Unlawful changes to England gamebird release licence challenged by BASC

[Rewulf]

19 hours ago, Terry2016 said:

Its always amuses me how many users here comment on BASC saying what they are doing is wrong, and yet are not members, the ironic thing is that all of those non members will still reap the rewards of the work undertaken by BASC. 

Oh dear.
By that measure we can only criticise BASC if we are members then ?
Can you not criticise the government publicly unless you are a member of the tory party ?
Last time I checked , this was a free country , with free speech, and if I see something that I think is damaging to my sport, I will say something.

But lets talk about these 'rewards' that BASC has 'given' us.

20 hours ago, Terry2016 said:

1, Pigeon shooting, Back in 2020 when the GL was revoked, BASC got hem turned around and now we are all still using this licence to control woodpigeons.

Wrong.
BASC didnt turn anything round, it voiced its concerns, turned itself into an interested party, and let the government bodies like Natural England and DEFRA undo the mess they had created with poorly worded legal documents that WJ exploited.
Its all here https://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/CBP-8727/CBP-8727.pdf

Interestingly , sec 17 mentions the issue of protected sites, an issue that has reared its head this year, and something that BASC 'Never saw coming' despite knowing that WJ were going to challenge this for 4 YEARS.
The fact that BASC insinuated it had 'got the licences back for you' doesnt make it true.

20 hours ago, Terry2016 said:

2, Wildfowling, BASC support many clubs and thousands of members to retain consent allowing them to go wildfowling 

Im sure they do great work for wildfowlers, as long as youre a member, this is why most fowling clubs make BASC membership compulsory.

20 hours ago, Terry2016 said:

3, Young shots and Ladies days - BASC lead the way in providing opportunities for literally thousands of people introducing the to shooting each year.

Another good thing they do , as long as you pay for it , and BASC are given the opportunity to get you to join.

20 hours ago, Terry2016 said:

4, BASC have challenged the restrictions/ban on the use of lead ammunition for all outdoor shooting presented by the HSE. 

They challenged them have they 
They proposed them, when there was no need to do so, or as someone said , they were coming anyway, so we proposed them ?

Yet when challenged if they knew they were coming ... a month later, they said they had no idea they were coming ....

BASC set its stall out on lead at the start, and lead WILL be banned within the next 2-3 years, with all the calamity that will cause for sporting shooters, and they can 'challenge' that all they like, it will do as much good as challenging the doctors letter fiasco , or the gamebird release near protected sites, lost causes.

20 hours ago, Terry2016 said:

I'm not quite sure why you think 22lr and airguing will disappear?  and when will the price of cartridges double ? and more to the point why ? 

At the moment , there is no viable alternative to lead in either, quite simple really.

Lead free carts will go up in price as demand drops, again , simple to see, steel carts are already more expensive than lead, just like the less bought 410 and 20 gauge ect.

Mass production keeps prices down, and as manufacturers either turn to steel , or not, many shooters will give up due to this and other factors.
Less people shooting means less carts bought overall, meaning prices will go up.

16 hours ago, Conor O'Gorman said:

BASC fights for shooting wherever and whenever the threats arise. 

BASC fights for the shooting that it favours, when it feels like it, and wont hit their finances too hard.
To project anything different , is fantasy.

16 hours ago, Conor O'Gorman said:

Those within our community that use social media to put down BASC with unwarranted and misinformed attacks are doing the antis work for them and it would be so much better if that keyboard time was used to protect and promote shooting instead.

Youve taken this approach, of calling those who ask embarrassing questions of BASC,  the enemy, when nothing is further from the truth.
Its a weak method of censorship, using derogatory and inaccurate terms to stifle any criticism, it wont work unless you can dispel what is being said about your company using facts.
Facts that you seem unwilling to provide.

And as far as antis go , they are running rings around you at the moment.

[Gordon R]

Rewulf - good post.

[Conor O'Gorman]

@Rewulf you are wrong again on every point you make, and well you know it. It's a pity and wasted opportunity for you to be a positive influence when instead you continue to use this forum to put down BASC.

For others reading this suggest a read of BASC's 2022 annual review which shows the diversity of work the Association carries out to protect and promote shooting:

Click here for BASC 2022 annual review

[Rewulf]

1 minute ago, Conor O'Gorman said:

@Rewulf you are wrong again on every point you make, and well you know it. It's a pity and wasted opportunity for you to be a positive influence when instead you continue to use this forum to put down BASC.

