Inclusion of the Greylag Goose onto the General License

[scolopax]

WWT have responded to the consultation giving a good and reasoned reply as to why Greylag and Mallard should not go on the general license ,.It is exactly the sort of response i would have expected from BASC with their only concern the welfare of the wildfowl....... i must say it puts BASC to shame.

Do you have a link please?

[holloway]

No link i am afraid you will have to mail them yourself .

[Grandalf]

WWT have responded to the consultation giving a good and reasoned reply as to why Greylag and Mallard should not go on the general license ,.It is exactly the sort of response i would have expected from BASC with their only concern the welfare of the wildfowl....... i must say it puts BASC to shame.

Hear, hear.

[Kes]

I have submitted my response - pity we are facing the apparent obstacle of 135,000 members of a shooting organisation openly disagreeing with our views, if they matter anyway.

[poontang]

WWT have responded to the consultation giving a good and reasoned reply as to why Greylag and Mallard should not go on the general license ,.It is exactly the sort of response i would have expected from BASC with their only concern the welfare of the wildfowl....... i must say it puts BASC to shame.

 

That's good to hear.

[spartina2]

Has anyone seen BASC's letter [or whatever] outlining their stance that was meant to be promulgated yesterday evening?

just asking like................................................................................................................................................................................................

 

sp2

[Kes]

Has anyone seen BASC's letter [or whatever] outlining their stance that was meant to be promulgated yesterday evening?

 

just asking like................................................................................................................................................................................................

 

sp2

I have it in front of me, or maybe this response is because I e-mailed BASC and asked for the e-mail to be given to Mr Ali and copy to Martin Howatt.

 

Key phrases are

I thought it worth clarifying a couple of points around our response to Natural Englands Consultation - from Chair of Council

 

It summarises what it calls "consultations with WLC.... and took account of the views of the Game Shooting Committee and the Gamekeeping Committee"

 

interestingly it says."I also want to emphasise that BASC Council does not believe or support Greylag Geese or Mallard being viewed as pests" (despite its concensus agreement -REALLY!!!!)

 

Runs to two page letter and 6 page consultation response and cost 76p

Sadly it cuts no real ice and the sentence "does not believe or support", begs the question of why the H*** support NE then?

Emperors new clothes.

[riptide]

Yes I have it here in front of me!! Some surprise to receive it!!!!! It could have come by e-mail as they know I am on line, that’s how I let them know of my submissions!!! Would have been a lot cheaper!!!!

 

At one point it reads, and I had already picked this out as it’s already on the BASC web site under their response to NE

 

It reads """"Because control will take place during the breeding Season migratory birds will not be affected """"

 

 

Yes that might be so under the proposed GL05 as its nest and egg destruction only BUT GL04 will as far as I can understand from NE info allow greylags to be controlled year round by shooting ,so to say that migratory birds will not be affected does not add up !!!! Sorry.

And year round shooting will probably if I was to use the PRECAUTIONARY PRINCIPLE put unsustainable pressure on the Native Greylag Goose population!!!

 

Riptide

[Penelope]

It's not really migratory greys that will be effected to a great degree, but the sedentary inland populations.

 

Yes I have it here in front of me!! Some surprise to receive it!!!!! It could have come by e-mail as they know I am on line, that’s how I let them know of my submissions!!! Would have been a lot cheaper!!!!

 

At one point it reads, and I had already picked this out as it’s already on the BASC web site under their response to NE

 

It reads """"Because control will take place during the breeding Season migratory birds will not be affected """"

 

 

Yes that might be so under the proposed GL05 as its nest and egg destruction only BUT GL04 will as far as I can understand from NE info allow greylags to be controlled year round by shooting ,so to say that migratory birds will not be affected does not add up !!!! Sorry.

And year round shooting will probably if I was to use the PRECAUTIONARY PRINCIPLE put unsustainable pressure on the Native Greylag Goose population!!!

 

Riptide

[Kes]

I think we digress - it is greylags which will be affected.

