Wild Justices response to call for evidence.

[mick miller]

Worth reading through to see the counter arguments facing lawful pest species control. Seems that there is 'no valid reason' to control many of the species on the old GLs, in the view of WJ, Packham, Avery et al. Interesting the research centres largely around research by Newson(1), along with others (lead ammuntion group). It appears a well reasoned response - I hope our organisations have the depth of scientific research to counter the claims made herein:

https://wildjustice.org.uk/general/wild-justice-response-to-consultation-on-general-licences/?fbclid=IwAR2xQ0LUMDEalFkW4hgSiwqn5b7XazYm64EfIRAu7IYdvISWx2LvKiQ5fOU

1. https://besjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/j.1365-2664.2010.01771.x

 

[Scully]

Mmmm. Haven't read it all yet, but the example of a supermarket killing a bird which is defecating on food items seems a tad impractical. They are left with having to allow the bird or birds to fly around, doing what they do, until they can secure a license to deal with it lethally! Are we talking hours, days, weeks here? 

[TIGHTCHOKE]

Just starting to read through it!

Well, very interesting and not a little disapointing;

They are keen to point out what I had been told a while ago that they never meant for GL 04, 05 and 06 to revoked straight away, but hoped to get them tightened up in time for re-issue in Jan 2020.

They say they do accept that lethal methods have their place but that non-lethal methods must be exhaused first.

They stress at length that "nature" happens and that they feel shooting one species to protect another is wrong.

They insist woodpigeons should only be shot with non-toxic shot and that it may not be carried out for sport/recreational purposes or for financial gain.

They feel thay should be involved with Natural England and DEFRA at any further consultations regarding the shooting of birds and the licencing of such activities.

Personally I wonder what their next target will be?

Edited May 15, 2019 by TIGHTCHOKE
Precis

[oowee]

Mmmmm worrying times. I note the comments re mammals.

'Although the implementation of laws relating to killing of wild birds has been grossly inadequate the law has been clear and has a logical framework. In contrast the legal protection given to wild mammals in the UK is a hotchpotch with little clear rationale behind it. Defra might wish to look at these matters in the Environment Bill or elsewhere.'

[mick miller]

Yes, I think this will be the next target/subject of their campaign against shooting. Let's not forget that Avery already tried several means to undermine shooting when in position on the Lead Ammunition Group, along with his pal from BASC.

 

 

Edited May 15, 2019 by mick miller

[Clodhopper]

I see they are pulling together all parts of their poisonous little plan and now bringing game rearing/shooting into the mix, couldn't see that coming. The argument of natural balance is of course flawed, they fail to mention the massive boost to C. Crows diet from roadkill ( how about banning cars). When all of the cow manure is.stripped away from their argument the bare bones is that they will not be happy until all shooting is banned and the countryside is populated solely by apex predators sustained by feeding stations from which the can be oggled at.

[mick miller]

Packham is very much for 'rewilding'. His fanboys often site the success of the reintroduction of wolves into parks such as Yellowstone and the benefits to the ecosystem. This does of course completely ignore the size of Yellowstone (3,472 square miles) and that it is almost devoid of human life, roads etc. But, of course, with apex predators there would be no need for bad, nasty men with their guns.

I wonder though, if a reintroduced wolf was to attack one of these idiots children, would they intervene? Or would it just be considered 'part of nature'.

Edited May 15, 2019 by mick miller

[owdnorthener]

I don't see that any of this is about bird welfare, its just " I don't like people shooting so  lets ban it" ( In anyway we can. )

Lets hope the community can continue getting its act together and forward our case.

[panoma1]

9 minutes ago, owdnorthener said:

I don't see that any of this is about bird welfare, its just " I don't like people shooting so  lets ban it" ( In anyway we can. )

Lets hope the community can continue getting its act together and forward our case.

I agree, what has licensing the control of avian pest species got to do with protectionists, except for the fact they don't like it! What has it to do with them and how does it affect them? If they really cared, they would support lethal control of the common predatory avian species, if it conserved at risk and red listed birds!

