Brancaster

[anser2]

DNT , Quote “The WSF message is the same as the KWCA one Traditional Land Management whilst taking a sustainable harvest in all matters. What's wrong with that? “

 

Nothing wrong with that , but when the public donate you should tell them that and you do not on your website.

 

Quote “ But along the way up came Thornham lost by the local club and in very grave danger of being lost to a closed syndicate.”

 

What is the difference between a syndicate and a wildfowling club , both are a group of shooters purchasing shooting rights only the club is larger with more members. So to say the marsh was in grave danger of being lost in untrue , someone will have held the shooting rights so the shooting will not have been lost , its just that Kent WA would not have had it. So yet again Kent WA is twisting words to suit its own point of view.

 

The simple fact is that your club fails to grasp when they try to come over as saviours of wildfowling in the area is that you are not wanted here by the vast majority of Norfolk wildfowlers who now wish they had never heard the name of your club.

 

Is that the image you wish your club to project or is it that you just do not care.

Edited August 18, 2014 by anser2

[Tollerman]

I can remember contacting WAGBI ( as it was many moons ago) and asking for details of Essex wildfowling clubs.On receiving the list I started to contact them only to find that they were " local clubs for local people".Oh how times have changed as members gave up fowling or died these clubs had no alternative but to open up membership as numbers fell. Wildfowling should not be exclusive and in my humble option open to all who wish to participate.I was for many years lucky enough to be a member of the BWA one of the most forward thinking clubs in the country.They had the foresight to purchase a number of marshes which has assured their shooting for the future.Several of those clubs from years ago have gone the way of the Dodo.

[Penelope]

Indeed they are and I most probably know you.

 

I can remember contacting WAGBI ( as it was many moons ago) and asking for details of Essex wildfowling clubs.On receiving the list I started to contact them only to find that they were " local clubs for local people".Oh how times have changed as members gave up fowling or died these clubs had no alternative but to open up membership as numbers fell. Wildfowling should not be exclusive and in my humble option open to all who wish to participate.I was for many years lucky enough to be a member of the BWA one of the most forward thinking clubs in the country.They had the foresight to purchase a number of marshes which has assured their shooting for the future.Several of those clubs from years ago have gone the way of the Dodo.

[DNT]

DNT , Quote “The WSF message is the same as the KWCA one Traditional Land Management whilst taking a sustainable harvest in all matters. What's wrong with that? “

 

Nothing wrong with that , but when the public donate you should tell them that and you do not on your website.

 

Quote “ But along the way up came Thornham lost by the local club and in very grave danger of being lost to a closed syndicate.”

 

What is the difference between a syndicate and a wildfowling club , both are a group of shooters purchasing shooting rights only the club is larger with more members. So to say the marsh was in grave danger of being lost in untrue , someone will have held the shooting rights so the shooting will not have been lost , its just that Kent WA would not have had it. So yet again Kent WA is twisting words to suit its own point of view.

 

The simple fact is that your club fails to grasp when they try to come over as saviours of wildfowling in the area is that you are not wanted here by the vast majority of Norfolk wildfowlers who now wish they had never heard the name of your club.

 

Is that the image you wish your club to project or is it that you just do not care.

Sorry for late reply, internet problems. I think it a bit strong Anser 2 when you accuse us of twisting words. You correctly say that if the shooting had gone to a syndicate at Thornham there would still have been shooting, and of course that is absolutely correct. But you know perfectly well there is a massive difference between a private syndicate of perhaps 10 people and an inclusive club with thousands of acres at their disposal for the many. I have stated before that one of the factors in us being offered the lease by MR. Betts was the fact that we would not exclude any of the locals who wanted to join us. Obviously he was as surprised as us at the onslaught that followed. But who is suffering in the end? Certainly not us and not anyone who joins us. Only today I have had conversations from 3 people in Norfolk and 2 in Cambridgeshire wishing to join. Incidentally whilst all this is going on we have secured two more pieces of land that have not been shot. More areas for our members and partners to enjoy. This is what we do best. Why you and a few others can't see the strength in numbers I don't know. We are all having to deal with more interference from governing bodies being pushed by anti led conservation groups. You talk about low numbers and low shooting pressure (disputed point) and seem to believe you'll be left alone, but you won't they'll get round to you and if you don't have the numbers they'll pick you off one by one. The other main advantage of numbers is that it gives you the revenue to expand and take on land that a small group could only dream of. Surely you can concede some of those points at least.

