Unlawful changes to England gamebird release licence challenged by BASC

[Rewulf]

33 minutes ago, jall25 said:

BASC also support GWCT which cant be bad

BASC have young shots and ladies day - not many others organise such

BASC help get people in to stalking and wildfowling which are not the easiest of routes 

BASC was great with us during Covid and i know helped many other shoots too - with plans to make sure we all operated within the law and more importantly everyone was kept and felt safe

BASC has engaged with our shoot with some conservation  measures - Bird boxes and duck tubes

34 minutes ago, jall25 said:

I feel they are listening to us but most importantly trying their absolute best

None of this is in dispute, BASC can be helpful, and I do believe their heart is in the right place.

 

35 minutes ago, jall25 said:

All i would say is try and engage with them and get over some of the old issues - or just leave it be and let the rest of us do so.

This is the problem, they arent old issues, they are current and future issues.

Ridiculous advice handed out over the doctors note fiasco, which caused many shooters to just not bother renewing, or made a mess of their renewals.

Removing the legal cover so they could 'save' a million pounds a year and put it instead into the 'fighting fund' , hence the reason I keep asking how many millions there is(nt)  in this fund.

BASCs 'voluntary phase out, without any membership vote or consultation, has created a domino effect that will be cataclysmic for shooting in this country, was a lead ban coming anyway as some point out ? Well it is now.
BASC has set its position out with former members of LAG (and honoured them)  , who it fought so hard against nearly 10 years ago 'Our position changed' Why ?

Plus all the stuff mentioned in this thread, where BASC should have seen this issue coming years ago , and advised shoots to prepare accordingly, now its DEFRAs fault for not asking them first !
Lets just see if they really do take this to court, I dont think they will, as its all bluster, and they know they cant win

[Conor O'Gorman]

@Rewulf it is disappointing to see dozens more misinformed comments from you presenting your views as fact. All wrong, and well you know it. 

This is a thread about a real issue affecting real people and BASC is on the frontline helping impacted shoots and those they employ.

And you do a disservice to yourself and to all the people affected and being helped by BASC staff across England to call into question our integrity with your comments about transparency and honesty. 

[Rewulf]

20 minutes ago, Conor O'Gorman said:

it is disappointing to see dozens more misinformed comments from you presenting your views as fact. All wrong, and well you know it. 

Again Conor, you seem to want to call it misinformed, yet dont feel the need to put me right, using actual facts.
Tell me the bits Ive got wrong.

21 minutes ago, Conor O'Gorman said:

This is a thread about a real issue affecting real people and BASC is on the frontline helping impacted shoots and those they employ.

It is a real issue, but why didnt BASC help these people before the problem manifested itself, youve known it was coming for 4 YEARS !

21 minutes ago, Conor O'Gorman said:

And you do a disservice to yourself and to all the people affected and being helped by BASC staff across England to call into question our integrity with your comments about transparency and honesty. 

Weve been down the transparency route before, where after 3 months of asking , you still cant tell the forum , or your members how much youve put in the fighting fund.
Does this not call into question a matter of honesty ?
You do a disservice to your members by not consulting them on a direction (lead) that not only affects them , but all shooters.
You do a disservice to your members by pulling the legal cover at short notice, with no adjustment of membership cost.
And you did a disservice to your members by advising them not to pay the doctors fee, leaving many high and dry without a licence.
For these 'disservices' BASC has never apologised.

[Gordon R]

Conor O'Gorman - Your answers seem generalised. Perhaps you could supply specifics, to refute what Rewulf has posted.

[Conor O'Gorman]

@Gordon R 

As you well know, having yourself been involved in similar exchanges earlier this year, every answer results in the questions then multiplying at pace and mixed in with a multitude of views presented as fact. It's not a productive use of anyone's time. I twice offered to speak with  @Rewulf back in March to discuss the multitude of issues he was raising - the offer has yet to be taken up.

My next comment in this thread, should it remain open, will be an update on GL43 and gamebird releasing.

[Rewulf]

5 minutes ago, Conor O'Gorman said:

As you well know, having yourself been involved in similar exchanges earlier this year, every answer results in the questions then multiplying at pace and mixed in with a multitude of views presented as fact.

What answers ? You didnt give any , you ducked and dived over the specific question I asked, and still are.