They are extremist animal protectionists/rewilders trying to impose their opinion on others! The problem is, like everyone who shouts loud and long, they eventually get what they want.......especially if it fits a perceived 'Green/PC' agenda and get's them 'off the backs' (path of least resistance) of the regulatory authorities!

[old'un]

Reading the Mark Avery blog I noticed he mentions the possibility of giving pigeons the same status as game birds with a closed season and the meat being sold, Mr Avery adds, if this were to happen he would not be against it but would push for pigeons to be shot with none toxic shot if they were to go into the food chain, I now see hints of the same idea in the above statement from WJ, this got me thinking that if things do not turn out in our favour could we (BASC etc) push for a change in the status of pigeons?

[Scully]

3 hours ago, TIGHTCHOKE said:

Just starting to read through it!

Well, very interesting and not a little disapointing;

They are keen to point out what I had been told a while ago that they never meant for GL 04, 05 and 06 to revoked straight away, but hoped to get them tightened up in time for re-issue in Jan 2020.

They say they do accept that lethal methods have their place but that non-lethal methods must be exhaused first.

They stress at length that "nature" happens and that they feel shooting one species to protect another is wrong.

They insist woodpigeons should only be shot with non-toxic shot and that it may not be carried out for sport/recreational purposes or for financial gain.

They feel thay should be involved with Natural England and DEFRA at any further consultations regarding the shooting of birds and the licencing of such activities.

Personally I wonder what their next target will be?

They forget to mention that the RSPB isn’t an advocate of ‘nature’ happening, as it destroys various predator species. They also forget to mention that much of the ‘evidence’ proposed by them during the lead ammunition campaign was emotive rather than factual, exaggerated and in some cases simply unproven, and dismissed as such.  

[lancer425]

What Avery Packham  juniper or The collective WJ want is neither here nor there, its what the government want to do that will impact us.  Not saying anything born out of this short consultation will prove helpful to our cause, we must wait and see .  But playing WJs game of non tox for pigeons it will have zero effect on pigeon shooting efficiency in any case. Non tox is perfect for Pigeon shooting as we all know so if thats the only compromise we will be home and dry. 

[Scully]

7 minutes ago, lancer425 said:

What Avery Packham  juniper or The collective WJ want is neither here nor there, its what the government want to do that will impact us.  Not saying anything born out of this short consultation will prove helpful to our cause, we must wait and see .  But playing WJs game of non tox for pigeons it will have zero effect on pigeon shooting efficiency in any case. Non tox is perfect for Pigeon shooting as we all know so if thats the only compromise we will be home and dry. 

But if non toxic is compulsory for wood pigeons on the grounds it is meat for human consumption, then it must surely apply for other ‘game’ species. It is a totally unnecessary demand and a battle which we have already fought and won; I wouldn’t be happy with ceding that point simply as a compromise to allow pigeons to be classed as game. There is absolutely no danger posed by shooting game intended for human consumption, with lead. 

[lancer425]

2 minutes ago, Scully said:

But if non toxic is compulsory for wood pigeons on the grounds it is meat for human consumption, then it must surely apply for other ‘game’ species. It is a totally unnecessary demand and a battle which we have already fought and won; I wouldn’t be happy with ceding that point simply as a compromise to allow pigeons to be classed as game. There is absolutely no danger posed by shooting game intended for human consumption, with lead. 

And i dont believe for a second ceding on non tox  will be an option for us, and have doubts anything will come of this, but Non tox if it was brought in or not is not their gain or our loss, but agree its pointless but so is everything else they are advocating.   I mentioned non tox EFFICIENCY and mentioned it was perfect for pigeon shooting anyway i was talking from a performance point of view as a shot type nothing else.

[mick miller]

Lead was Avery's personal hobby horse and still is. Let's not forget the LAG debacle with him and BASC's former mole, sorry chairman, Swift. Didn't work then, mustn't work now.

[lancer425]

14 minutes ago, mick miller said:

Lead was Avery's personal hobby horse and still is. Let's not forget the LAG debacle with him and BASC's former mole, sorry chairman, Swift. Didn't work then, mustn't work now.

