BASC sustainable shooting guide - bag limits

[nic]

Is it meant to mail every member every time it does or says anything?

it has a committee to oversee how it runs and in what direction...... you can vote on who is on that committee.   most cannot be bothered so people are elected on very few votes.... ( just like a general election). there is a wildfowl liaison committee that has a role specific to fowling.

If they had to contact the membership every time and wait for people to bother to get back, they would never do or publish anything.

[Keith 66]

On 08/03/2024 at 19:29, scolopax said:

A lot of shooters I hate to say have no knowledge of how out various wild quarry species are faring. 
 

this guidance is just that, to let shooters know which species in particular are not doing well and providing suggestions of appropriate ‘harvest’ levels for some of those which are seeing declines.

I think that sadly you are right, Most have no idea what is going on species decline & NE rules & to be honest dont care. Any club sec or marsh warden who has done the new method of getting consent from NE will realise that wildfowling is in real peril of extinction. I have been ploughing through this recently & it is onerous.

What really gets my goat is that the ORNEC (List of operations requiring NE Consent) Runs for 28 specified operations the last 3 of which are (26 Use of vehicles or craft likely to damage or disturb the flora or fauna. (27 Recreational or other acivities likely to damage the flora & fauna, (28 Game & waterfowl management & hunting (wildfowling).

So in our area we have to contend with PWC's ripping in & out of the marshes, Paddleboarders by the score, Rowers, Sailors, Dog walkers, Commercial angling boats, one of which does a regular run scattering ashes for funerals & can be seen regularly ploughing up 7 down the creek under its 300hp diesel flat out,  Baitdiggers, Oyster pickers, Just over the water in Kent they have Mudlarks using hovercraft to access everywhere on the estuary for mudlarking on a fully commercial basis, this taking place from craft that are the noisiest & most disturbance causing method of transport known to man.

Technically all these things require consent, So why the hell do we have to suck it up & nobody else even knows or cares if their activity actually requires consent?

It is laughable.

[holloway]

21 minutes ago, Keith 66 said:

I think that sadly you are right, Most have no idea what is going on species decline & NE rules & to be honest dont care. Any club sec or marsh warden who has done the new method of getting consent from NE will realise that wildfowling is in real peril of extinction. I have been ploughing through this recently & it is onerous.

What really gets my goat is that the ORNEC (List of operations requiring NE Consent) Runs for 28 specified operations the last 3 of which are (26 Use of vehicles or craft likely to damage or disturb the flora or fauna. (27 Recreational or other acivities likely to damage the flora & fauna, (28 Game & waterfowl management & hunting (wildfowling).

So in our area we have to contend with PWC's ripping in & out of the marshes, Paddleboarders by the score, Rowers, Sailors, Dog walkers, Commercial angling boats, one of which does a regular run scattering ashes for funerals & can be seen regularly ploughing up 7 down the creek under its 300hp diesel flat out,  Baitdiggers, Oyster pickers, Just over the water in Kent they have Mudlarks using hovercraft to access everywhere on the estuary for mudlarking on a fully commercial basis, this taking place from craft that are the noisiest & most disturbance causing method of transport known to man.

Technically all these things require consent, So why the hell do we have to suck it up & nobody else even knows or cares if their activity actually requires consent?

It is laughable.

I fully understand your frustration, i believe that the other users should by law have requested consent for there activities but most  would not even know what you were talking about if you told them .Once you start to do things legally and follow guidelines you will be restricted ,one loses confidence that anyone is checking up on the rest .like you say laughable .

[scolopax]

1 hour ago, Keith 66 said:

I think that sadly you are right, Most have no idea what is going on species decline & NE rules & to be honest dont care. Any club sec or marsh warden who has done the new method of getting consent from NE will realise that wildfowling is in real peril of extinction. I have been ploughing through this recently & it is onerous.

What really gets my goat is that the ORNEC (List of operations requiring NE Consent) Runs for 28 specified operations the last 3 of which are (26 Use of vehicles or craft likely to damage or disturb the flora or fauna. (27 Recreational or other acivities likely to damage the flora & fauna, (28 Game & waterfowl management & hunting (wildfowling).

So in our area we have to contend with PWC's ripping in & out of the marshes, Paddleboarders by the score, Rowers, Sailors, Dog walkers, Commercial angling boats, one of which does a regular run scattering ashes for funerals & can be seen regularly ploughing up 7 down the creek under its 300hp diesel flat out,  Baitdiggers, Oyster pickers, Just over the water in Kent they have Mudlarks using hovercraft to access everywhere on the estuary for mudlarking on a fully commercial basis, this taking place from craft that are the noisiest & most disturbance causing method of transport known to man.

Technically all these things require consent, So why the hell do we have to suck it up & nobody else even knows or cares if their activity actually requires consent?

It is laughable.

it is simple. We are controlled because we are controllable. We have well organised distinct clubs, we try to follow the rules and are penalised for doing so.

