Future Threats To Our Activities

[bostonmick]

31 minutes ago, lancer425 said:

No WJ exploited a weak spot submitted a councils opinion that was evidence enough to prove they would be on for a solid chance of a win and got  if it ever  went to court, then Natural England decided the GL was a potential problem for them legally so they made the decision to withdraw the licence. BASC NGO or anybody else had no warning whatsoever and was unexpected . Even WJ were surprised.

Its all here warts and all BASC nobody else  could stop this. At this very moment in time all we can do is wait. see what the government come up with.

https://parliamentlive.tv/Event/Index/3610d6cf-6d1e-45ed-ab7f-3b6c0f9a5c43 

So the next question is why do they not just reinstate the license as it was with the condition you have to be licensed to do pest control and crop protection. And still need to show some evidence of non lethal means. No I suppose they might have to do ž bit of work issuing them. Well just stay calm while they go after the shooting of fox. Squirrels. Rats etc and game shoots. Fishing. We can all say my word we are all surprised  by this. Again. Our sport is in one hell of a mess licensing is becoming a postcode lottery the doctors thing has not crept up by surprise over the past five years yet the mere threat of a legal challenge sent the establishment into panic but our cash rich organisations decided a stiff letter is all they need do to fight these threats. Country sports and its way of life have one foot in the grave and it won't be long before the dirt is being shovelled on top of it for good. Sit back stay calm. 

[lancer425]

1 hour ago, bostonmick said:

So the next question is why do they not just reinstate the license as it was with the condition you have to be licensed to do pest control and crop protection. And still need to show some evidence of non lethal means. No I suppose they might have to do ž bit of work issuing them. Well just stay calm while they go after the shooting of fox. Squirrels. Rats etc and game shoots. Fishing. We can all say my word we are all surprised  by this. Again. Our sport is in one hell of a mess licensing is becoming a postcode lottery the doctors thing has not crept up by surprise over the past five years yet the mere threat of a legal challenge sent the establishment into panic but our cash rich organisations decided a stiff letter is all they need do to fight these threats. Country sports and its way of life have one foot in the grave and it won't be long before the dirt is being shovelled on top of it for good. Sit back stay calm. 

No body me included is advocating sitting on your hands doing nothing wile the world floats by and takes shooting with it, but of all the fights and all the times just now today we can do no more its under the governments procedure at the moment they are examining the facts reporting back and they will at some point hopefully in the not too distant future issue the outcome of the governments findings. the video showed it as it happened. not comfortable viewing, i agree and but its where we are at at this moment in time and nobody can do anymore than as been doine at this stage. we have to wait see what the government find and come up with. It might be not a lot and we are going down the New GL or individual route as NE recently submitted, or something else. There was reports media of Gove looking atquary listing pigeons not sure other birds but if this comes about again we wont know until they decide.

Understand the frustration we are all the same but it really is a wait and see at this very moment in time.

What more can they do ... yesterday 24th.

BASC responds to delay over Defra’s general licence announcement

May 24, 2019

BASC is advising members that an announcement from Defra on the long-term future of general licences is unlikely to be made until late next week.

Defra has this evening told stakeholders it understands the urgency of implementing a “working system” of general licences “as quickly as possible” but wants its solution to be “legally robust”.

BASC and other leading rural organisations had expected a significant announcement ahead of the Bank Holiday weekend after environment secretary Michael Gove took control of general licences from Natural England and instigated a call for evidence, which BASC responded to.

Caroline Bedell, BASC’s executive director of conservation, said: “This is an incredibly frustrating delay for those who need a licensing system that is fit for purpose.

“While we accept that Defra has a vast amount of information to sift through following its recent call to evidence, the fact so many people responded to that demand for evidence should give a clear signal to Defra that people are desperate and need a workable solution in days not weeks.”

In an email to BASC this evening, Defra said: “We are developing proposals based on the 4,000 responses we received to our call for evidence and will set out our next steps shortly.”

•  
•  
•  
•  

General licence chaos cost BASC respondents £29 million, new infographic reveals

May 24, 2019

The financial losses reported to BASC following Natural England’s revocation of general licences in England was estimated to be around £29 million, a new infographic by BASC highlights.

More than 29,000 people responded to an online survey set up by BASC to gather evidence in just four days. Of those, 81 per cent reported financial or economic loss.

The infographic shows that respondents spent 3.4 million days annually controlling pest birds under the general licences.

Ninety-nine per cent of respondents reported damage, loss or risk.

The survey fed into BASC’s official response to Defra.

