Wildfowling conference

[washwildfowler]

Just wondering if anyone on hear attened yesterday . If so what was your thoughts on some of the topics ..?

 

WW

Edited March 13, 2016 by washwildfowler

[Reabrook]

I thought it was better than it has been the last few years. Certainly better attended than last year. Some good and interesting content providing much food for thought. Great to catch up with a few people as always.

[Biddy]

Good to see you again yesterday Dwayne, I thought that it was better this year too , interesting topics.

Very brave lady from natural England returning again and putting her self in the firing line on the topic of wildfowling consents, you had to have some sympathy for her although, I didn't agree with her.

Didn't bag anything in WHT auction but made a couple people dig deep into their pockets.

[nic]

As a first timer to the conference, i found it interesting and nice to bump into a few people i either knew from living in other areas or had spoken to here or the other forum

 

felt sorry for the NE lady with Ginger on full auto, but was pleased at the round of applause he got.

[rjimmer]

The last time I went, Dr John Harradine, the BASC chap, got up and said he had shot with both lead and steel shot but couldn't tell the difference. I haven't been since.

Edited March 14, 2016 by rjimmer

[panoma1]

The last time I went, Dr John Harradine, the BASC chap, got up and said he had shot with both lead and steel shot but couldn't tell the difference. I haven't been since.

That's no surprise rjimmer! One of the plusses of being a current BASC member is that Messrs Swift and Harradine no longer work for them (us!) It is my belief that both (and probably others at BASC) were instrumental in and supportive of the terms of the current lead shot ban under the AEWA, I also suspect they (and possibly others at BASC) supported and manoeuvred for the introduction of the damaging (and not required under AEWA) 'species specific' element of the lead shot ban, which was pushed through in England and Wales.

 

This has caused untold damage to the reputation of BASC in the Wildfowling community.......and resulted in the current suspicion which many hold BASC in..............I guess the current regime in BASC have both Swift and Harradine et al to thank for this?

Edited March 14, 2016 by panoma1

[nic]

the trouble is that an organisation is only as good as the people in it doing the job.

Those ******* have left and the lead ban came in 17 years ago.

 

Like motorbikes, with crash helmets, at some point you have to let go of the argument or turn it into a side issue...... its now a case of finding the evidence that lead is better than non toxic, so that we can bring it back as a 'new' super ammo that is kinder to birds, RSPB and townies, its not a perpetual argument that lead should not have been banned in the first place.

 

If you can trust the people running basc NOW, then use them to fight what we need fighting now, such as number limits on consent etc without resorting to ancient arguments.

[TONY R]

Five year period consents could work for wildfowlers, what is important is that what ever you are allowed now is X5 . and club members use all the visits, its use it or loose it some NE staff will try and erode away visits impartial is what they are suposed to be not what they all are.

[under the moon]

Are five year consents, also linked to the number of visits annually. Who negotiates these five year consents. Do clubs send bag returns to NE for there five year consent.

[TONY R]

A few oppinions on this for and against five year visits . NE dont have any money i think they are trying to streamline things to save workload. There are positives and negatives in letting them run freely within the five years.

Edited March 16, 2016 by TONY R

[mudpatten]

Vote for Allen Musselwhite in the forthcoming BASC election.

 

Hardcase foreshore shoulder and puntgunner.

[motty]

the trouble is that an organisation is only as good as the people in it doing the job.

Those ******* have left and the lead ban came in 17 years ago.

 

Like motorbikes, with crash helmets, at some point you have to let go of the argument or turn it into a side issue...... its now a case of finding the evidence that lead is better than non toxic, so that we can bring it back as a 'new' super ammo that is kinder to birds, RSPB and townies, its not a perpetual argument that lead should not have been banned in the first place.

 

If you can trust the people running basc NOW, then use them to fight what we need fighting now, such as number limits on consent etc without resorting to ancient arguments.

I'm not really bothered about using lead for wildfowling.

[fenboy]

Vote for Allen Musselwhite in the forthcoming BASC election.

 

Hardcase foreshore shoulder and puntgunner.

 

Yes my vote has already been cast , we need guys such as him on the BASC council.

[TONY R]

I'm not really bothered about using lead for wildfowling.

Absolutely there are far more problems to worry about around wildfowling today, than constant be moaning the loss of a clearly toxic shot type 17 years ago. I just do not understand how people are still so hung up about this, it is possitively unhealthy the way some go on about it. Move on steel is not that bad and there are better options out there than lead anyway.

Edited March 16, 2016 by TONY R

[under the moon]

Mudpatten: After receiving my Basc magazine and reading the gentleman's c.v. thought just up my street, postal vote sent following day, fingers crossed.

[mudpatten]

Thank you UTM, I`ll let him know.

 

Just a thought for those stuck in a pessimistic time warp of anti BASC sentiment.

 

Yes, BASC has had it`s problems. It`ll probably have more in the future if only because it`s run by human beings and human beings make mistakes.