 

 

I have a quote for interest ;

 

"they do not act in concert. Thus while they fight singly - they are conquered"

 

This from someone whose masters looked carefully to their advantages prior to making a takeover bid.

 

This is from Tacitus (Gaius Cornelius Tacitus) 56? -117 AD. - Agricola (Book 10) - The Annals; and refers to the slow conquest of Britain by JC, Claudius and Vespasian et al

 

 

It shows we have learnt NOTHING about overcoming forces ranged against us - we (in the shooting community) underestimate them at our collective peril and the inevitable demise of shooting sports.

[Grandalf]

I got the letter but it said nothing new.

They can't get it in to their heads that the decision they have made is the wrong one.

I have no problem whatsoever with the way the GL and SL's are operated now.

I have no problem if they want to change the way they operate them.

I have a massive problem with including greylag geese and mallard duck onto the GL.

 

I HAVE BEEN FOWLING FOR NIGH ON 60 YEARS AND CONSERVATION HAS ALWAYS BEEN THE MAIN PRIORITY!

[islandgun]

I think we digress - it is greylags which will be affected.

 

 

I have a quote for interest ;

 

"they do not act in concert. Thus while they fight singly - they are conquered"

 

This from someone whose masters looked carefully to their advantages prior to making a takeover bid.

 

This is from Tacitus (Gaius Cornelius Tacitus) 56? -117 AD. - Agricola (Book 10) - The Annals; and refers to the slow conquest of Britain by JC, Claudius and Vespasian et al

 

 

It shows we have learnt NOTHING about overcoming forces ranged against us - we (in the shooting community) underestimate them at our collective peril and the inevitable demise of shooting sports.

Yes mate agree that was why I started the defunct WAGBI thread ,because I think that the voice of many is better than one, any ideas on how it could be done ?

[gingerblayney]

Very interesting to learn of WWT's negative response. Anyone seen the response from RSPB or even RSPCA? In light of this and what I have seen from the threads that farmers who applied for SL's re geese are happy, who is it that are pushing for a GL for greylags and mallard.

Comment on WAGBI very interesting as am just reading "The New Wildfowler" from about 1960---preface by Peter Scott. Very educational to see how much wildfowling has lost under BASC,

And I sit back and ask myself, as a fowler, exactly what do I get from BASC?

[Kes]

Yes mate agree that was why I started the defunct WAGBI thread ,because I think that the voice of many is better than one, any ideas on how it could be done ?

 

It needs someone with a bit of vision to start amalgamation talks with the other groups. Everyone inevitably agrees that one organisation will better represent all. then simply ask them to state their core support and agree that the new single organistaion will absorb all the staff of each body and efficiencies will be made but by natural wastage for the first 5 years. All the seperate groups charge less than BASC, I think, so commit some of the BASC reserves to underpin the cost of the structure for 5 years - if that was necessary, which I believe unlikely. Keep all the CEO's and make them into a single management team and give each a portfolio responsibility eg. Wildfowling, land management, etc. Split the whole organisation into proper (fully manned) regional offices (for all functions) and appoint an overall CEO whose brief is to manage the whole and begin the process of creating a separate Company with charitable status to accept donation/bequests/land even, and hold that in trust - get the media people to do as RSPB media does and create 'managed wildlife reserves' with a core of protection and a peripheral zone for shooting - each reserve with a conservation manager and really 'go big' on conservation of all species.

Draw in political support and have a Member Executive which guides the CEO but can veto his proposals, if necessary. Have him submit a five year plan with annual performance targets to be agreed with the Member Executive, pay a small proportion of salary extra if he achieves everything the Member Executive agrees he should. Minus 10 % if he fails in any of three significant tasks - That should focus his mind.

The principle plank to increase membership and gradually reduce individual subscriptions would be 'a single voice for field sports and wildlife conservation' - tip the balance the other way so as to address public concerns about shooting /fishing etc. Monitor the base position and subsequent species improvements - whilst shooting and planting heavily to improve habitat. Cover crops etc.Publish an annual report which presents Conservation as primary - the field sports 'take' as secondary. The Member Executive has to be balanced across all potential partners.