[holloway]

24 minutes ago, scolopax said:

it is simple. We are controlled because we are controllable. We have well organised distinct clubs, we try to follow the rules and are penalised for doing so.

Very true.

[jall25]

On 28/02/2024 at 11:55, Poor Shot said:

It's general cover-all guidance but is reliant on self regulation. Self regulation has never been the strong point of commercially operating enterprises. I'm dead set against all forms of regulation and licensing as a whole but in this case it seems that those who are causing the most damage are those who are least restricted and monitored. 

It wouldn't be a bad thing for these one man band duck flighting operations to start signing up to a voluntary BASC accreditation scheme where their bags can be monitored and the beneficial work they claim to do to their lands can be verified. Much in the same way wildfowling clubs align themselves with BASC. 

Otherwise its just a lad with a quad throwing sacks of feed into a ditch and charging people £85 a evening to shoot anything that comes within range. It's not a good look for the sport. 

At least the bigger commercial pheasant and driven duck shoots are rearing and releasing their own game and can partially justify big bags rather than placing a huge burden on the wild populations of birds. 

 

Yes i get that - but nothing to stop you throwing 2 bags of food out and not shooting them ?

Sometimes - these enterprises can be a lifeline for many of the migratory species - and indeed some of them will have duck tubes - predator control procedures in place

No - one fits all really is it 

[banno]

On 28/02/2024 at 10:20, Poor Shot said:

That's a very valid point. What's the use in restricting bag numbers on the foreshore only for people to be running commercial enterprises a few miles inland feeding wild birds with unlimited bag numbers? 

I've grown very sick this year of some common users of the Giving up the Game' facebook page who are posting large bags of teal, widgeon etc for give away because paying clients have shot them and aren't interested in taking them home for the pot. How sustainable is that considering near the whole bag is made up of wild birds? 

This is the very reason I will never go on a big shoot again. At the end of the day people won't take the birds away. What's the point in shooting them if they won't eat them???

[Pushandpull]

"Damaging operations" require consent. However people who are not owners or occupiers are outwith NE control. we first had this on the Wash 50 years ago with an influx of bait-diggers. They were not an organised body, had no permission, and did as they pleased.

I do not see flight ponds as a lifeline for migratory waterfowl. They are "black holes" which destroy birds which are often shot "for fun" as antis put it. To take more than your fair share of a finite natural resource by baiting ponds might not be illegal (as it is in e.g. the USA) but it is surely immoral.

[jall25]

7 hours ago, Pushandpull said:

"Damaging operations" require consent. However people who are not owners or occupiers are outwith NE control. we first had this on the Wash 50 years ago with an influx of bait-diggers. They were not an organised body, had no permission, and did as they pleased.

I do not see flight ponds as a lifeline for migratory waterfowl. They are "black holes" which destroy birds which are often shot "for fun" as antis put it. To take more than your fair share of a finite natural resource by baiting ponds might not be illegal (as it is in e.g. the USA) but it is surely immoral.

How many would perish without these ponds i wonder ?

 

I have built over 30 ponds and certainly dont take more than i "put back" - by providing feed, shelter and predator control. I am not alone in my actions either 

Irresponsible - un-sportsmanlike people are just that - Think of the wildfowler shooting when it turns very cold - or shooting all day or too many days and disturbing the birds 

[Pushandpull]

jall25, your posts here and elsewhere show a praiseworthy philosophy. I will PM - perhaps this evening as I am off out now. By the way I have run a syndicate in my time as well as a club and life sciences were my trade. I am not going to post details of some of the abuses I have come across over the years as it damages our way of life nor get into whataboutery arguments on a public forum.

[jall25]

2 hours ago, Pushandpull said:

jall25, your posts here and elsewhere show a praiseworthy philosophy. I will PM - perhaps this evening as I am off out now. By the way I have run a syndicate in my time as well as a club and life sciences were my trade. I am not going to post details of some of the abuses I have come across over the years as it damages our way of life nor get into whataboutery arguments on a public forum.

👍

[Pushandpull]

Finally got in front of a computer - PM sent.

[jall25]

👍

[Conor O'Gorman]

A focus on BASC recommendations for a voluntary moratorium on shooting pochard and a voluntary bag limit for pintail:

https://www.shootinguk.co.uk/news/the-plight-of-british-pochard-and-pintail-149095/

[Keith 66]

Just received our new consent. Our Ne site officer really pulled the stops out for us, we have agreed a no shoot on pochard & limits on pintail not that we see many! Limits on mallard widgeon & teal were  not imposed but we felt it politic to set some anyway. Our marsh is so heavily overlooked by the public that we have to regard shooting there as a privelidge & have to seen to be sensible, One overshooting episode would see us history.

Well pleased!

[albifrons]

On 19/09/2024 at 13:02, Conor O'Gorman said:

A focus on BASC recommendations for a voluntary moratorium on shooting pochard and a voluntary bag limit for pintail:

https://www.shootinguk.co.uk/news/the-plight-of-british-pochard-and-pintail-149095/

Why is it that under NRW, we have had imposed upon us a total suspension of shooting Pintail, Shoveller, Pochard and a limit of 136 wigeon total per season in our South Wales estuary.