The infographic can be seen and shared from here:

General Licence Survey Infographic -

 

•  
•  
•  
•  

 

 

 

Edited May 25, 2019 by lancer425

[Saltings]

all and I mean all country sports from match fishing / vermin hunting / corporate pheasant shooting and just about every country pursuit in between that involves catching  or killing anything that lives is under threat once the Packham types pressure us to only use steel shot, one type of bait, one type of trap ,the final push for them they have  only to ban one item and the job is done , no more blood sports in their eyes ,  we are doomed because we do not promote the conservation side of things without shooting / fishing /stalking / wildfowling numerous other species / habitats would not be around  and the general public on social media are not aware that country sports and conservation go hand in hand 

quite a number of clay and game shooters did not take part in the recent  BASC  re GL survey as it did not affect them in their eyes so why bother,   I despair 

Edited May 25, 2019 by Saltings

[stuartyboy]

I think we will eventually see further pressure on shooting sports through the licensing system. We've got the situation in Scotland where it's technically easier to successfully  apply for a shotgun than it is to apply for a Airgun. 

All guns will likely be put on the same level of certification. By that, I mean they will all be on a Firearm certificates or a new equivalent. And a good reason will be required for each and everyone. 

Then somepoint down the line, the 'good reason' will be strictly enforced rather than the current interpretation, which is more of a desire to own x y or z rather than a good reason for a lot of certificate holders.

Shooting will continue to have a future but it will be chipped away at and it will become too much hassle for a lot of hobby shooters. But there will always be a need for deer and vermin control. Whether the general public will be allowed to do it, or only some new government body and its especially trained employees,  I'm not sure.

[mossy835]

yes as you say they will keep chipping away at us, and a lot will give up, after this mess up with the licence of shooting piegeons it will never be the same.as it was no matter what they come up with.talking to a farmer yesterday he has day shoots on game he said give 5 years, and it may well be all gone.witch is a great shame.to many auntis about .

[lancer425]

I dont thing we shooters do enough Well   "Boasting" in a word, we dont Tell the wider world how we manage the countryside in many cases we actually own it or at least  lease it and the fact the areas of land we have often look like they do is down to shooting.  Woodland managed for game is good for other animals as well as game.

[Scully]

The threats to shooting are many and varied and possibly no different to that of decades ago, the only difference now being that many many more people can and do participate in putting across their two pennarth worth due to social media. LACS has been on the go since the turn of the 20 century, and still with the same agenda.

There is absolutely no doubt that killing live quarry for sport is uppermost in the agendas of the antis, and unlike shooters, is something they all have in common and unites them all. 

We can dress it up in any way we like, but rearing birds to be killed is simply shooting live quarry for sport, and for those grouse shooters who suggest they can claim the higher moral ground over driven pheasant shooters, I have news for you....you can't. To put it simply, the habitat of grouse is managed to the detriment of other species also, just like the habitat of pheasant, to try to ensure the birds have the best chance of surviving and thriving so they can be shot for sport. We are conserving one species for the benefit of some, but only so another can be killed for sport. Anyone who thinks differently is delusional. Yes, many other species benefit from our actions in the process, and we do put so much more into the countryside than many others do, who oppose what we do, but we do it for a reason. 

Saying all that, I don't care. I participate in a small rough shoot where our fortnightly bag is anywhere between 15 and zero, and a small syndicate where our fortnightly bag is anywhere between fifty and six. I also once a year take part in a 500 plus day, which is spectacular, and to which incidentally, I would say to the naysayers, if you can show me irrefutable proof as some of you claim, of mass dumping of birds, then show me the evidence. Not some blurry out of focus footage claiming to show hundreds and hundreds of dumped birds, when in fact it turns out to be a dozen processed carcasses photographed from different angles, but real evidence of what you claim. If you're in the business of shooting live quarry for sport, leisure or entertainment, then stop trying to claim you have some misplaced sense of moral superiority over those you claim are bringing shooting sports into disrepute. 

Killing live quarry for sport doesn't sit well with many people in this day and age and is much  less acceptable ( for a myriad of reasons ) and less easy to justify than it was even two decades ago. 

This is our biggest challenge, but those who oppose us will seek inroads via any means possible, including toxic shot ( if anyone believes antis are remotely bothered about the type of shot we use then you are naive beyond belief ) which is simply one of many methods employed in a round about way with which to ultimately stop us doing what we do.

Killing for sport is in many eyes indefensible and unjustifiable. This is our greatest threat. 