Again, no facts to back up your assertions, telling someone they are wrong, without telling them why, does not a truth make.

How much is in the fighting fund for when you take DEFRA to court over the game bird release debacle ?

How are you going to fight the HSE over lead , when you have decried lead as toxic ?

Ill fight WITH BASC , when BASC become transparent and honest with the shooting public.

[PeterHenry]

59 minutes ago, Rewulf said:

Again, no facts to back up your assertions, telling someone they are wrong, without telling them why, does not a truth make.

How much is in the fighting fund for when you take DEFRA to court over the game bird release debacle ?

How are you going to fight the HSE over lead , when you have decried lead as toxic ?

Ill fight WITH BASC , when BASC become transparent and honest with the shooting public.

Do you seriously expect an organisation to divulge the amount of money they are willing spend on a court case? Because unless I was mistaken, that seems to be the direction your question was going.

Do you have any idea how much can be inferred from that information? It would likely amount to a massive waiver of legal privilege and put BASC at a huge disadvantage regarding the potential legal challenge - and all to satisfy your curiosity?

I don't want to jump to conclusions, but it rather fits with the narrative that you would prefer to bash BASC than work proactively for the good of shooting....

[Penelope]

2 hours ago, Gordon R said:

Rewulf - good post.

Ditto!

[Rewulf]

16 minutes ago, PeterHenry said:

Do you seriously expect an organisation to divulge the amount of money they are willing spend on a court case? Because unless I was mistaken, that seems to be the direction your question was going.

Thats not the question I asked is it ?
I asked how much was in the fighting fund at the moment, not the unanswerable question of how much they are willing to spend on a theoretical court case.
If truth be told, I dont think theyre willing to spend ANYTHING on a court case they know they have no chance of winning, they just think that threats of litigation will cause DEFRA to buckle.
If you study the background to the release near protected areas issue, its been brewing for years, and is technically unwinnable.

 

19 minutes ago, PeterHenry said:

I don't want to jump to conclusions, but it rather fits with the narrative that you would prefer to bash BASC than work proactively for the good of shooting....

I work for the good of shooting nearly every day thanks.
If I thought BASC was on that page , I would support them, but it seems very clear to me, and many others, BASC have very limited interest outside of their own bubble.

[PeterHenry]

21 minutes ago, Rewulf said:

Thats not the question I asked is it ?
I asked how much was in the fighting fund at the moment, not the unanswerable question of how much they are willing to spend on a theoretical court case.
If truth be told, I dont think theyre willing to spend ANYTHING on a court case they know they have no chance of winning, they just think that threats of litigation will cause DEFRA to buckle.
If you study the background to the release near protected areas issue, its been brewing for years, and is technically unwinnable.

And that's why I asked for clarification - because as I said before, that seemed to be the way your question was going. Apologies if it was not.

I've got to say, I haven't studied it, but I would love an explanation as to why its unwinnable - backed up to the same standard, and with all appropriate authorities, that you would of course expect BASC to furnish if you asked them.

21 minutes ago, Rewulf said:

 

I work for the good of shooting nearly every day thanks.
If I thought BASC was on that page , I would support them, but it seems very clear to me, and many others, BASC have very limited interest outside of their own bubble.

That's good to know - I wish you every success in your efforts.

Edited June 26, 2023 by PeterHenry

[Rewulf]

40 minutes ago, PeterHenry said:

I've got to say, I haven't studied it, but I would love an explanation as to why its unwinnable

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/defra-responds-to-wild-justice-challenge-releasing-gamebirds-on-protected-sites

Have a read of this, where in the opening line DEFRA says it going to review game bird release near protected sites.

This link sets out why , when there is risk of avian flu, DEFRA has to act on behalf of protected sites, they would be found legally negligent if they didnt , and WJ are already on there case about it. https://www.countytimes.co.uk/news/23065333.letter---pheasants-main-culprits-spreading-avian-flu/

This is why the case is unwinnable , DEFRA has to act , or its breaking its own rules and guidelines, as well as environmental law.
BASC know this , yet are trying to make as much noise as possible , to pacify those that are going to get their game seasons obstructed, that BASC did 'something'

45 minutes ago, PeterHenry said:

That's good to know - I wish you every success in your efforts.

Thank you, the more people who shoot, the bigger voice we have. 

