Ttfjlc Posted June 10, 2014 Report Share Posted June 10, 2014 Barls , you have it very wrong, there are not many syndicates willing to pay a high premium for wildfowling coastal marshes. One or two in the county, there always have been , but not many. The overall impact they have had on wildfowling leases has been very small. True an odd syndicate may pay a high rent for a wildfowling marsh , but as there are so few , if any waiting in the wings for new ground ( almost all already have their ground ) they have little impact on shooting rents. In contrast Kent WA offered silly money for Thornham marsh it caught the interest of local landowners in a way no syndicate could because the landowners know Kent WA is in the market for more land. When a syndicate leases ground usualy thats it and they are not looking to expand. Some clubs holding much larger marshes that Thornham are paying less than £500 a year for it a fraction of what Kent offered and with small memberships cannot compete with some super club with very deep pockets. The recent increase is solely because of Kent WA interest in the area and not any syndicate. KENT WA must take all the blame for costing local wildfowlers a lot more money that would be the case if they had kept to their own local area. I was born in Kent but live in Norfolk , but I have no interest in taking any shooting in Kent so why does Kent WA want to price me out of my shooting. To me the whole affare smacks of greede , pure and simple greed. I think it's nice that a wildfowling club are trying to buy their own land as long as it's main purpose is to protect the sport but I agree with you sir that it would be better to do it in their own area. I'm in kings lynn wildfowlers and would hate it if I had to join another club at a much higher price (Kent's site currently £242) just to shoot on the same land! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barls2-9-12 Posted June 10, 2014 Report Share Posted June 10, 2014 There is only so much land one club can buy and would want to buy, to increase the price of what it is being sold there has to be competition in order to increase the price of it... As there is only one club doing this and no other factor which causes the price increase of shooting rights in your mind then there won't be a problem in the future for other clubs. There are certain other conservation organisations which have far more funding than any wildfowling club will ever have which can afford to pay what ever it takes to buy land where and when ever. I was born in Norfolk and lived there most of life until recently moving away. I would like to see clubs hold onto all there land for members to use and for future generations to come. My personal point is that any wildfowling opportunity that is preserved for wildfowlers is good for the majority and allows people to continue with the sport. But negativity within the wildfowling community is and will be are biggest issue in preserving our sport. Your argument seems a bit single minded to me. Without really looking at the whole picture and discounting other factors such as private syndicates as only two in the country who buy salt marsh tidal areas to shoot how can you possibly be able to know this and determine it has no effect on the price of marshland ect. You have not even taken the conservation bodies into consideration but then again they don't buy marsh land I forgot. But Everyone is welcome to what ever views you want and at the end of the day we are all wildfowlers Maybe we should leave it be as. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Penelope Posted June 11, 2014 Report Share Posted June 11, 2014 (edited) Well said. A fellow victim of Kent!!! KWCA. Ducks Unlimited they ain't, Ducks Ltd, quite possibly. Barls , you have it very wrong, there are not many syndicates willing to pay a high premium for wildfowling coastal marshes. One or two in the county, there always have been , but not many. The overall impact they have had on wildfowling leases has been very small. True an odd syndicate may pay a high rent for a wildfowling marsh , but as there are so few , if any waiting in the wings for new ground ( almost all already have their ground ) they have little impact on shooting rents. In contrast Kent WA offered silly money for Thornham marsh it caught the interest of local landowners in a way no syndicate could because the landowners know Kent WA is in the market for more land. When a syndicate leases ground usualy thats it and they are not looking to expand. Some clubs holding much larger marshes that Thornham are paying less than £500 a year for it a fraction of what Kent offered and with small memberships cannot compete with some super club with very deep pockets. The recent increase is solely because of Kent WA interest in the area and not any syndicate. KENT WA must take all the blame for costing local wildfowlers a lot more money that would be the case if they had kept to their own local area. I was born in Kent but live in Norfolk , but I have no interest in taking any shooting in Kent so why does Kent WA want to price me out of my shooting. To me the whole affare smacks of greede , pure and simple greed. Edited June 11, 2014 by Penelope Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobshooting Posted June 11, 2014 Report Share