[DNT]

I was trying to address what I saw as the unfair comments about the Common Rights Holders being criticised for standing up for those Rights, and the consequent actions of NE being solely the fault of the Locals, ''muddying the water''.

 

I maintain that I was correct, but DNT can speak for himself on that subject.

 

To you I would say that I think an uninterested observer would think that fault, if fault there was, and blame for any troubles arising from that, must be shared on both sides of the row.

 

Kent now own a 1/4 share of a Common right at Brancaster...........I'm sure they will defend that right if needed, it's hypocritical to criticise someone else doing the same.

 

As for the rest of your comments, we'll never agree, but it's better to talk, which is what I think Kent didn't do enough of at Thornham.

 

Anyway, good luck to us all on the 1st.

Hi Bob, sorry not replied earlier internet issues. I think perhaps I didn't perhaps explain well enough my comments on Common Rights Holders at Thornham. Of course theirs is a Right and should always be defended. We had taken fully on board the Common Rights when we took the lease and in no way were trying to remove or curtail them. What I meant was that certain locals and agents used the Common Rights issue to stop KWCA using the lease and certainly bought the issue to the fore quite unnecessarily purely to cause KWCA and the owner grief. This led to some very awkward exchanges between the owner, NE and KWCA. In the end after several meetings and much correspondence the matter was resolved at a meeting between the parties chaired by BASC. Even so we had to agree to the loss of 2 day permits in the way of compromise to get consent on other issues that we had raised. There was absolutely no need for this fuss but it was used as a stick to attack KWCA and not to defend the Common Rights Holders who were already being catered for. I don't know if you were aware that the agent in question contacted the Common Holders to stir them into action. Anyway it doesn't matter now, we are where we are. You quite rightly say we are all Wildfowlers, but I fear with differing views of the world. Good luck to you this season.

[DNT]

DNT Quote "I say again buying a share in a Common Right is not solely buying shooting rights. WSF are helping preserve a wild space simply by owning a share of a Common Right and taking an interest in the area. At present shooting takes place on several areas that WSF manages and more will follow"

 

I have never seen such rubbish in print. In no way is the WSF preserving Brancaster it will be preserved by existing common right holder without any input from Kent WA and in any case the site is already preserved by its many conservation desgnitions , ie NNR , SSSI , SAC , SPA and so on so your exauce does not wash and shows your club for the sham it is. Secondly if you admit shooting on WSF areas why do you not include this fact on your web asking for donations from the public. Its like giving money to Oxfam and finding out its being used to buy arms for terrorists. Any club that runs such a fraudlant web site shows its true ethics and they do not reflect well 0n the wildfowling community.

I have to say Anser 2 you seem to be incapable of reading a post from anybody not agreeing with your rather narrow view of Wildfowling in this Country, and then when you can't find reasonable argument you resort to misquoting and outright rudeness, something I decline to do. Nobody ever said we were saving Brancaster, what we said was that we would now be involved in HELPING preserve this area, as will everybody else with a vested interest I hope. You and others say the vast majority don't want or need us in the area, I suspect your find that only those with the view that exclusive is best will be in that camp. The vast majority who had little hope of ever shooting these areas are rubbing their hands with glee. If so many don't want us, why do we get all the interest from around the Country. I know that some on here say I'm the master of quotes with no proof. Well those who know me would and have described me as an honest decent person (to coin a phrase from other posts). But even if you didn't believe a word I say, the evidence is there for all to see, we continue to grow in strength and acquire more and more shooting rights, now covering 5 Counties. We are offering and appealing to a wider and wider public who have many choices in the form of entertainment/activities and yet still we grow when many are struggling with recruitment or as said earlier have gone the way of the Dodo. Can it all be so wrong? I predict you will see us working with more and more small groups who have been left to fend for themselves by their more fortunate friends. You will also see more and more shooting acquired in the sporting press in the not too distant future.