6 minutes ago, Conor O'Gorman said:

I twice offered to speak with  @Rewulf back in March to discuss the multitude of issues he was raising - the offer has yet to be taken up.

And I told you why I ddnt want a private conversation, I want it in the public domain , here on PW.
But for some reason , you dont seem willing to do that.

[Gordon R]

Conor O'Gorman - I would be more impressed if you just dealt with the matters raised in the last couple of posts.

These have been raised on a public forum and should be dealt with on here. With private conversations, there is no record of what was said and recollections might vary.

Refusing to address the points raised by Rewulf might indicate that he is correct. I will draw my own conclusion.

 

[harkom]

REWULF has hit the nail on the head regarding BSAC shortcomings in forward planning and cosying up to conservation ( aka anti-fieldsport ) organisations. The latter approach by bsac heads is not just a recent phenomenon . This approach was also adopted by  WAGBI in previous years - albeit their adversaries in those days had not got such a foothold in the bureaucracy and associated quangos. A "gentleman's approach" was the modus operandi of that day. So what at that time was considered as a reasonable "amicable" approach in discussing and reaching "agreements"  has persisted, without subsequently making cognisance of the change in stance of all these bodies - National Trust, Local Government bodies,NE, RSPB, WWT...the list goes on and on.... latterly predominantly anti- bloodsport in any shape or form.

Some of bsac hierarchy even sat on committees with these people so must have had some inkling of their agenda.

Now COG can repudiate this interminably but his awareness of the history of bsac is very obviously limited. He should go back and read a lot of the editorials in Shooting Times through the 'fifties, sixties and seventies  then come back and try to explain away bsac failings to the membership with longer memory and to the current readers.

[Conor O'Gorman]

Gamekeepers are facing ruin after a last-minute change to licences left more than 200 shoots under threat. Some gamekeepers have already lost their jobs and others face redundancy as shoots that have been running for more than a hundred years face closure. Read the article below from The Telegraph with comments from some of the shoots impacted.

Gamekeepers face ruin after last-minute change to licences

[grahamch]

20 hours ago, Rewulf said:

Again Conor, you seem to want to call it misinformed, yet dont feel the need to put me right, using actual facts.
Tell me the bits Ive got wrong.

It is a real issue, but why didnt BASC help these people before the problem manifested itself, youve known it was coming for 4 YEARS !

Weve been down the transparency route before, where after 3 months of asking , you still cant tell the forum , or your members how much youve put in the fighting fund.
Does this not call into question a matter of honesty ?
You do a disservice to your members by not consulting them on a direction (lead) that not only affects them , but all shooters.
You do a disservice to your members by pulling the legal cover at short notice, with no adjustment of membership cost.
And you did a disservice to your members by advising them not to pay the doctors fee, leaving many high and dry without a licence.
For these 'disservices' BASC has never apologised.

you are great at bashing the BASC but have little positive to say about anything, the last thing shooting sports need at the moment are numpties picking fault for the sake of it.

 

[Gordon R]

Quote

the last thing shooting sports need at the moment are numpties picking fault for the sake of it.

Perhaps you could take a step back then.

[Rewulf]

1 hour ago, grahamch said:

you are great at bashing the BASC but have little positive to say about anything, the last thing shooting sports need at the moment are numpties picking fault for the sake of it.

 

Perhaps you can do better than Conor, and tell me where I'm wrong? 

It's all very well giving out personal attacks, because you don't agree with me, but try looking at some facts, and not BASC 'facts' 

Take for example, the title of this thread. BASC  describe DEFRA move as 'unlawful', is this a fact? Has DEFRA  who draft and administer government laws and guidance on rural and environmental issues, broken the law? I doubt it. 

But we'll see won't we, when BASC take them to court, reverse all this baloney and claim all their costs back? 

Or, err... Not. 

[Gas seal]

Hi the Secretary of State can modify or revoke the General Licences at any time. The Secretary of State must have good reasons to do so. If bird flu is the reason for not releasing the birds Commercial shoots should claim compensation or be insured for any loss. I use GL42 before using it I look at the website to see if it has been updated or revoked, I am insured when using it.

[Gordon R]

Quote

If bird flu is the reason for not releasing the birds Commercial shoots should claim compensation or be insured for any loss.

Is there a facility to get compensation from the Government?