Posted June 11, 2014 As I understand thornham marsh is on a 10 year lease costing £150k from Mr S Betts That's correct and they had to pay upfront, in total as I interpret it. I've heard that they paid a fortune for some Ouse Washers, and tried to get some Salt-Marsh at Gedney Drove End, but don't know that from personal knowledge. Kent are an aggressive club when it comes to shooting rights and Resource-rich, whether you think that's good or bad depends on where you hail from. I guess if I was from Kent I'd be all for it, but I'm not and I'm not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobshooting Posted June 11, 2014 Report Share Posted June 11, 2014 I think they should be rounded up and send back to their own County and made to stop pinching other peoples marshes! I'm sure, so as to be certain, that they haven't finished yet, they are very, very aggressive. If you have any land that's vulnerable, look out and unless you actually own the land, you're vulnerable by definition. BASC don't seem to care and Kent has lots and lots of money, far more it seems than even medium size clubs can muster, certainly more than my 40 member club could find. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobshooting Posted June 11, 2014 Report Share Posted June 11, 2014 The price Kent WA offered may be normal in Kent but until they came into the county there was no tradition of high rents and the land owners were happy to get a few hundred to a thousand pounds for their “ worthless “ marshes. Kent WA soon changed their mind and now my club is going to have to pay a lot more for its ground , which in turn means I am going to have to pay higher subs. Thank you very much Kent WA. All I can say to any club in East Anglia who has ground is coming up for lease renewal, beware we have a viper in our ranks. You are not winging BOB just telling the truth. I don't know which club you're a member of, but I hope you have either long pockets, or a sympathetic Landlord. If some Rights come onto the market they will bid for it and they seem to have unlimited resources and ambition. As I've said elsewhere, if I was from Kent I might feel differently, I hope not, but I might, but I'm not and I don't. To the neutrals in this, doesn't it just ''feel'', wrong? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobshooting Posted June 11, 2014 Report Share Posted June 11, 2014 No offence taken. Like you said we are all wildfowlers and have enough enemies to deal with. I understand that it may not be the done thing to buy land from fellow fowling clubs. Just not cricket... But for a club to be held solemnly responsible for taking shooting away from a local club just because they can I can't agree with. If you look at the whole picture KWCA were not the highest or anywhere near the highest bidders for the shooting but were preferred as they are a club and not a private. If the RSPB could they would have it and make it a reserve to go along with titchwell and ban all shooting with the exception of commons right holders. I would be ASTONISHED, if Stephen Betts the owner of the majority of the Cattle Grid Rights, took less than the maximum bid offered, really mate, he's a large farmer, the Norfolk police commissioner an ex-politician and a hungry, hungry man. If you know better, then I suppose you do, but I live here and I promise I've never voted for the man. I know for a fact, that when he was told that cutting out the locals and bringing in Kent would make him hated in the village he said he didn't care and a rich man got a bit richer. We never at anytime had trouble with the RSPB. They've never bid for the rights, ever. I personally, for over 20 years, used their car-park and their entrance path to the marsh. They didn't have to let me, they could've told me to clear off and park elsewhere and stop using our path you cheeky ***. I often stopped to speak with the volunteer and professional wardens on my way off after morning flight. Never any grief. I know that's not always the case nationally, but they knew us, knew we were only a small local bunch who shot the marsh lightly and we were tolerated, maybe not loved, but we were left alone, that's good enough for me. If you've shot the marsh recently, you'll know the steps they've taken to make access difficult. Parking your car now, without upsetting the house-holders or the parish council,must be tricky, although some visitors don't seem to care where they park. I'm biased in this, of course I am, I freely admit it, but I sincerely believe that an onlooker, a disinterested reader, would see the lack of fairness in a well founded club buying rights to shoot over land many, many miles from their own county, to the utter consternation of people on country wages who've been priced out. Anyone who wants to shoot in Norfolk or Lincolnshire can do so. I've been a member in the past of both Fenland and South Lincs Wildfowlers. I'm not a local there. I filled in the forms, waited until a place came up, paid my fees and went, nobody was upset, no-one minded, in fact they are/were a nice lot of blokes. What I didn't do was buy the rights to those clubs grounds and tell them we're big, you're small, life's hard, get over it. Am I being naïve to think that wrong? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