Our bag returns specifically regarding pintail take have been stable over a number of years, and observed numbers by myself and others show that there has been no decrease in numbers, and this last season I would say numbers have increased. I observed pintail and wigeon last year in our estuary on the 25th August. Yes population trends vary but if it’s acceptable for a two pintail take per outing UK club wide, surely BASC can argue the point to NRW that it is acceptable for Welsh clubs to do the same.

 

 

 

 

[Conor O'Gorman]

53 minutes ago, albifrons said:

Why is it that under NRW, we have had imposed upon us a total suspension of shooting Pintail, Shoveller, Pochard and a limit of 136 wigeon total per season in our South Wales estuary.

Our bag returns specifically regarding pintail take have been stable over a number of years, and observed numbers by myself and others show that there has been no decrease in numbers, and this last season I would say numbers have increased. I observed pintail and wigeon last year in our estuary on the 25th August. Yes population trends vary but if it’s acceptable for a two pintail take per outing UK club wide, surely BASC can argue the point to NRW that it is acceptable for Welsh clubs to do the same.

 

 

 

 

I will raise with colleagues in wildfowling team and come back to you on this.

[albifrons]

13 hours ago, Conor O'Gorman said:

I will raise with colleagues in wildfowling team and come back to you on this.

Thank you.

[Conor O'Gorman]

19 hours ago, albifrons said:

Why is it that under NRW, we have had imposed upon us a total suspension of shooting Pintail, Shoveller, Pochard and a limit of 136 wigeon total per season in our South Wales estuary.

Our bag returns specifically regarding pintail take have been stable over a number of years, and observed numbers by myself and others show that there has been no decrease in numbers, and this last season I would say numbers have increased. I observed pintail and wigeon last year in our estuary on the 25th August. Yes population trends vary but if it’s acceptable for a two pintail take per outing UK club wide, surely BASC can argue the point to NRW that it is acceptable for Welsh clubs to do the same.

I have had the following feedback to your question from Sarah Pinnell (Head of Land Management and Consenting) and James Green (Head of Wildfowl and Wetlands) which hopefully covers all aspects of your question:

There are several important aspects to consider regarding your question. To begin with, let’s look at the BASC Sustainable Shooting Code of Practice for wildfowl quarry species. This framework was created after a comprehensive review of all available data on each quarry species. The purpose is to guide responsible and sustainable shooting practices at a UK-wide level, not just for wildfowling clubs, but for anyone harvesting ducks, geese, waders, or rail species. This initiative has placed the shooting community in a stronger position to engage constructively with regulators and avoid blanket restrictions like those seen in the Republic of Ireland where four quarry species were removed from the list. Time will tell whether this approach fully succeeds, but it was a proactive strategy endorsed by BASC Council and guided by the BASC Wildfowling Liaison Committee.

Although the code applies to the whole shooting community, we are pleased to see that 57% of surveyed wildfowling clubs have already integrated these principles into their constitutions and rule books. This demonstrates a clear commitment to responsible and sustainable practices, offering invaluable evidence that wildfowlers are taking their stewardship seriously.

Now, addressing your specific concerns: whilst we can’t delve into the specifics of this case due to confidentiality, we can confirm that the conditions imposed by NRW were considered reasonable, based on the available evidence at the time. Had a similar assessment been made in England, the resulting restrictions could have been even more stringent. We recognise that this doesn’t provide much consolation for those affected, but it’s worth noting.

As for the club’s observation of stable or increasing Pintail numbers, we understand your frustration. However, this needs to be documented with evidence that can be used effectively in the decision-making process. One of the best ways to achieve this is through participation in WeBS (Wetland Bird Survey) counts. Ensuring that all WeBS count areas are monitored, and encouraging your club to get involved, is a straightforward and impactful way to contribute data. A monthly bird count during the season only takes a couple of hours and can provide essential data in future consent processes, demonstrating that the club is actively contributing to conservation efforts. In some cases, clubs have identified that wildfowl were using different locations that weren’t being captured in current surveys. These clubs set up their own count areas and submitted the data, which helped overcome the issue. Consenting decisions are only as good as the information available - better evidence leads to more proportionate decision-making. 

To be clear BASC does not agree with the precautionary approach undertaken by the regulator. We believe it will have no discernible conservation benefit and amounts to nothing more than microregulating an insignificant small-scale activity. However, while we continue to lobby for legislative changes that enable a more proportionate approach in the future, these small-scale changes at a local level may offer short-term, site-based benefits.  

BASC is here to assist any clubs or individuals interested in participating in WeBS bird counts, so for anyone reading this please email wildfowling@basc.org.uk 
 

[Keith 66]

Meanwhile i saw a post on fb today of a local "arts" group doing guided mudwalks down our local creek. To even suggest they might require consent will doubtless get them foaming at the mouth.