 

But how many of you have in the past ever stood for BASC Council in an effort to rectify the problems that you perceive?

 

Whatever it`s shortcomings BASC is at least democratic.

 

It is much, much easier, especially with a computer keyboard, to rage against the darkness than it is to light a candle. If some of the gainsayers on this forum had spent as much time in working within the democratic process of BASC to rectify the problems they often imagine, we`d be in a very different place.

 

A quick disclaimer - these are my views and not necessarily those of Allen.

[panoma1]

Thank you UTM, I`ll let him know.

 

Just a thought for those stuck in a pessimistic time warp of anti BASC sentiment.

 

Yes, BASC has had it`s problems. It`ll probably have more in the future if only because it`s run by human beings and human beings make mistakes.

 

But how many of you have in the past ever stood for BASC Council in an effort to rectify the problems that you perceive?

 

Whatever it`s shortcomings BASC is at least democratic.

 

It is much, much easier, especially with a computer keyboard, to rage against the darkness than it is to light a candle. If some of the gainsayers on this forum had spent as much time in working within the democratic process of BASC to rectify the problems they often imagine, we`d be in a very different place.

 

A quick disclaimer - these are my views and not necessarily those of Allen.

 

If BASC were to admit their past mistakes and failings (and perhaps apologise for them?) and you stopped blindly defending them..........perhaps some of the rifts would be sooner mended?

[TONY R]

Far too much venom from certain quaters directed in BASCs direction as far as i am concerned, Many apparenty cut and dried cases surounding BASC staff and how they handle or have handled certain sittuations historicaly are only known in their entirity to a few people in many cases .

And i will go as far as to say i know of two instances in recent history that are very different from what is generaly accepted .

BASC are a fantastic organisation with dedicated commited staff who offer an awesome service to members for an acceptable fee. BASC has some knowledgable staff with a great many years experience in their fields of work.

BASC is here its esstablished respected and its working fine, if we all stopped winging about he did this and she did that and do you remember this and that, and moved on put the same ammount of effort into suporting out best and most compitent shooting organisation to date we might get a better outcome to the many threats to our sport than we will if we carry on the way things are right now.

[greylag]

We all know there have been mistakes in the past,but lets look to the future.Lead has been lost to wildfowling and yes some members of the former BASC leadership must hang their heads in shame,but steel is getting better and better and very few of my wildfowling friends say I wish we could have lead back.Many newcomers to our sport have never fired lead on the foreshore or at any fowl,so know no other form of shooting.Let us support the new faces at BASC and stand together to fight any new restrictions to our wonderful sport.

[riptide]

the trouble is that an organisation is only as good as the people in it doing the job.

Those ******* have left and the lead ban came in 17 years ago.

 

Like motorbikes, with crash helmets, at some point you have to let go of the argument or turn it into a side issue...... its now a case of finding the evidence that lead is better than non toxic, so that we can bring it back as a 'new' super ammo that is kinder to birds, RSPB and townies, its not a perpetual argument that lead should not have been banned in the first place.

 

If you can trust the people running basc NOW, then use them to fight what we need fighting now, such as number limits on consent etc without resorting to ancient arguments.

I am extremely worried that some staff at Basc seem dead set that numbers limit and visits locked into consents is the way to go Its NOT !! I might go a hundred times but only connect 30 times ,But when I go no one knows I am their till I get up and come back or the other way round . For me to harvest I have to be just a invisible part of the area ! So how many times I am their is of no consequence ! So thats VISITS ruled out .. Now to numbers/ bag limits Lets look at this in reality I went to Montrose I came away after a week with 18 geese , Hell 18 !!!!! Lets impose bag limits !!!!! Why I ask ?? I did 5 am flights and 5 pm flights as per the rules so 10 flights in all 18 divided by 10 = a bag for the week of 1.8 birds per flight .. I say again Bag Limits Why and as a aside I see in the EU they are gassing geese in gas chambers due mainly to the fact they banned goose shooting back in 19 99 ( correct me if wrong ) and now have a population explosion , Bag limits get a grip ! Oh sorry guys I should have mentioned I do sit on the WLC and chair the Essex joint Council of Wildfowling clubs as well as my own club , and find now a days I spend more time defending it than partaking in it !!!!

Edited March 22, 2016 by riptide

[riptide]

As to the conference ,it was a good day and pleased to see a large support from the fowling community , good topics and I feel its starting to move back towards what most clubs would like to see , bearing in mind that a lot of clubs help towards the cost of their member or members attending so they rightly want a good agenda on topics that affect their clubs and fowling in general .. So Basc well done and keep up the good work , see you all next year , God Willing as my old gran would say !!!!