[6.5x55SE]

DNT I don't want or never have wanted a war of words I also understand text and type can be misunderstood and must add a good friend tells me " your sound " what I would like to know is after the Thornham Saga you must have known what had happened with the Geese at Brancaster !!! When you preach WE/KENT only have best interests for Wildfowlers- Wildfowling and Wildfowling why even consider what you have done !!! You claim 500+ members and growing issue 3 day tickets for Thornham and Probably 1 for Brancaster so how will this help your members paying £242 !!!! When anybody in the country could have got off their button and got a day ticket before Kent arrived. In fact with modern technology it's far easier now than when I drove for a hour to knock a door or leave at note due to favorably weather conditions ( Anser2 will back this ) Could be my old age but all I see is the Modern Fowler wants the easy route with no ground or hard work and effort. Also I can't for love nor money see what the Big attractions are for Thornham or Brancaster 8-10 YES 50000+ Pinkfeet but now well I've stated time and time again those days are long gone and probably never to be seen again SAD very SAD INDEED. And those that have shot the area for YEARS know the True reasons why. I will 100% admit you will see good numbers in that area but NOT coming off Thornham or Brancaster and yes I'm Kent members and others will bag the odd Pink off both places this coming season and the Best of luck to them Kent members or not. I must add DNT if the Boot was on the other foot would you and Kent members be happy and supporting to outsider's !!!!!!

[DNT]

DNT I don't want or never have wanted a war of words I also understand text and type can be misunderstood and must add a good friend tells me " your sound " what I would like to know is after the Thornham Saga you must have known what had happened with the Geese at Brancaster !!! When you preach WE/KENT only have best interests for Wildfowlers- Wildfowling and Wildfowling why even consider what you have done !!! You claim 500+ members and growing issue 3 day tickets for Thornham and Probably 1 for Brancaster so how will this help your members paying £242 !!!! When anybody in the country could have got off their button and got a day ticket before Kent arrived. In fact with modern technology it's far easier now than when I drove for a hour to knock a door or leave at note due to favorably weather conditions ( Anser2 will back this ) Could be my old age but all I see is the Modern Fowler wants the easy route with no ground or hard work and effort. Also I can't for love nor money see what the Big attractions are for Thornham or Brancaster 8-10 YES 50000+ Pinkfeet but now well I've stated time and time again those days are long gone and probably never to be seen again SAD very SAD INDEED. And those that have shot the area for YEARS know the True reasons why. I will 100% admit you will see good numbers in that area but NOT coming off Thornham or Brancaster and yes I'm Kent members and others will bag the odd Pink off both places this coming season and the Best of luck to them Kent members or not. I must add DNT if the Boot was on the other foot would you and Kent members be happy and supporting to outsider's !!!!!!

I certainly agree that text can be misunderstood (sometimes deliberately). I'm pleased someone told you I'm sound, I hope it's the guy I paid the tenner or I've wasted more cartridge money. I'm not aware of the claims that we have inflated geese numbers, certainly I and others knew that Thornham is a small temporary roost, which is why we have always said that the geese were never the reason we got interested in the area. On other forums we have been accused of disturbing the roost. I can assure you no KWCA members would go anywhere near the roost, it is one of our strictest rules for the area and the consequences for breaking our rules can be very severe indeed. In fact one member who was expelled a few years ago told me that if KWCA throw you out it is extremely difficult to join another club or get local shooting if the word gets out or references are taken. We take the protection of the sport as seriously as anybody else both at a local and national level, and yes we do resent many of the accusations and misleading comments being made. I find it particularly upsetting when I was involved in the discussions and know the truth. I do not say everyone making these comments is in possession of the facts, many I suspect are relying on hearsay and rumour, but I'm afraid there will always be mischief makers. We have no problem entering into discussions with anyone from anywhere, and that doesn't mean our way or no way. But and it's a big BUT there are certain individuals who we have seen do damage to our sport and under no circumstances will we talk to anyone if they are involved, and of course there needs to be fair and equitable treatment for all and some form of inclusiveness. They are our standards and I believe they are fair and the future, if you and others don't agree that's fine, but we just won't be working together.