[Old farrier]

Whilst I agree with Scully I think we have a bigger threat 

the pressure  on land food production is going to be a big thing 

very soon you will see all the game covers and spinneys start to go along with the small copses and even more hedge rows 

the countryside is changing at a rapid pace the population is increasing to the point of over saturation and if subsidies and grants are ended it will change to a unrecognisable area of open ground 

the only place that you will see a hedge row will be beside a motorway  

[ditchman]

On 24/05/2019 at 12:14, JJsDad said:

Because they enjoy the challenge of killing a bird that they have no intention what so ever of taking home and eating !

The anti-brigade call it "killing for fun".

all the shoots in norfolk that i used to frequent..........at the end of the day you were presented with 2 brace of oven ready ..plucked gutted wrapped and on a paper saucer............they were recieved with glee everytime...............

[Fen tiger]

Why should breeding and rearing game releasing it then killing it, be any different to breeding rearing and slaughtering cattle sheep pigs?

Game birds get to be protected looked after we grow crops that  offer them shelter and they are fed given water they live outside the do not all get killed some breed in the wild. In my opinion game have a better life than  livestock .

[wymberley]

31 minutes ago, Old farrier said:

Whilst I agree with Scully I think we have a bigger threat 

the pressure  on land food production is going to be a big thing 

very soon you will see all the game covers and spinneys start to go along with the small copses and even more hedge rows 

the countryside is changing at a rapid pace the population is increasing to the point of over saturation and if subsidies and grants are ended it will change to a unrecognisable area of open ground 

the only place that you will see a hedge row will be beside a motorway  

As I understand it, many of us pointed this out in our submissions to DEFRA. If (when) we're right, the people who would have planted the covers and the families whose ancestors planted the spinneys, woods and those hedgerows still remaining as a shooting benefit and now having lost their sport will have no reason to maintain them so will have them grubbed out in the name of profit. As the antis will be also in part responsible for this destruction, they must also shoulder some of the blame. The general public will not be too enamoured when they realise - too late - the  antis' legacy. Naturally, the LACS et al are not going to mention this possibility out loud which in turn is precisely why we via our organisations should do so.

[Scully]

1 hour ago, Fen tiger said:

Why should breeding and rearing game releasing it then killing it, be any different to breeding rearing and slaughtering cattle sheep pigs?

Game birds get to be protected looked after we grow crops that  offer them shelter and they are fed given water they live outside the do not all get killed some breed in the wild. In my opinion game have a better life than  livestock .

The difference is basically that we do it for sport; we're killing for enjoyment. And yes, we do protect game birds, but they're only there for one reason, and that protection and benefit to other species is often to the detriment of other ( more often than not predatory ) species, so we have as many birds as possible to shoot for sport.

Yes, I agree, in many ways game birds do have a better life than those birds raised simply for consumption. In my opinion those who enjoy eating meat but oppose shooting for sport are hypocrites to some extent. This is why it is important that nothing edible, shot for sport, is wasted. 

Edited May 26, 2019 by Scully

[panoma1]

3 hours ago, Scully said:

The threats to shooting are many and varied and possibly no different to that of decades ago, the only difference now being that many many more people can and do participate in putting across their two pennarth worth due to social media. LACS has been on the go since the turn of the 20 century, and still with the same agenda.

There is absolutely no doubt that killing live quarry for sport is uppermost in the agendas of the antis, and unlike shooters, is something they all have in common and unites them all. 

We can dress it up in any way we like, but rearing birds to be killed is simply shooting live quarry for sport, and for those grouse shooters who suggest they can claim the higher moral ground over driven pheasant shooters, I have news for you....you can't. To put it simply, the habitat of grouse is managed to the detriment of other species also, just like the habitat of pheasant, to try to ensure the birds have the best chance of surviving and thriving so they can be shot for sport. We are conserving one species for the benefit of some, but only so another can be killed for sport. Anyone who thinks differently is delusional. Yes, many other species benefit from our actions in the process, and we do put so much more into the countryside than many others do, who oppose what we do, but we do it for a reason. 

Saying all that, I don't care. I participate in a small rough shoot where our fortnightly bag is anywhere between 15 and zero, and a small syndicate where our fortnightly bag is anywhere between fifty and six. I also once a year take part in a 500 plus day, which is spectacular, and to which incidentally, I would say to the naysayers, if you can show me irrefutable proof as some of you claim, of mass dumping of birds, then show me the evidence. Not some blurry out of focus footage claiming to show hundreds and hundreds of dumped birds, when in fact it turns out to be a dozen processed carcasses photographed from different angles, but real evidence of what you claim. If you're in the business of shooting live quarry for sport, leisure or entertainment, then stop trying to claim you have some misplaced sense of moral superiority over those you claim are bringing shooting sports into disrepute. 