Are shoots normally insured against DEFRA  no longer authorising them under the general licence in England, due to a risk of released birds spreading avian influenza to wild birds?

[Gas seal]

The government paid out 42 million pounds to poultry breeders to kill non infected birds . Game birds are not wild birds until released. I doubt if shoots would normally be insured against releasing birds regarding bird flu but we now need a licence to release birds and opposition against releasing birds into the environment because of bird flu. I don’t know if this will effect the release of mallard I would have thought wildfowl would be the first birds to be stopped from being released. 

[Gordon R]

Quote

BASC chief executive Ian Bell said: “On the ground, it is obvious that shoot managers and gamekeepers are in limbo. They cannot release or cull gamebirds. 

This would seem at odds with what happened to the poultry farmers.

[PeterHenry]

4 minutes ago, Gordon R said:

This would seem at odds with what happened to the poultry farmers.

Unless perhaps its the designation of 'Game Bird' that's the issue? No idea if that's is the case or not, but on the face of it, that would seem to be the major distinction between kept poultry and kept pheasants / partridges.

[Gordon R]

That is why I queried the compensation aspect.

[Gas seal]

Hi yes is it  (game bird) or livestock or poultry or non native species. Are game birds covered by the wildlife and countryside act or 1800s laws. I’m not a game shooter and I never knew how many game birds where released each year are all these birds not released because they will spread avian flu or catch avian flu. 

[scolopax]

4 hours ago, Gas seal said:

Hi the Secretary of State can modify or revoke the General Licences at any time. The Secretary of State must have good reasons to do so. If bird flu is the reason for not releasing the birds Commercial shoots should claim compensation or be insured for any loss. I use GL42 before using it I look at the website to see if it has been updated or revoked, I am insured when using it.

All I know is a lot of game keepers jobs are at risk, I doubt they will receive any compensation, just there P45’s.

[PeterHenry]

3 hours ago, Gordon R said:

That is why I queried the compensation aspect.

Apologies - I was reading in a hurry 👍

Edited June 28, 2023 by PeterHenry

[Gas seal]

Any employee should receive compensation depending upon the time employed the same as  many  people in my town have had their P45 over the years though no fault of their own. If the game keepers are given there P45s who will look after the game birds/ livestock/ poultry. At the moment the priority would be a market for the birds as soon as possible. The shooting industry seems to wait and see what happens instead of looking ahead.

[Rewulf]

9 hours ago, Gas seal said:

The shooting industry seems to wait and see what happens instead of looking ahead

This. 

As I've said repeatedly, DEFRA announced in 2019 it was going to review game bird release near to protected sites, because of legal issues, and possible bird flu. 

Now we have a 500m exclusion zone, that 'no one saw coming' and is 'unlawful' according to BASC. 

Perhaps shooting orgs need to better advise game shoots on the risks of legal issues such as this, and not pretend that country sports are invulnerable to challenge, and law changes. 

[Conor O'Gorman]

@Rewulf there have been regular updates on GL43 in this thread since 17 May and yet still you persist in publishing misinformation about this policy issue and about BASC. Please read the information provided in the link below. I find it hard to believe that you cannot read and understand the information that has been provided. If you continue to publish misinformation on this issue one can only assume that you are doing so deliberately.

GL43 - what you need to know

Edited June 29, 2023 by Conor O'Gorman

[Rewulf]

1 hour ago, Conor O'Gorman said:

@Rewulf there have been regular updates on GL43 in this thread since 17 May and yet still you persist in publishing misinformation about this policy issue and about BASC. Please read the information provided in the link below. I find it hard to believe that you cannot read and understand the information that has been provided. If you continue to publish misinformation on this issue one can only assume that you are doing so deliberately.

GL43 - what you need to know

What are on about Conor? Your own 'guidelines' clearly state the issue of releasing more than 50 birds near a protected area, and that DEFRA CAN and WILL put a stop notice out if there is a risk to these areas, in this case, avian flu. 

So why are they behaving unlawfully, and how am I 'deliberately' spreading misinformation? Your link says its under review, as I stated, it also states they can do what they've DONE legally. Maybe BASC aren't happy about, some shoots aren't happy about it, but where have they acted unlawfully. 

Read your own link, and tell me where I'm wrong... Or not. 

And stop trying to paint me as some kind of anti, it's not the case at all. 

Good luck with the court case BTW...