[anser2]

Quote "I say again Bag Limits Why and as a aside I see in the EU they are gassing geese in gas chambers due mainly to the fact they banned goose shooting back in 19 99 ( correct me if wrong ) and now have a population explosion , Bag limits get a grip ! "

 

Riptide is on the ball here. I grew up in an era when it was unacceptable in fowling circles to shoot a big bag of geese and my instincts still lean that way. However the world has changed, goose numbers are shooting through the roof, There are pressures from landowners, farmers and conservation bodies to put some species on the pest list and this has already happened in the case of canadas. I think it is within reason acceptable to take a reasonable cull of geese , indeed important to do so if we are to avoid losing greylag onto the pest list and then what would be next, pink feet perhaps. I think the important thing to think of is to ensure the birds are not wasted and enter the human food chain , and any large bags are kept from the public eye not just in the field , but also when publishing photos on the internet. The great white hunter posing in front of a pile of dead geese will do shootings PR no good at all in the eyes of the public

 

One club I am a member of has just reduced the goose limit to two birds under pressure from townies who are now on the parish council who we rent our shooting from. The newcommers just like to see the geese in numbers and yet at the same time the local authority are calling for a widespread major cull of greylags across the whole district. If this takes place the quality of greylag shooting will decline sharply. The club has been caught between a rock and a hard place.

 

I have said this many times before on this forum if we wish to keep the quality of our greylag shooting shoot a few more birds , because if we don't we will see DEFRA putting them on the pest list, a situation to be avoided if at all possible.

Edited March 22, 2016 by anser2

[muncher]

Quote "I say again Bag Limits Why and as a aside I see in the EU they are gassing geese in gas chambers due mainly to the fact they banned goose shooting back in 19 99 ( correct me if wrong ) and now have a population explosion , Bag limits get a grip ! "

 

Riptide is on the ball here. I grew up in an era when it was unacceptable in fowling circles to shoot a big bag of geese and my instincts still lean that way. However the world has changed, goose numbers are shooting through the roof, There are pressures from landowners, farmers and conservation bodies to put some species on the pest list and this has already happened in the case of canadas. I think it is within reason acceptable to take a reasonable cull of geese , indeed important to do so if we are to avoid losing greylag onto the pest list and then what would be next, pink feet perhaps. I think the important thing to think of is to ensure the birds are not wasted and enter the human food chain , and any large bags are kept from the public eye not just in the field , but also when publishing photos on the internet. The great white hunter posing in front of a pile of dead geese will do shootings PR no good at all in the eyes of the public

 

One club I am a member of has just reduced the goose limit to two birds under pressure from townies who are now on the parish council who we rent our shooting from. The newcommers just like to see the geese in numbers and yet at the same time the local authority are calling for a widespread major cull of greylags across the whole district. If this takes place the quality of greylag shooting will decline sharply. The club has been caught between a rock and a hard place.

 

I have said this many times before on this forum if we wish to keep the quality of our greylag shooting shoot a few more birds , because if we don't we will see DEFRA putting them on the pest list, a situation to be avoided if at all possible.

I agree with you on this .Bloody short sighted if we think greys wont come up again if we do not reduce there numbers.

[kent]

I wish it was wildfowling that initially pushed for the discontinuation of lead in the first place not spend the next two decades bemoaning it's loss

[riptide]

I am referring to all wildfowl and not any particular specious ,but yes geese are a glaring example !!! I was pleased to see that Sue NE lady at conference has sat down with some of her other workers and come up with a better way to handle the visit quota yes it might be better but It should and is not needed . Clubs can for sensitive specious or as in cold weather situations handle any problems a lot more efficiently with local knowledge and use ! The problem of bag limits only apply s to areas with consents , why should NE not be looking at the wider picture I know of a few heavily fed flight ponds that get hit hard during the first 3 months or so of the season , they in fact get hammered !!! with out a duck released and then as the season progresses they dont get shot so much or rather less shots are heared as they have by then shot so many that the rest now steer clear of those areas but the effect on the nearby coastal areas is devastating as all the duck are driven away .. This is were NE should rule the roost make that wetland a sssi and give consents or rather dont give a consent till later in the season ! Mind you we are told in person that we have to allow for the public with this new roll out of the English Coastal footpath to spread right to the low water mark on the sea would side of the wall or defenses I do hope the members of the public are given some "visits" and as a precautionary action maybe they should have to apply to NE for their consent to spread and also to be granted a small amount of visits ,this way NE would have control and knowledge as to the damage or disturbance factors just like they are hell bent on doing to us Fowlers !! I am not a learned judge or barrister ,but if they NE let the public now spread to all areas down to low tide then surly we are being discriminated against by having a Visit rule !! they NE will play the violin and say they have no control over these other more damaging factors !! dont be mislead by this myth , as the DVLA has total control over the road users and therefore NE can have the same with public footpaths and access whoever uses them !!!!! ( Note 2000/1 all footpaths closed due to foot and mouth ) .. I am pleased to see that Sue did suggest a better way of working the visits but the best way is not to have that restriction at all its not needed and is only used due to their weak will to reduce all the other more damaging actions that happen along our coastal walks and marshes !! Yet again I am only one voice and might be wrong ,but I am voicing the concerns I hear from the fowlers I represent !