[PeterHenry]

39 minutes ago, Rewulf said:

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/defra-responds-to-wild-justice-challenge-releasing-gamebirds-on-protected-sites

Have a read of this, where in the opening line DEFRA says it going to review game bird release near protected sites.

This link sets out why , when there is risk of avian flu, DEFRA has to act on behalf of protected sites, they would be found legally negligent if they didnt , and WJ are already on there case about it. https://www.countytimes.co.uk/news/23065333.letter---pheasants-main-culprits-spreading-avian-flu/

This is why the case is unwinnable , DEFRA has to act , or its breaking its own rules and guidelines, as well as environmental law.
BASC know this , yet are trying to make as much noise as possible , to pacify those that are going to get their game seasons obstructed, that BASC did 'something'

 

That's very helpful

But reading this - https://basc.org.uk/basc-to-commence-legal-challenge-against-defra/ - it looks like BASC are going to go at a Judicial Review from a procedural perspective, which would criticise the way the decision was / is reached, but not the the outcome. So if BASC were successful, DEFRA would have to do the whole thing again paying greater head to evidence and with greater stakeholder involvement - the second of which I think BASC are banking on being the tool to take the edge off the final outcome - which as you say, DEFRA looks to be legaly obliged to implement in some form or another, but the final form of is not entirely pinned down.

Edited June 26, 2023 by PeterHenry

[Rewulf]

11 minutes ago, PeterHenry said:

it looks like BASC are going to go at a Judicial Review from a procedural perspective, which would criticise the way the decision was / is reached, but not the the outcome.

Lets look at it from the perspective of BASCs statement.

'BASC has previously branded as ‘chaotic’ the move by Defra to ban releasing of pheasants and partridges in and around Special Protected Areas (SPAs) and said its actions have threatened jobs and business at a critical point in the rural calendar.'

The opinion of BASC that the move by DEFRA was 'chaotic' is irrelevant, it is just that, an opinion.
WJ had already launched its legal challenge on game bird release, and with the avian flu issue, DEFRA needed to act fast.
It was very inconvenient that it came at such a time in the game shooting calendar, but to use that in a legal challenge, when in reality , both BASC and the game shooting community, should have known this was coming imminently anyway, and taken steps to adjust releases accordingly if possible.
There appears to be a certain amount of arrogance that it either wouldnt happen , or, that any issues would be resolved forthwith.

 

''BASC has written to ministers and other key political figures and urged Defra to immediately reinstate GL43 so that clarity and reassurance is given to shoot managers who need to release birds in the weeks ahead.

BASC’s ‘Fighting Fund’ will be used to financially support any High Court challenge to Defra’s behaviour.'

Asking , nay , threatening DEFRA to reinstate GL43 , when it clearly cannot without breaking the law, is again , arrogance, and pointless.

The sad part is that , I believe BASC and DEFRA had a good relationship up till this point, and perhaps they still do , if all this talk of litigation is, as I believe , smoke and mirrors?

[London Best]

Perhaps @Rewulf could enlighten us as to exactly which “bubble” he operates in, and would therefore like protecting?

[PeterHenry]

21 minutes ago, Rewulf said:

Lets look at it from the perspective of BASCs statement.

'BASC has previously branded as ‘chaotic’ the move by Defra to ban releasing of pheasants and partridges in and around Special Protected Areas (SPAs) and said its actions have threatened jobs and business at a critical point in the rural calendar.'

The opinion of BASC that the move by DEFRA was 'chaotic' is irrelevant, it is just that, an opinion.
WJ had already launched its legal challenge on game bird release, and with the avian flu issue, DEFRA needed to act fast.
It was very inconvenient that it came at such a time in the game shooting calendar, but to use that in a legal challenge, when in reality , both BASC and the game shooting community, should have known this was coming imminently anyway, and taken steps to adjust releases accordingly if possible.
There appears to be a certain amount of arrogance that it either wouldnt happen , or, that any issues would be resolved forthwith.

 

''BASC has written to ministers and other key political figures and urged Defra to immediately reinstate GL43 so that clarity and reassurance is given to shoot managers who need to release birds in the weeks ahead.

BASC’s ‘Fighting Fund’ will be used to financially support any High Court challenge to Defra’s behaviour.'

Asking , nay , threatening DEFRA to reinstate GL43 , when it clearly cannot without breaking the law, is again , arrogance, and pointless.

The sad part is that , I believe BASC and DEFRA had a good relationship up till this point, and perhaps they still do , if all this talk of litigation is, as I believe , smoke and mirrors?