[DNT]

Sorry Stalkerboydy I didn't answer your comments on the four permits helping our large membership. On their own they wouldn't make a huge difference, although some have told me that they would join just to do a handful of flights in different places. It's the big picture we are looking at. We now offer Wildfowling in 5 counties, pigeon/ rough shooting, air rifle hunting and target shooting and limited but growing fishing. Not every member is a dedicated wild fowler but it's the package that is very attractive. But as I say even if you joined and just shot one marsh / area as many do we consider our fees exceptional value for money, you can even pay monthly these days. You must admit its a very attractive package in this as you say modern world. Good luck to you all for the coming season, and please let's all remember we are all shooters of one form or another and try to keep things as civil as possible whatever our views.

[Double four]

Boyd does it really matter anymore down there ? they have hardly won the golden goose marsh have they ! Kent are in now and to be honest if they are true to their word and only have one man on the marsh per day I cant see much difference it will make to a area which is a shadow of its former self.

More disturbing I would have thought for the locals and resident club members is now the opportunity for other clubs to follow suit , I recently sold my rights down there and since been offered a full right and a quarter share which could effectively place another 5 clubs shooting the same area and more clubs buying rights off other people down there wanting a piece of the action and whats to stop them absolutely nothing like kent has showed .

[Double four]

Infact if you go down the route of the Davies vs Davies case that has been brought to light by kents actions theres nothing to top me buing the rights myself and sub letting to 5 clubs and remaining the owner now that's a thought eh ?

[bobshooting]

Hi Bob, sorry not replied earlier internet issues. I think perhaps I didn't perhaps explain well enough my comments on Common Rights Holders at Thornham. Of course theirs is a Right and should always be defended. We had taken fully on board the Common Rights when we took the lease and in no way were trying to remove or curtail them. What I meant was that certain locals and agents used the Common Rights issue to stop KWCA using the lease and certainly bought the issue to the fore quite unnecessarily purely to cause KWCA and the owner grief. This led to some very awkward exchanges between the owner, NE and KWCA. In the end after several meetings and much correspondence the matter was resolved at a meeting between the parties chaired by BASC. Even so we had to agree to the loss of 2 day permits in the way of compromise to get consent on other issues that we had raised. There was absolutely no need for this fuss but it was used as a stick to attack KWCA and not to defend the Common Rights Holders who were already being catered for. I don't know if you were aware that the agent in question contacted the Common Holders to stir them into action. Anyway it doesn't matter now, we are where we are. You quite rightly say we are all Wildfowlers, but I fear with differing views of the world. Good luck to you this season.

Thanks for your reply, no apology needed. The Common Rights Holders have had to spend a large sum of collective money to defend their Rights mate, I'm not one of them, but they're not happy.

 

They really didn't need stirring, by an Agent, or anyone else. They've had dealings with Mr Betts before, concerning access, up to and including court action. They won in the end. He wasn't happy.

 

The new season approaches with both sides of a wearisome argument making plans on how to stuff the other side, I know that's an over-simplification, but humour me.

 

Is it perhaps a naïve old mans hope that this can end with neither side stuffed?

 

No-one wins if we just insult each other, which is why I try to be polite, not always successfully.

 

I just want to go wildfowling, I'm no trouble, honest mister, I don't usually get a shot and if I do I usually miss.

[ayano3]

Bob. After reading the final sentence you sound like someone I know....yes it's me. Enjoy your season.

[6.5x55SE]

Bob ( DF ) I have your right and totally agree with your comments. Especially the " jobs messed up and you have seen the best " People like you self who get off their butt work hard do the ground work and put the effort in I ain't got a problem with far from it I Tip my hat to you/them. But it's the lazy instance success greedy Shooters I can't deal. My point being any body could have enjoyed yours and others success had they put the effort in. Now all I see Kent has offered the easy way and more pressure on the Few Geese also the Duck. My feelings won't count for jack but it sure is a bitter pill to swallow.

DNT YES I'm fully aware of your Full package I was commenting on Thornham and Brancaster that you offer nothing that any body could of had eg shooting by day tickets club membership or being a common rights holder.

[DNT]

Bob ( DF ) I have your right and totally agree with your comments. Especially the " jobs messed up and you have seen the best " People like you self who get off their butt work hard do the ground work and put the effort in I ain't got a problem with far from it I Tip my hat to you/them. But it's the lazy instance success greedy Shooters I can't deal. My point being any body could have enjoyed yours and others success had they put the effort in. Now all I see Kent has offered the easy way and more pressure on the Few Geese also the Duck. My feelings won't count for jack but it sure is a bitter pill to swallow.