It is a dead hobby horse the move away from lead to non tox is best brought about by hunter education not legislation. Banning something means its gone for everything, but changing hearts and minds with the option to make choices is the right way to reduce lead in the environment.

The Americans are trying this approach and its a better option from every angle. Banning is just that and leaves disgruntled people. 

 

Edited May 15, 2019 by lancer425

[old'un]

1 hour ago, Scully said:

They forget to mention that the RSPB isn’t an advocate of ‘nature’ happening, as it destroys various predator species. They also forget to mention that much of the ‘evidence’ proposed by them during the lead ammunition campaign was emotive rather than factual, exaggerated and in some cases simply unproven, and dismissed as such.  

 

The RSPB kill far more on their reserves than they report, only kills near the protected site are logged/reported, anything else that is killed on their reserves is called ‘protection of  neighbours' interests' these kills are not logged/counted and there is no data kept of kill numbers outside the protected site.

[shalfordninja33]

44 minutes ago, old'un said:

 

 

The RSPB kill far more on their reserves than they report, only kills near the protected site are logged/reported, anything else that is killed on their reserves is called ‘protection of  neighbours' interests' these kills are not logged/counted and there is no data kept of kill numbers outside the protected site.

A friend of mine has shot foxes on rainham marshes RSPB reserve for a number of years. 

[mick miller]

16 minutes ago, shalfordninja33 said:

A friend of mine has shot foxes on rainham marshes RSPB reserve for a number of years. 

He should refuse, until they support shooting or get rid of Packham as VP.

 

Edited May 15, 2019 by mick miller

[Scully]

2 hours ago, lancer425 said:

 I mentioned non tox EFFICIENCY and mentioned it was perfect for pigeon shooting anyway i was talking from a performance point of view as a shot type nothing else.

I quite agree, steel is perfectly fine for pigeons. I'm not disagreeing with you on that point, only surprised that you appear willing to regard being allowed to shoot steel only ( as Avery suggested ) for pigeons as a 'compromise' worth taking! That's what the highlighted section below infers to me. It's just another attempt by Avery to introduce legislation through the back door. 

If anyone wants to shoot steel then that's fine, but let's not willingly forego lead after everything we've been through, and especially not as a compromise. 

 

2 hours ago, lancer425 said:

  But playing WJs game of non tox for pigeons it will have zero effect on pigeon shooting efficiency in any case. Non tox is perfect for Pigeon shooting as we all know so if thats the only compromise we will be home and dry. 

 

1 hour ago, old'un said:

 

 

The RSPB kill far more on their reserves than they report, only kills near the protected site are logged/reported, anything else that is killed on their reserves is called ‘protection of  neighbours' interests' these kills are not logged/counted and there is no data kept of kill numbers outside the protected site.

Interesting. Any legislation brought about by the actions of WJ which reflect on game shoots etc, must also apply equally to the RSPB. 

[mick miller]

2 minutes ago, Scully said:

I quite agree, steel is perfectly fine for pigeons. I'm not disagreeing with you on that point, only surprised that you appear willing to regard being allowed to shoot steel only ( as Avery suggested ) for pigeons as a 'compromise' worth taking! That's what the highlighted section below infers to me. It's just another attempt by Avery to introduce legislation through the back door. 

If anyone wants to shoot steel then that's fine, but let's not willingly forego lead after everything we've been through, and especially not as a compromise.

Quite correct, and then onto rifles next.

 

[lancer425]

2 hours ago, Scully said:

I quite agree, steel is perfectly fine for pigeons. I'm not disagreeing with you on that point, only surprised that you appear willing to regard being allowed to shoot steel only ( as Avery suggested ) for pigeons as a 'compromise' worth taking! That's what the highlighted section below infers to me. It's just another attempt by Avery to introduce legislation through the back door. 

If anyone wants to shoot steel then that's fine, but let's not willingly forego lead after everything we've been through, and especially not as a compromise. 

 

 

Interesting. Any legislation brought about by the actions of WJ which reflect on game shoots etc, must also apply equally to the RSPB. 