panoma1 Posted June 11, 2014 Report Share Posted June 11, 2014 This topic has again served to emphasise the folly of the parochial approach some wildfowling clubs have followed for many years and continue to follow to this day....no one can join these clubs or even shoot their marshes as they are exclusively available to a few locals club members only (effectively a cheap syndicate!!)..........it worked years ago when the local club got the land for "tuppence ha'penny" but money talks nowadays and these parochial clubs will go under unless they adapt! I say to them, open up membership and the shooting to other wildfowlers outwith your area...... more members = more revenue = more ability to hold or compete for your shooting land, alternatively best enjoy it while you can, because I predict it wont last much longer! Kent or the RSPB or someone else (another syndicate with more money?!) will buy it from under you. It makes me smile when someone bleats that an open club like KWA are greedy!.....these parochial, closed clubs have been greedy and selfish for years! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barls2-9-12 Posted June 11, 2014 Report Share Posted June 11, 2014 I do understand your stance on the whole saga. And do have sympathy with clubs such as yours. I don't believe that KWCA think or mean to be bullish when it comes to the matter of land such as yours. I would much rather it stayed in hands of clubs like yours and be open to wildfowlers from where every you live to join and enjoy the shooting. As you have put the owner was always after as much as he could get for it. So it was inevitable someone else was always going to get the shooting rights be it KWCA or who ever. It is sad that things like this happen. I would join a club like Thornham if it was possible I can't comment on the rules to apply for joining or even how to go about joining such a club. I know that there are several clubs throughout the land which have such restrictions on joining which means if you are unfortunate to live out side the catchment area you have no chance. When it does happen and clubs like Kent buy land out side of there local area it does give the opportunity for people like myself to shoot places such as Thornham, which is good for me in some ways as I spend a lot of time in Norfolk having all my family live there. On the other hand for the members such as yourself you will loose out unless you join the new club. With regard to the rspb I don't disagree with the fact that most people on the ground who you see when at such place like titchwell are all against shooting have worked at rspb reserves and knowing people who have a important role within the organisation are not all against wildfowling or there activities, I think that the issue doesn't come from those but the higher levels within who make the decisions on land purchase ect. The rspb would not look a Thornham as being of no interest when they currently have reserve next door. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Klammer Posted June 11, 2014 Report Share Posted June 11, 2014 Two years ago, I was offered a Brancaster share. The person selling was a friend of a friend, and had inherited it. I entered into negotiations and agreed on a price. What I didn't know was that the share was halved with the persons sister, and that the sister had been 'turned' so to speak by a much better offer. I declined to up my original offer and flatly refused to take part in any Dutch auction. I often take the kids there in the summer and think that it would have been nice to shoot the area, but I refused to pay £10,000 plus legal costs. I don't know who eventually bought the share, I wish them good shooting, but from what I understand now, shares are being offered at daft prices, well out of grasp of most wildfowlers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scolopax Posted June 11, 2014 Author Report Share Posted June 11, 2014 So they are still a bit pricey then !?!?! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anser2 Posted June 11, 2014 Report Share Posted June 11, 2014 (edited) Quote "There is only so much land one club can buy and would want to buy, to increase the price of what it is being sold there has to be competition in order to increase the price of it. As there is only one club doing this and no other factor which causes the price increase of shooting rights in your mind then there won't be a problem in the future for other clubs. " What you say maybe true for some clubs , but this one seems to have very deep pockets and has not reached the bottom of them yet. They have already expressed interest in other marshes in the area the limit of land it wants has not yet been reached. Their chairman stated that his club is looking to purchase or rent any shooting that fits in with the clubs bussness plan. Its true some clubs are a closed shop in Norfolk , but many are not and are open to anyone I guess it would the same picture anywhere. The simple fact is that the agressive buying of shooting rights by this club is costing me and most other wildfowlers along the coast a lot more money than would other wise be the case . I was born in Kent , but have lived in Norfolk for over 50 years , yet I have no right to take away kentish fowlers shooting and would not want to do so why does this club feel