DNT YES I'm fully aware of your Full package I was commenting on Thornham and Brancaster that you offer nothing that any body could of had eg shooting by day tickets club membership or being a common rights holder.

I can't quite see what you mean anybody could have shot these places easily or otherwise. Thornham closed shop unless you live in village, then lost and probably heading to an expensive private syndicate. Common rights very expensive for most individuals. Perhaps you are suggesting that people sell up and move to one of the villages like Anser2, even then I am led to believe you need to live in the village for some time before you can gain membership. I wouldn't call any of those ways encouraging to a new wildfowler.

[littlerob]

i haven't join a wildfowling club yet or been wildfowling but are on the look for a few day ticket/permits to it try out but i believe in my honest opinion hunting as a sport should be accessible to all this go's for every other sport in my opinion we shouldn't be having debates on who right who's wrong it should be about helping others and getting them on broad to make this sport continue and persevere and maintain our marsh's coastal rural land wood land and other land the money from clubs and permits should go to improve and care for what most of us take for granted not to make people rich

Edited August 21, 2014 by littlerob

[6.5x55SE]

DNT my point was any dedicated Wildfowler wishing to try there luck on these Marshes or indeed any of the other so called closed shop clubs by obtaining a Day Ticket. Yes now they can now join Kent BUT as I've already stated 3 day tickets for Thornham probably ONE for Brancaster meaning those just wishing to shoot those it's costing a helluva lot more money.

[anser2]

DNT Quote “when you can't find reasonable argument you resort to misquoting “ All the quotes I have copied into my posts have been taken directly from your own posts so cannot be described as mis-quotes. They are your words.

 

 

 

As for you claims of support in Norfolk I hardly 3 Norfolk shooters out of hundreds of club wildfowlers and many more non club wildfowlers in the county is hardly a ringing endorsement of your club.

 

And quotes I have been used are in your own words unaltered in any whey

 

Quote “Nobody ever said we were saving Brancaster, what we said was that we would now be involved in HELPING preserve this area.

 

Talk about twisting words , saving and preserving both have the same outcome in most people eyes.

 

WSF are helping preserve a wild space simply by owning a share of a Common Right and taking an interest in the area.

 

The WSL a minuscule effect in preserving the marsh as it is already covered by many UK government and European conservation designations. ¼ share in a common rights holders right will have no real impact.

 

Quote “WSF have not bought solely shooting rights, they have bought a 1/4 share in a Common Right which also happens as apart of that right to include the taking of Wildfowl”.

 

Anyone can see the smoke screen you are putting up here. Would your club used the money donated to the WSF if there were no shooting rights on the site? And how many of the doners would given money if they knew their money was used to buy shooting rights.

 

Quote “rather narrow view of Wildfowling in this Country”

 

That is a totaly false statement . My actions over the past 30 years in supporting wildfowling, BASC and conservation on a local , national and international level which have been covered is other posts clearly shows your lack on knowledge of my actions. Its just unlike your view , my view for the future of wildfowling does not include in muscleing in the wildfowl areas of others. In that we have very differing views.

[DNT]

DNT Quote “when you can't find reasonable argument you resort to misquoting “ All the quotes I have copied into my posts have been taken directly from your own posts so cannot be described as mis-quotes. They are your words.

 

 

 

As for you claims of support in Norfolk I hardly 3 Norfolk shooters out of hundreds of club wildfowlers and many more non club wildfowlers in the county is hardly a ringing endorsement of your club.

 

And quotes I have been used are in your own words unaltered in any whey

 

Quote “Nobody ever said we were saving Brancaster, what we said was that we would now be involved in HELPING preserve this area.

 

Talk about twisting words , saving and preserving both have the same outcome in most people eyes.

 

WSF are helping preserve a wild space simply by owning a share of a Common Right and taking an interest in the area.

 

The WSL a minuscule effect in preserving the marsh as it is already covered by many UK government and European conservation designations. ¼ share in a common rights holders right will have no real impact.

 

Quote “WSF have not bought solely shooting rights, they have bought a 1/4 share in a Common Right which also happens as apart of that right to include the taking of Wildfowl”.