Form the single entity from Principles of Association, agreed in draft, before merger but to recognise and safeguard the individual interests of each organisation.

I would like to go on, but its all pie in the sky until SOMEONE gets a grip and addresses the agenda of amalgamation.

I would help, if I could, for nowt. What a legacy, a single united powerful voice for shooting that conservationists cant tear down because it will be replacing them - we dont shoot protected species.

Wildlife reserves would house dormice, voles, newts, all waterfowl and such an organisation could contract to manage the Crown Foreshore for shooting, other leisure activities and conservation.

What I have written is just literally off the top of my head - rather more time to formulate the structure would be wise and a clear focus to replace and undermine those conservation bodies which seek to undermine field sports.

Where did Peter Scott's love of wildfowl and the forshore come from ?

Who set up Slimbridge /Marten Mere - dont tell me we couldnt do a better job than the WWT.

 

Peter Scott started as a wildfowler. Which is why BASC get this sooooo wrong. It would simply be delivering his vision.

Edited May 21, 2014 by Kes

[misser]

would think there would be a lot of support.... excellent post Kes......

[islandgun]

Great comments Kes. I personally have no idea how this could be achieved or even where to start but would be happy to pay this years membership !

Edited May 21, 2014 by islandgun

[Penelope]

Kes - I have been saying this for years. Pity we couldn't get the course anglers in on it too, but most believe that they don't take part in a field sport; I beg to differ.

[Kes]

Kes - I have been saying this for years. Pity we couldn't get the course anglers in on it too, but most believe that they don't take part in a field sport; I beg to differ.

Penelope I agree entirely - who amongst the fieldsports communities do not conserve their quarry and eventually come to understand that to preserve your quarry you must conserve the ecosystem and so on.

I have always said we are the best conservation body in Britain. It is true however that we dont invite people to come and look at the species we save or onto land we shoot - whereas others do so it seems logical to invite people to see reserves out of shooting season and offer shooting protected areas where a 'haven' can be offered as a visitor attraction at cost to support the conservation work. If the trust i would advise setting up were of charitable status land could be given and avoid death duties. Many estates I suggest would prefer such an arrangement.

I would love to have a go at all this and make a real difference, not even a 'safe living'. It would however need someone to galvanise all members and send out a proposal for them to vote on and that would need at least the authority and control of the position of Chairman of existing Council at BASC,

[Grandalf]

There is one major problem to setting up a new organisation. Insurance.

At the moment BASC, CA and others have very good insurance deals for individuals and groups (clubs).

BASC is one of the best. They can offer this good deal because they have very high memberships.

Any newly set up organisation would have to overcome this problem in order to attract members.

Most fowling clubs are affiliated to BASC because of their insurance scheme.

[pavman]

as a wildfowler and knowing BASC was started by wildfowlers for wildfowlers I am disappointed......

 

Mallard are a fantastic bird in season, to treat them as a pest in need of control all year is outrageous

[scolopax]

The Mallard is a bit of a red herring as the section of the General license which NE wants to put it on does not allow shooting, it is for the destruction of eggs and nests, for example on those urban park lakes where there is an over population of mallard, such places already take out a license to do this.

 

It is the Greylag goose which will be included on the section that allows shooting all year round.

[kent]

Back in the fray now but trying to take things easy. The family member seems to be out of the worst in hospital, my painkiller use is reduced after the operation performed and my other issue is under investigations (something crazy happening with my heart). Thanks to all who have sent messages. This fight is now over NE will make their choice, its not about the most popular view they will simply make their choice. BASC didn't help us we know that, we also see a new re-start WAGBI thread. There is no need for this I feel BASC as an org have shown their colours on this and it should reflect on those at the head not the foot soldiers.

[Kes]

Re Insurance, if BASC was amalgamated with other orgs, as per my post above Insurance based on Grandalf's suggestion could actually reduce.