the need to take on shooting a long way away from its home county. Edited June 11, 2014 by anser2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barls2-9-12 Posted June 11, 2014 Report Share Posted June 11, 2014 Your point that one club is increasing the rates of land is true to a certain level but is not the only factor in the rise of rents and sales paid. There are other factors that cause a rise in rates. It is just single minded way to think it is purely caused by one club. It is nothing to do with a right to buy land just because the postcode is diffrent. Why should any club be able to not allow people to join because they don't live in the village. That is nothing but pure greed in fact. Shooting is costing more in all aspects what ever you do from pigeon shooting to duck shooting. Move on and don't just lay the blame at one persons door. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TIDES EDGE Posted June 11, 2014 Report Share Posted June 11, 2014 Local people with grandad rights can still shoot Thornham and as posted before KWCA were not the highest bidders and if you join them you can get permits to shoot on any of their land . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Mat Posted June 11, 2014 Report Share Posted June 11, 2014 That's correct and they had to pay upfront, in total as I interpret it. I've heard that they paid a fortune for some Ouse Washers, and tried to get some Salt-Marsh at Gedney Drove End, but don't know that from personal knowledge. Kent are an aggressive club when it comes to shooting rights and Resource-rich, whether you think that's good or bad depends on where you hail from. I guess if I was from Kent I'd be all for it, but I'm not and I'm not. There is a joke about that around here, but i suspect i might get in trouble if i where to say it on the forum Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anser2 Posted June 11, 2014 Report Share Posted June 11, 2014 (edited) Quote "Shooting is costing more in all aspects what ever you do from pigeon shooting to duck shooting. Move on and don't just lay the blame at one persons door. " Come who would ever dream of paying £15000 a season for a small area of marsh until Kent bid for Thornham. I have friends who pay a fraction ( £600 pa ) of that for a 500 acre fresh marsh that holds thousands of geese and duck all winter. Nobody had offering such huge sums of money in the area untill Kent came ono the scene. So yes the blame falls at one persons door. Its not greed to try and hang onto a marsh that has traditionaly been shot over by people living close to the marsh. Greed comes when others take shooting away from others by waving pound notes about. Edited June 11, 2014 by anser2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barls2-9-12 Posted June 11, 2014 Report Share Posted June 11, 2014 Under no circumstance has shooting been taken away from anybody in fact it has been opened to everyone. Land sales have been high for a number of years well before kent paid for Thornham. How is Thornham a small area of marsh what do you determine small. All I can say is good luck to them as they are more privileged than most to be able to have such shooting. It is greed when just a small select group of inderviduals can shoot large areas of land just because they live in the local village. If every club had that attitude wildfowling would be a thing of the past. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Konnie Posted June 12, 2014 Report Share Posted June 12, 2014 a person let the wash clubs do all the arranging of the gedney marsh, costings etc, then it was brought by a organisation that I'm not sure that that person is large part off. we are not all in this wildfowling thing for the same reasons it may seem That's correct and they had to pay upfront, in total as I interpret it. I've heard that they paid a fortune for some Ouse Washers, and tried to get some Salt-Marsh at Gedney Drove End, but don't know that from personal knowledge. Kent are an aggressive club when it comes to shooting rights and Resource-rich, whether you think that's good or bad depends on where you hail from. I guess if I was from Kent I'd be all for it, but I'm not and I'm not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Klammer Posted June 12, 2014 Report Share Posted June 12, 2014 Before anyone starts to accuse any wildfowling club of being insular and only open to locals, lets not forget that had it not been for these locals in the 50's, wildfowling would be a thing of the past. These locals got together to form clubs and secure leases for shooting, because they were being threatened with losing marshes to conservation bodies. If you want to shoot the Wash, join Fenland wildfowlers, as far as i know it takes members from all over. There are just as many geese on their marsh as there are at Thornham. Also a few others take members from outside areas. Getting into other clubs further along the NW of Norfolk is harder, because of the restrictions, if you wish to shoot there, BASC permit scheme is your best bet. Just don't moan about shooting being restricted to locals in Norfolk, my friends up north tell me it is as bad up there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barls2-9-12 Posted June 12, 2014 Report Share Posted June 12, 2014 Before anyone starts to