BASC lays bare the threats posed by general licence chaos

[motty]

50 minutes ago, NatureBoy said:

Very true! But do you think if pigeons were allowed to be baited/feed in it would change the way and how many pigeons  are shot?  Guilds selling more days and shooting huge bags? NB

Baiting would probably still be outlawed. The shooters of the biggest bags, as far as I am aware, are completely independent of guides.

[mick miller]

1 hour ago, motty said:

I wouldn't trust a gunshop owner on legal matters.

I wouldn't trust gunshop owners on most gun matters either.

[McSpredder]

Benefits of General Licences (England)    

Very pleased to see this new document from BASC today.   They rightly point out that reduced crop yields due to bird damage are likely to result in higher food prices.

 

I hope BASC will add some more notes about the environmental consequences of reduced yields.   Here are a few suggestions to start with:

 

Legislation that hinders control of agricultural pests will inevitably lead to increased use of fossil fuels.

Lower yields mean that larger areas have to be cultivated, using more energy (usually obtained from fossil fuels) in farm machinery.   More nitrogen fertiliser, manufactured using large amounts of energy, is likely to be applied.   Major damage by pests sometimes means that fields have to be re-cultivated and re-planted, again using more  energy.   Bird damage typically results in large patches of flattened cereal crops that are difficult to harvest and thresh, and require more energy for drying.  

 

If larger areas have to be cultivated, the increase will almost certainly be on fields that are less suited to arable cropping (probably including those currently used in wildlife conservation projects).

 

Pest attacks remove vegetation leaving the soil more prone to erosion by wind and water.

 

All the above will be very familiar to anybody with knowledge of land management, but perhaps some of our politicians, civil servants, newspaper editors, TV presenters and self-styled “environmental campaigners” have insufficient knowledge of practical agriculture, or even of elementary science, to understand the adverse consequences of the legislation they seek to impose.

 

Come on, folks.   I am sure you can add other points, and give our organisations a bit more ammunition to use.

 

 

 

[hawkfanz]

i heard from my mate today he says jeremy clarkson reckons if rape becomes less economicle to grow cos of pigeon damage then the demand from palm oil may well rise putting pressure on the rain forests and ultimately  putting more pressure on the orang a tang.hows that for the eco warriors.

[NatureBoy]

6 minutes ago, motty said:

Baiting would probably still be outlawed. The shooters of the biggest bags, as far as I am aware, are completely independent of guides.

I hope it would Motty! Been some huge bags shot my way in last few years! I would just like to carry on how we were! Using common sense and field craft to shoot pigeons and crows as and when  they need to be and opportunity presented.  Over crops, pasture, stubble, drilling's, flight lining and roost shooting. Carry on trapping crows/magpies and destroy there  nests when it easiest!  It worked! Farmers were happy song birds thrived and it keeps populations in check! There are Farms/shoots near me and elsewhere that have won conservation awards  that prove it works with data and ringing to back it up!. Conservation orgs know of them but seem-reluctant to listen, work with or publicise them because they are commercial shoots. Been bringing on a growing number of english partridges over the last few years. We have a very significant number of the UK turtle dove population  breed locally to. Because of corvid /vermin control, poviding feeding and habitat. They will be turning up soon. It's a shame these folk don't listen to or want to help others that are doing pest control and the real conservation work! 

Rant over! NB

 

 

[old man]

10 hours ago, McSpredder said:

Benefits of General Licences (England)    

Very pleased to see this new document from BASC today.   They rightly point out that reduced crop yields due to bird damage are likely to result in higher food prices.

 

I hope BASC will add some more notes about the environmental consequences of reduced yields.   Here are a few suggestions to start with:

 

Legislation that hinders control of agricultural pests will inevitably lead to increased use of fossil fuels.

Lower yields mean that larger areas have to be cultivated, using more energy (usually obtained from fossil fuels) in farm machinery.   More nitrogen fertiliser, manufactured using large amounts of energy, is likely to be applied.   Major damage by pests sometimes means that fields have to be re-cultivated and re-planted, again using more  energy.   Bird damage typically results in large patches of flattened cereal crops that are difficult to harvest and thresh, and require more energy for drying.  

 

If larger areas have to be cultivated, the increase will almost certainly be on fields that are less suited to arable cropping (probably including those currently used in wildlife conservation projects).

 

Pest attacks remove vegetation leaving the soil more prone to erosion by wind and water.

 

All the above will be very familiar to anybody with knowledge of land management, but perhaps some of our politicians, civil servants, newspaper editors, TV presenters and self-styled “environmental campaigners” have insufficient knowledge of practical agriculture, or even of elementary science, to understand the adverse consequences of the legislation they seek to impose.

 

Come on, folks.   I am sure you can add other points, and give our organisations a bit more ammunition to use.

 

 

 

Sadly you  can have all of the ammunition in the world but if you can't hit the target? ? ?