Killing live quarry for sport doesn't sit well with many people in this day and age and is much  less acceptable ( for a myriad of reasons ) and less easy to justify than it was even two decades ago. 

This is our biggest challenge, but those who oppose us will seek inroads via any means possible, including toxic shot ( if anyone believes antis are remotely bothered about the type of shot we use then you are naive beyond belief ) which is simply one of many methods employed in a round about way with which to ultimately stop us doing what we do.

Killing for sport is in many eyes indefensible and unjustifiable. This is our greatest threat. 

The other side of the coin is what will the Countryside, its flora and fauna look like when shooting for sport is no more? And the money and the countryside custodians (keepers) have gone? Where areas such as woods and moors have, where possible been either developed into productive land for agriculture or abandoned because it is unproductive as it stands! Where there is no predator control, because there is no one to do it! Where the land is neglected and nature turns it into a wilderness? What happens after the ground and avian predators have eaten all the prey species that live there currently?.......the Countryside will turn into an unkempt wasteland where only predators exist.....well until, through lack of prey, they start eating each other!

Where will the likes of Packham, Avery, PETA, lacs be then? They will have disappeared so they don't have to answer for their illconcieved crusade to consign live quarry shooting/shooting for sport to the history books!

Edited May 26, 2019 by panoma1

[Scully]

On 26/05/2019 at 16:55, panoma1 said:

The other side of the coin is what will the Countryside, its flora and fauna look like when shooting for sport is no more? And the money and the countryside custodians (keepers) have gone? Where areas such as woods and moors have, where possible been either developed into productive land for agriculture or abandoned because it is unproductive as it stands! Where there is no predator control, because there is no one to do it! Where the land is neglected and nature turns it into a wilderness? What happens after the ground and avian predators have eaten all the prey species that live there currently?.......the Countryside will turn into an unkempt wasteland where only predators exist.....well until, through lack of prey, they start eating each other!

Where will the likes of Packham, Avery, PETA, lacs be then? They will have disappeared so they don't have to answer for their illconcieved crusade to consign live quarry shooting/shooting for sport to the history books!

I would think it would revert to pretty much as it was before shooting for sport became popular. 

Prior to shooting live quarry for sport on the estates of the landed gentry I would imagine all manner of species thrived.

However, we are where we are today, and shouldn't be held responsible for the actions of our ancestors, but we have to remember that they persecuted all manner of predatory species for the benefit of game species. I seriously doubt conservation played a role in it anywhere.

There is a lot of conservation attached to the way we go about it nowadays however, but we're doing it for exactly the same reasons as our ancestors. We have inherited a universally popular sport from them, but also inherited the universal stigma which goes with it.

We cannot deny we're only doing it for one reason, but personally I can't see anything wrong with this as long as all that we shoot is used. I genuinely can't see the difference between me shooting a pheasant because I enjoy it, and then eating it, and Avery eating a lamb chop because he enjoys it. Both were killed for personal satisfaction.

 

Edited June 2, 2019 by Scully

[pigeon controller]

Not to divert this subject but to add my observations:-

My wife has a theory, we are aware of a piece of text, " The Meak Shall Inherited the Earth" by this she indicates that minority groups seem to be able influence and institute change over larger groups.

The women's Institute is one of the largest political lobbyist in the country and fails to get things changed.

If I can quote my own expiriences. My father bought my first gun at circa eleven, I had used his before . This allowed me to shoot the rats in the chicken pens at the bottom of the garden along with both my neighbours. My father who was a Police Officer would " bump" rabbits while on duty with the Police car these would be eaten, when I was fourteen I would breed rabbits and sell for food at Henly Market. In my late teens I would catch eels and sell. School holidays would be spent at my Grand  Parents in a Staffordshire mining town catching rabbits for food. 

When I retired early my wife who is still in the W.I. had requests from her older members for rabbits and pigeons.

The point I'm trying to make is that the current generation have  grown up in a land of plenty with respect of food. Younger members of this forum who eat from the field are in the minority in the overall society. I would imagine with the dramatic closure of the mining industry forced people to look other ways of feeding families.  It's my opinion that the majority of younger people do not prepare food but buy it processed or cooked. 

If you go onto the high street and show people the process of " Game Shooting" eggs or poults to shot bird buried they would  all ban it. Can we not offer the shot birds to food banks etc.

In modern society guns are associated with war and lawbreakers, my wife recently carried out jury service and the drug baron told all his dealers they should be armed due to turf wars.

The reason for this rant is that in my opinion the silent majority just seem to let thing happen and the minorities rule.