 

But if you read the letter to the Secretary of State in your first link, it doesn't mention the words chaos or chaotic. So working from that alone, I would imagine that word has been chosen for the purpose of preaching to the converted / dramatic copy. But your point about shoots being pig headed or needing to plan ahead could be mitigated (and again, I haven't read into this so i'm just relying on background knowledge of the way these thing's tend to go) by BASC's arguments about stakeholder involvement and evidence. As I said before, DEFRA may have an obligation to do something, but how it chooses to do it is not set in stone. Likewise, its not unreasonable for BASC to argue for a reversion to the previous GL while DEFRA sort this out. All of this is entirely consistent with the line being persued by BASC.

[Rewulf]

4 minutes ago, London Best said:

Perhaps @Rewulf could enlighten us as to exactly which “bubble” he operates in, and would therefore like protecting?

You show me yours and Ill show you mine 

I enjoy a large spectrum of shooting sports and pest control, I help to run two target clubs, and participate in several more, and frequently visit many of the different clay clubs around Nottinghamshire, licenced badger control, DSC1 and police liason for my clubs, I am active in my 'bubble' 

BASCs bubble seems to be game shooting.

The biggest threat to shooting sports at this time , is NOT the fact that some shoots will not be able to release birds near to protected sites legally, yet BASC seems rather incensed by this.
The larger threats are adjustment to the firearms act , and the impending lead ban.

9 minutes ago, PeterHenry said:

As I said before, DEFRA may have an obligation to do something, but how it chooses to do it is not set in stone.

Im afraid legally , it is.

They can lose against WJ again, and take the publicity hit , or act first, hurting the game shoots that should really have complied anyway.
One could ask why BASC didnt advise the game shoots to do just that , over the previous 4 years ?

[PeterHenry]

15 minutes ago, Rewulf said:

Im afraid legally , it is.

They can lose against WJ again, and take the publicity hit , or act first, hurting the game shoots that should really have complied anyway.
One could ask why BASC didnt advise the game shoots to do just that , over the previous 4 years ?

Can you point me to that law? Because at this point I still strongly suspect that DEFRA has some degree of discretion about how this is implemented. They may not have a choice in as far as they have to do something to some specific end, but there are numerous ways to skin a cat - and if they are skinning the cat in an unreasonable fashion, they can be challenged and made to re-appraise 

Edited June 26, 2023 by PeterHenry

[Rewulf]

2 minutes ago, PeterHenry said:

Can you point me to that law? Because at this point I still strongly suspect that DEFRA has some degree of discretion about how this is implemented.

Im sure they do , DEFRA makes law regarding such matters, but they have to be seen to be implementing these 'laws' which are bound by environmental guidelines.
Releasing gamebirds with a high risk of avian flu , near to protected sites , with protected species vulnerable, would make a mockery of the laws they themselves have promised to implement and enforce.
Groups like WJ are constantly hovering making sure of this , and will hold them to (legal) account if they dont.

BASC can protest as much as they like , but they are onto a loser here.

[PeterHenry]

1 minute ago, Rewulf said:

Im sure they do , DEFRA makes law regarding such matters, but they have to be seen to be implementing these 'laws' which are bound by environmental guidelines.
Releasing gamebirds with a high risk of avian flu , near to protected sites , with protected species vulnerable, would make a mockery of the laws they themselves have promised to implement and enforce.
Groups like WJ are constantly hovering making sure of this , and will hold them to (legal) account if they dont.

BASC can protest as much as they like , but they are onto a loser here.

Parliament makes laws, DEFRA can pass secondly legislation in certain proscribed instances.

But, those are still open to challenge by Judicial Review on the grounds of illegality, irrationality and procedural unfairness. I suspect BASC will be going mainly for the third. 

Regardless of what DEFRA have to implement, it has to be implemented properly and with due process. Its not an Imperial Court we're talking about.

[Rewulf]

2 minutes ago, PeterHenry said:

Parliament makes laws, DEFRA can pass secondly legislation in certain proscribed instances.

Which is exactly what has happened here, they have suspended GL 43 for the reasons mentioned, it didnt go through parliament beforehand , but if it had , do you think the outcome would have been different ?

 

4 minutes ago, PeterHenry said:

But, those are still open to challenge by Judicial Review on the grounds of illegality, irrationality and procedural unfairness. I suspect BASC will be going mainly for the third. 

