GL" why have BASC adopted it ? it goes against shooting and conservation, You have spent hours/days defending this policy and have never given a good reason, (if I have missed the reason can someone please point it out to me other than BASC) yes there is legitimacy in control of grey,s using a SL but not a GL

 

 

 

That BASC was meant to represent wildfowlers [and to a certain extent the welfare of their quarry] and has failed to do so in such an underhand manner....

 

I'm lost for words,

ditto