 

Anyone can see the smoke screen you are putting up here. Would your club used the money donated to the WSF if there were no shooting rights on the site? And how many of the doners would given money if they knew their money was used to buy shooting rights.

 

Quote “rather narrow view of Wildfowling in this Country”

 

That is a totaly false statement . My actions over the past 30 years in supporting wildfowling, BASC and conservation on a local , national and international level which have been covered is other posts clearly shows your lack on knowledge of my actions. Its just unlike your view , my view for the future of wildfowling does not include in muscleing in the wildfowl areas of others. In that we have very differing views.

I think you've probably hit the nail on the head, it's all about views. I am confident that most true sportsman believe that there should be opportunity for the many rather than the few. If you have a very small area obviously you can't have the world and his wife out there at the same time, but you can make provision for someone to have a go. That's what gets most people around the Country with your argument, several clubs have areas completely closed to outsiders and have periods of long waits for someone new moving into the area before they can even apply for membership sometimes running into years. And yet whilst they wait friends of friends and good old boys are sneaked in through the back door. I have spoken to some of the waiters and que jumpers over the years, and on one side you have very frustrated guys who are preying for an inclusive club and on the other when guys are asked how they possibly got into such and such a club, they say it's not what you know etc. we all know how the world ticks, but leave something straight and honest please.

[Double four]

DNT you say your association is protecting shooting well I have to disagree there, in this instance as anyone can see whats going to happen .

Your club has highlighted that anyone can sell a share of common rights to a club albeit masquerading as a conservation body,

Even sub let as in the case of davies v davies which has been brought to light with your actions, how long do you think it will take for other clubs to realise that they can buy a 1/4 share of a right down there and have it as a club marsh eh ?

I can see it all happening and going tits up as who says any other club will only let one man per day on the marsh ? as long as they don't exceed their quota of birds and where does it say hard and fast what that is in numbers just says a fair share ?

I recon this will result in N/E consents and restrictions being brought where we had none !

I don't particularly like the way your club works and how it muscles in on other areas or marshes and that has had a direct effect on me as I sold my rights as a consequence to you being there.

But on the other hand I admire what you are doing for your members and maybe if I were in your club I would be singing from a different hymn sheet !

[Terry P]

All for open to all fowling clubs buying land, but this is one marsh Kent should have said no too. 500+ members on a quarter share it plain daft.

[DNT]

All for open to all fowling clubs buying land, but this is one marsh Kent should have said no too. 500+ members on a quarter share it plain daft.

Terry, don't forget the other 13 thousand acres spread over 5 counties.

[DNT]

DNT you say your association is protecting shooting well I have to disagree there, in this instance as anyone can see whats going to happen .

Your club has highlighted that anyone can sell a share of common rights to a club albeit masquerading as a conservation body,

Even sub let as in the case of davies v davies which has been brought to light with your actions, how long do you think it will take for other clubs to realise that they can buy a 1/4 share of a right down there and have it as a club marsh eh ?

I can see it all happening and going tits up as who says any other club will only let one man per day on the marsh ? as long as they don't exceed their quota of birds and where does it say hard and fast what that is in numbers just says a fair share ?

I recon this will result in N/E consents and restrictions being brought where we had none !

I don't particularly like the way your club works and how it muscles in on other areas or marshes and that has had a direct effect on me as I sold my rights as a consequence to you being there.

But on the other hand I admire what you are doing for your members and maybe if I were in your club I would be singing from a different hymn sheet !

Surely you didn't sell your right just because we may have a gun out there? I think it would be a shame if that was the case. I am not aware of Davies v Davies, what's the story and when did this take place. If this was all some time ago it seems a bit harsh to say it's our fault. Still it's easy to blame us for most things, trailblazers always cop it.

[Terry P]

Terry, don't forget the other 13 thousand acres spread over 5 counties.

I haven't and applaude your club for that. still believe this one was a step to far. If other clubs follow your trailblazing into branster I can see no good coming from it.

[Double four]

I sold my right for other reasons than just kent arriving , and did you not get notifications like the rest of the common right holders where it clearly states how including the case in black and white from the council how wild spaces fund got in whos ******* up whos back DNT

Edited August 22, 2014 by Double four