Lead is the next issue and we have seen BAC's position. All the posts I have seen now, including Kents are losing the will to do something. ow many years before someone actually does something to make a consolidated voice for field sports, As before when I quoted Tacitus, singly we will be overcome as a signle voice the power and presence of that organisation would be heard and more controls would fall to members. If nobody is prepared to psuh for this, then we all know what the result will be and in the future when someone ask's we can all say we knew it,we expected it and we got it, sitting on hands is certain death for shooting. But who am I to ask you to look at oursleves and weep?

I'm out.

[scotslad]

WWT have responded to the consultation giving a good and reasoned reply as to why Greylag and Mallard should not go on the general license ,.It is exactly the sort of response i would have expected from BASC with their only concern the welfare of the wildfowl....... i must say it puts BASC to shame.

 

Or mibee WWT are just far smarter and cleverer politically than BASC?

 

Possibly i am paranoid about some of these orgs but it would not be the first time they do 1 thing in public but work away behind the scenes doing the exact oppisate.

It's not in there interest to publicaly agree with the proposal as far as i am concerned they are an org pushing for it, so no paper trail for the culls, so why would they want to ok the proposal, they now have a free hand to culll wotever they want without keeping any records and the bonus is they 'looked' as if they have oposed it.

 

As far as i'm corncerned the GL is a done deal NE have decided before they even put the comsultation out, would be very surprised if any reccommendations are taken obn board.

[scotslad]

Kes while i applaud wot ur trying to say and do but unfortunately ur wasting ur time.

 

Wot u talk about is pretty much wot Basc already is, but the simple fact is the broader the boundries the less we have in common with each other.

 

Sadly but an awfull large majority of country sportsmen would happily sell there fellow country sportsmen down the river if it saved there sport, u seen it often with the hunting ban, hunters trying to discredit shooters/lampers to save there own skin, just 1 example ut others sports do it too.

 

Fowlers are a minoroty in Basc and ur moaning because basc went in a different direction, how would being an even smaller voice in a big organisation help? I would imagine a majority of fishers would see geese as vermin s* itting all over there fishing ponds/lawns/and stands and would be over the moon if they could shoot them all year round.

 

Sad fact is far far too much apathy in the counrtysports community, even look at basc elections, wot % of members bother to vote? If the 7000 fowlers got there act together the could have council very heavily wiehted in there favour (possibly not a good thing in my opinion) but as someone said earlier in this thread hardly any fowlers really mobilise behind there candidates in the past.

How many signatures to get get for ur SGM? only needed 1300ish only 20ish% of basc fowling members

 

Even basc i've always been a mamber and think they (usually) do a good job and are worth the extra cash as more than just insurance, if money is really a problem CA, NGO or SGA are all similar money at half the price an still do an awful lot for shooting behind scenes/politically, yet loads of folk join SAC's for ins? Why? Do b ugger all good for shooting, even in scotland never mind england, not even in the right hotel never mind at the top table like the others i've mentioned.They can say wotever they want as there voice will never be heard

Folk just want cheap ins.

 

 

For me this mamouth deabte/thread, not saying a mountain out of a molehill, but possibly a complete waste of time, IF basc is ran by a comitee the wildfowlers should of been mobilised and kicking up a fuss in the weeks and months before the council meeting making ur feelings know. By all accounts ur own WLC was undecied and split on it, for me the wildfowling clubs have to shoulder a fair bit of blame for this. Even on this thread 400 odd posts yet prob only 30 or 40 people actually posting, is there only 30-40 wildfowlers on here, or just not that big an issue for many?

Must admit david and conor are trying to defend the indefencable but don't really have a choice in the matter, but just repeating the same info they cut and pasted of NE site did not help them, and i think Basc have been very naive not seeing this coming and they should of had better info to give to the council to make their own decision. At least it would look like they done something and made an informed decision even if wrong

The fact basc have done so little background checks on the info or looked a wee bit deeper behind it i find quite worrying when there meant to be so politically savvy.