I was not accepting Non tox just stating the futility of WJs / Avereys approach and pushing for a lead ban that in effect as zero detriment on efficiency from our stand point.  I do not want a lead ban  and will fight tooth and nail to keep lead, but that is because they are using this as a path to destroying shooting and not for the true need for reducing  lead shot use , which in principle i do agree with. Even though the evidence is just not there and never was there against lead, but  lead is  still toxic we can not get away from that, so  we as shooters should have the right to chose and see the need to change . bring this about by Education .

  I think this is a more mature attitude and above all fair way of gradually bringing about change by change i mean changes in hunters attitudes to using lead shot, not any ultimate legislation.

 

Edited May 15, 2019 by lancer425

[McSpredder]

Are there any Cornish members who can explain this section from WJ's response to DEFRA?

 "..... Curlew, Lapwing and Grey Partridge. These three species do not occur in all parts of England or in all habitats and so we question the wisdom of any nationwide general licence.  Killing Carrion Crows in Cornwall, for example, is of no value to the conservation of Curlew, Lapwing or Grey Partridge ....."

The Cornwall Bird Watching and Preservation Society (CWBPS) suggest breeding populations of curlew, lapwing, and grey partridge, with distributions shown on these maps:

Curlew     http://www.cbwps.org.uk/atlas/breeding/CU.shtml    

Lapwing     http://www.cbwps.org.uk/atlas/breeding/L_.shtml

Grey partridge    http://www.cbwps.org.uk/atlas/breeding/P_.shtml

I can think of a few possible explanations for what WJ has written, but they all seem rather ridiculous:

1. There is some particular reason, perhaps known only to the WJ trio, why carrion crows would not harm curlew, lapwing and grey partridge that happen to live in Cornwall.

2. WJ believe none of those species exists in Cornwall, and made no attempt to obtain local information.

3. WJ are aware of the CBWPS data, but consider themselves better informed than any local residents, and therefore continue to believe there are no curlew, lapwing or grey partridge in Cornwall.

4. WJ have their own reasons for not wishing those species to be encouraged within Cornwall.

What have I missed?   What is the real reasoning behind that WJ statement?

Edited May 15, 2019 by McSpredder

[panoma1]

8 hours ago, McSpredder said:

Are there any Cornish members who can explain this section from WJ's response to DEFRA?

 "..... Curlew, Lapwing and Grey Partridge. These three species do not occur in all parts of England or in all habitats and so we question the wisdom of any nationwide general licence.  Killing Carrion Crows in Cornwall, for example, is of no value to the conservation of Curlew, Lapwing or Grey Partridge ....."

The Cornwall Bird Watching and Preservation Society (CWBPS) suggest breeding populations of curlew, lapwing, and grey partridge, with distributions shown on these maps:

Curlew     http://www.cbwps.org.uk/atlas/breeding/CU.shtml    

Lapwing     http://www.cbwps.org.uk/atlas/breeding/L_.shtml

Grey partridge    http://www.cbwps.org.uk/atlas/breeding/P_.shtml

I can think of a few possible explanations for what WJ has written, but they all seem rather ridiculous:

1. There is some particular reason, perhaps known only to the WJ trio, why carrion crows would not harm curlew, lapwing and grey partridge that happen to live in Cornwall.

2. WJ believe none of those species exists in Cornwall, and made no attempt to obtain local information.

3. WJ are aware of the CBWPS data, but consider themselves better informed than any local residents, and therefore continue to believe there are no curlew, lapwing or grey partridge in Cornwall.

4. WJ have their own reasons for not wishing those species to be encouraged within Cornwall.

What have I missed?   What is the real reasoning behind that WJ statement?

Well WJ statement (if accepted by DEFRA) will ensure there will not be any of these species in Cornwall in the future!

[Walker570]

12 hours ago, mick miller said:

Quite correct, and then onto rifles next.

 

Fine on rifles as I use Barnes TSX and TTSX all copper bullets with great success, but shotgun loads are different. Just think of the thousands of beautiful and not so beautiful shotguns out there which will be for the scrap heap if we are pushed to shooting steel.  I have shot a lot of bismuth and I am 'on the fence' regards it's killing ability, I'm not sure it is as good as lead shot.