I suspect you are correct, however , the illegality, and possibly irrationality of continuing with GL 43 over the risk of avian flu, will negate any overturning of the ruling.
If BASC want to go for it, knowing the likely outcome, and wasting members money, thats up to them.

 

9 minutes ago, PeterHenry said:

Regardless of what DEFRA have to implement, it has to be implemented properly and with due process. Its not an Imperial Court we're talking about.

The due process of review has been happening over the past 4 years, DEFRA published that it was so, 'implemented properly' would take second place to the projected damage not implementing it at all or too late would do.

[Rewulf]

This piece was published 2 weeks ago.
BASC tried to cajole/threaten DEFRA into backtracking, and failed.
They are now saying that they will go forward legally 'As soon as possible' but with the end result being that those affected by the restriction will miss this season, unless of course , they break the law , or apply for individual licences.

 

[PeterHenry]

3 minutes ago, Rewulf said:

Which is exactly what has happened here, they have suspended GL 43 for the reasons mentioned, it didnt go through parliament beforehand , but if it had , do you think the outcome would have been different ?

Sure, my mistake for not picking up on this earlier - but a GL 43 isn't legislation. It's issued under the powers granted to the Secretary of State under section 16(4) and 16(5) of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. 

3 minutes ago, Rewulf said:

I suspect you are correct, however , the illegality, and possibly irrationality of continuing with GL 43 over the risk of avian flu, will negate any overturning of the ruling.
If BASC want to go for it, knowing the likely outcome, and wasting members money, thats up to them.

If something is found to be substantively wrong iby a Judicial Review in the way a decision, etc is implemented - it has to be redone. Substantive and Reasonable are the key words to keep in mind. I would suggest that if major stakeholders haven't been consulted (and there is a legal obligation to consult) and the decision is not evidence lead - both of which BASC have suggested is the case - that counts as substantive issues with an unreasonable decision as a result.

3 minutes ago, Rewulf said:

The due process of review has been happening over the past 4 years, DEFRA published that it was so, 'implemented properly' would take second place to the projected damage not implementing it at all or too late would do.

As above.

--------------------------

I know you feel strongly about this - and its now got to the stage where we are largely repeating ourselves. So - I've set out my stall, and I'm going to leave it here.

We have had similar discussions before, and I take my hat off to you for the effort you put into shooting sports - but this is not currently a productive way to discuss anything.

[Rewulf]

1 minute ago, PeterHenry said:

I know you feel strongly about this - and its now got to the stage where we are largely repeating ourselves. So - I've set out my stall, and I'm going to leave it here.

We have had similar discussions before, and I take my hat off to you for the effort you put into shooting sports - but this is not currently a productive way to discuss anything.

I tend to do this because others may not be aware of the details and facts regarding the topic.
There is a reason for why this has happened, if we just listen to BASC , then one would believe that DEFRA is just being nasty and unreasonable, and they should back down to BASC right now, or else !

Again, DEFRA coming up with the restriction without consultation, and so quickly, seems unreasonable (reminds me of what BASC did with the voluntary phase out) in principle, but Im sure they had good reason , and didnt do it out of spite.
The fact remains, a judicial review, IF it happens, wont come quick enough to save those affected this year, which makes you wonder if theres any point ?

[London Best]

1 hour ago, Rewulf said:

 

I enjoy a large spectrum of shooting sports and pest control, I help to run two target clubs, and participate in several more, and frequently visit many of the different clay clubs around Nottinghamshire, licenced badger control, DSC1 and police liason for my clubs, I am active in my 'bubble' 

BASCs bubble seems to be game shooting.

 

I do not think BASC’s bubble is particularly game shooting. 
But what it is is live quarry shooting, including pest control. 
I do not think that includes target clubs and clay clubs.

Edited June 26, 2023 by London Best

[Gordon R]

Rewulf - whilst some might not like or agree with what you post, I don't see anything which negates what you say.

[Rewulf]

25 minutes ago, Gordon R said:

Rewulf - whilst some might not like or agree with what you post, I don't see anything which negates what you say.

Thank you Gordon. 

[jall25]

I say again - BASC had been great with us and our shoot

We are not even in BASC

 

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

 

Had BASC made mistakes - well who hasnt ?

 

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

 

Are there things i would do different - sure there are - but i raise the issues with Conor or Murray and they give their view - we dont always agree.

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.