accuse any wildfowling club of being insular and only open to locals, lets not forget that had it not been for these locals in the 50's, wildfowling would be a thing of the past. These locals got together to form clubs and secure leases for shooting, because they were being threatened with losing marshes to conservation bodies. If you want to shoot the Wash, join Fenland wildfowlers, as far as i know it takes members from all over. There are just as many geese on their marsh as there are at Thornham. Also a few others take members from outside areas. Getting into other clubs further along the NW of Norfolk is harder, because of the restrictions, if you wish to shoot there, BASC permit scheme is your best bet. Just don't moan about shooting being restricted to locals in Norfolk, my friends up north tell me it is as bad up there. Most of these clubs are not even affiliated to BASC so you can’t shoot them on the permit scheme. Just don’t moan about losing the shooting rights to these areas if they are not willing to adapt. To be able to continue as they have done for many years these clubs will need to progress and find ways to raise more funds to protect their shooting. The majority of these funds can be generated by increasing membership numbers. By encouraging more people to join clubs and giving the opportunity to take up wildfowling it will only enhance the sport and help to protect it for years to come. By having clubs limited to only a few locals will restrict the growth to clubs and will end up with dwindling numbers of members to fund their shooting. Which will end up with another club taking it over or a private syndicate or even worse being lost to wildfowlers totally due to a conservation organisation taking it over? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Klammer Posted June 12, 2014 Report Share Posted June 12, 2014 So how do you propose to up the membership of a club that is restricted to 200 members by the terms and conditions of it's lease, and that currently has 200 members? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barls2-9-12 Posted June 12, 2014 Report Share Posted June 12, 2014 200 members in my opinion is a good level of membership. Where you are limited due to the terms of lease a it's a diffrent scenario all together, such restrictions would have an influence of the lands value. Without knowing the full details of the terms it is hard to give a full detailed answer. Without knowing the full details it's hard to pass judgement on. Maybe if the shooting is regulated by a permit type of system rather than members it is possible to increase membership numbers without impacting on the level of shooting as I doubt all members are out at the same time. At the same time there are other ways to raise money to help the club fund land and other activities such as conservation work. I am no expert on the legalities of what can and can't be done with land such as things as grant, conservation work and what not. But I am sure there are professionals at organisations such as BASC who can advise on the matter and ensure that a club is getting the most out of the land. There are going to be case where membership is capped and worked out on the basis of land available to shoot. To prevent overshooting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobshooting Posted June 12, 2014 Report Share Posted June 12, 2014 a person let the wash clubs do all the arranging of the gedney marsh, costings etc, then it was brought by a organisation that I'm not sure that that person is large part off. we are not all in this wildfowling thing for the same reasons it may seem Interesting, thanks. No, there do seem to be an Empire Builder out and about Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobshooting Posted June 12, 2014 Report Share Posted June 12, 2014 Local people with grandad rights can still shoot Thornham and as posted before KWCA were not the highest bidders and if you join them you can get permits to shoot on any of their land . Those are Common Rights Holders, no Grand-dads are involved, you own certain houses in the village, the Common Right is yours for as long as you own the house, these things go back to the 18th Century, but still hold good. As I've said before, I would be astonished, truly gobsmacked, if Mr Betts took anything other than the highest bid, the other bidders may've offered more than £15k a year, but only for 1 year, not 10. £150K is a colossal amount of money to pay for Shooting Rights here, it took peoples breath away, just to give you an idea, I've recently been offered a place in a Game Shooting Syndicate for only £1k The Marsh at Thornham is wonderful, but don't think the ''Pinks'' will come easy, I shot there every week for over 20 years, I never got more than 6 in a season, often less and I knew just where to go. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Terry P Posted June 12, 2014 Report Share Posted June 12, 2014 £1000 x 150 members= £150.000 and that would be just for a year. Wildfowling works out cheap if compared to pheasants. As I said earlier, we have been through all this before, Kent will look after its members as it see's fit, others clubs will have to do the same, moan all you like on here it will change not one jot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts