RSPB calls for radical changes to conservation in UK

Interesting, a possible way of getting a finger in every pie and to be seen as a semi official body. Best way to achieve balance is to get one or all of the shooting organisations to represent our interests. It would probably cost extra in fees to service this but probably money well spent unless we wish to lie back and be shafted.

Question is which organisation is best fitted to achieve this?

Any thoughts?

Bob
 
I would have thought the BASC would be admirably suited to deal with this as "CONSERVATION" is one of their ideals. Most decent farmer/landowners, who are interested in shooting, leave wild areas, the awkward corners of fields, spinnys etc. aside for consevation purposes. There are many grants available for so doing.

I would love to see some of the huge car parks, from park and ride, around our major cities with more trees planted in them. Carbon caputure and shade, what more can you want. I think local councils should be encouraged in this. The world needs more trees.

Iwrch, It has obviously piqued your interest, what do you see as the downside to this?

ft
 
The RSPB has a policy of buying land to enhance its grip round the throat of the shooting fraternity.
What we need is an organisation that will either bank roll the buying of land or buy land for its members.

The solution would be simple,Buy the land retain the shooting rights and some management interests, then sell the land on.
Sounds to good to be true doesn't it, it is an idea that is being toyed with at the moment.

Here lies some of the major issues: there would need to be some sort management for each individual area.

Who would fund it?

Last time BASC put up its fees there was a mass exodus. So asking 127.000 members to stump up an extra £10 ,giving them 1.27 million Per annum to fund it is a non starter.

This would have to be long term investment as trying to cater for 127.000 members is going to be difficult, but lets say over a 10 year period that has now turned into 12.7 million. How many shooting rights/fishing rights would that buy?
would that be enough to satisfy 127.000 members or is it going to be a longer strategy.

The other alternative is to form groups and go for funding from some of the shooting organisations.

A radical alternative would be to increase subscriptions dramatically, those that want insurance only pay a minimum, those that want to invest in the future pay subscriptions on Direct Debit, (just to ease the pain), and we take the stick off the RSPB that they have been beating us with and return some of the injustices they have handed out..

regards
g
 
I would love to see some of the huge car parks, from park and ride, around our major cities with more trees planted in them. Carbon caputure and shade, what more can you want. I think local councils should be encouraged in this. The world needs more trees.

Thats what I do for a living. We're currently aiming for 20%canopy cover on all new developments and moving developers towards trees that are large at maturity rather than ornamental token trees. It's amazing what trees (even relatively young ones) can do for the overall look, feel and wildlife value of an area.

Some Councils are better than others at doing this but the pendulum is already swinging very firmly in this direction.

As for the RSPB it appears that (once again) they are getting too big for their collective boots. I don't think any reasonable person would have a problem with the concept. However I'm sure many do have a problem with the idea of some of the sanctimonious tossers from the RSPB 'implementing' it as policy.
 
I think that the comments with regard to the BASC taking a slightly larger sub in direct debits, monthly or quarterly, are constructive as it would certainly ease the pain and reduce the number leaving and would provide a fund to be used for conservation. The RSPB is also going to have to modify some of its more militant and anti-shooting policies so that a true partnership can be established.

I do worry about the RSPB and its scaremongering. In the full article they talk about needing to bring the red kite back from the brink of extinction, there are currently approaching 2,000 pairs of red kites in the UK now so hardly on the brink of extinction!!
 
Afternoon all,

Firstly, in the 15 years I have been here the subs have gone up from anywhere between £2 a year to £10 a year, and there has never been a 'mass exodus' as Griff reports - perhaps this was before my time.

Phased Direct Debit - yes schedules to come in from March 1st 2011

Farms and shooting- good news see the new Campaign for the Farmed Environment - shoots and shooting are of great benefit and interest here - feature in the latest (May / June) issue of S&C by the way

Land question - again a piece in the March / April issue of S&C with tips on how to get money / funding (WHT, grants, government subsidies and so on) and then how to generate money from the land to help repay loans etc. We have a department set up to help members which this also.

All members, upon renewal, are asked for a £5 donation to the WHT http://www.wht.org.uk/ a primary source for funding land purchase for shooting & conservation in the UK, I will not tell you how few members contribute, but now you all can can’t you? Its only £5 a year – or more if you feel you can afford it. OK it was set up mainly for wildfowling, but not exclusively.

Ta
David
 
Iwrch, It has obviously piqued your interest, what do you see as the downside to this?

I'm not Iwrch but for what it is worth I'll tell you what the downside to this is, and it is a big downside. What this basically says is that the RSPB, and no doubt a bunch of other green nutter groups, want legal say over land even if they don't own it. I suspect they are looking blanket UK wide conservation areas where the owners will have to comply with a long list of laws drawn up, of course, in consultation with the RSPB and others with a very clearly stated agenda. Lead bullets might feature on this agenda, as one example of something we've discussed here recently, and I'm sure there are 1,000 other things they can do to make gamekeeping and even deer stalking more difficult. The RSPB have been buying up land in a manner designed to make shooting as difficult as possible but there is only so much land you can buy and there are only so many people willing to sell to the green nutters so this solves that problem, if they get this then they own the whole country.

What if, say, all access to woodland with certain species of bird were to be banned unless the visitors were to be guided by some RSPB lackey? Jobs for the boys in green nutter fantasy land and, oh dearie me, deer stalking in those areas has just become impossible. A win win situation all round for the greens and their supporters would just love to hear tales from their guide of how the area used to be used for shooting but that is all stopped now.

For everyone in the UK, except for a handful of the greens who probably stand to make a big pile of cash from this, this is the worst possible outcome and we must fight it every inch of the way.
 
I'm going to be devils advocate here and say that it is all to easy to poo poo every thing the RSPB does and make them out to be idiots whilst hero worshiping everything that the shooting community does.

In my experience this is not always the case. Every coin has two sides for example, homeowners with domestic cats are seen as wildlife villans but they very often spend large ammounts of money feeding garden birds? Shooting estates plant 'conservation crops' (these used to be called game crops before you could claim lots of money for them) but a proportion of keepers continue to persecute raptors, badgers and hedgehogs? Many landowners talk the conservation talk but then hold rock concerts and other major events in parkland all through May, June and July? You could go on thinking of converse examples all afternoon.

Yes, a number of people within the RSPB staff and membership will be keen to knock shooting whenever possible and, of course, their investigations dept will be looking for bad practice, thats their job after all but, I don't think its fair to treat the whole organisation as the enemy.

All I'm saying (before I get lynched!) is lets try and keep an open mind and see things from other peoples point of view sometimes.

JC
 
J.C 275,
eloquently put, but untill they stop misrepresenting facts, propagating misinformation and they accept that raptors have a place but that place is not everywhere, then I will fight them tooth and claw every step of the way. I think it's about time the Charities Commision had a look at this organisation and its aspirations to quasi-legal bird police status.
 
J.C 275,
eloquently put, but untill they stop misrepresenting facts, propagating misinformation and they accept that raptors have a place but that place is not everywhere, then I will fight them tooth and claw every step of the way. I think it's about time the Charities Commision had a look at this organisation and its aspirations to quasi-legal bird police status.

+1 from me and you can lump in the RSPCA as well.
 
Hi FT,

As far as the report goes, I see no obvious downside. Rather, I am encouraged by the closing reference to some future partners being "unlikely bedfellows". Can they mean us?

It is up to the shooting community to rise to the challenge and show the uninititated how we aim to preserve, not destroy our environment. Two position statements spring to mind which clearly illustrate this intent; the GCT's "Conservation through wise use" and BASC's "Green and always has been". The sporting community should not be afraid to engage with such projects, particularly since we have so much expertise within our ranks to educate the less well informed.

+1

I think we should work with the RSPB and similar whenever we can, as long as it doesnt leave us inthe sugar. IMO the more we work with the "non shooting" lot for whatever reason the clearer our message comes across to the non shooting public.

Sam
 
I'm not Iwrch but for what it is worth I'll tell you what the downside to this is, and it is a big downside. What this basically says is that the RSPB, and no doubt a bunch of other green nutter groups, want legal say over land even if they don't own it. I suspect they are looking blanket UK wide conservation areas where the owners will have to comply with a long list of laws drawn up, of course, in consultation with the RSPB and others with a very clearly stated agenda. Lead bullets might feature on this agenda, as one example of something we've discussed here recently, and I'm sure there are 1,000 other things they can do to make gamekeeping and even deer stalking more difficult. The RSPB have been buying up land in a manner designed to make shooting as difficult as possible but there is only so much land you can buy and there are only so many people willing to sell to the green nutters so this solves that problem, if they get this then they own the whole country.

What if, say, all access to woodland with certain species of bird were to be banned unless the visitors were to be guided by some RSPB lackey? Jobs for the boys in green nutter fantasy land and, oh dearie me, deer stalking in those areas has just become impossible. A win win situation all round for the greens and their supporters would just love to hear tales from their guide of how the area used to be used for shooting but that is all stopped now.

For everyone in the UK, except for a handful of the greens who probably stand to make a big pile of cash from this, this is the worst possible outcome and we must fight it every inch of the way.
I totally agree. This has to be resisted at all costs.

This will have a major impact on stalking on private land. Say for example you bit of deer stalking falls within one of these conservation areas - well you can kiss goodbye to all the individual freedoms that you currently enjoy as an independant stalker. In the future every decision you make concerning deer stalking, rights of access, cull plans would have to be approved by the local conservation commitee, and all of a sudden all the world and their wives would have a say in everything you do............
What if a rare 'target' bird or animal moved into your patch? No stalking as we dont want to disturb the rare bird................ Rangers appointed to look after the rare bird, 24 hour monitoring of the rare bird, restricted access around the nesting sites etc etc etc etc

I wonder if the Deer Initiative are one of the partners in all this?? Bet they are involved in it somewhere;):rolleyes:

Believe me this is trouble !!


lakey
 
That article was b*ll*cks and sorry to offend anyone with a stake in it. I apologise for voicing my opinions in advance

'Aidan Mr Lonergan, manager of the RSPB's "Futurescapes" programmes, said protecting wildlife in fragmented "islands" of habitat was not enough to reverse losses and cope with rising temperatures'.

Rising temperatures are causing losses... really? with what?....... what you mean climate change is a big contributing factor in the decline in loads of species? Not the invasives and human activity then? Oh that's right here we go again with statements that have bold intentions behind them that don't make things better generally. A fragmented island isn't necessarily a consequence of habitat loss and can occur now through creation of green areas and corridors that become thriving ecosystems.

All that these proposed protected habitats will do is aid the invasive species taking advantage of the lack of action to control them but on the flip side it sounds good for muntjac and boar long term.

Rant over:coat:
 
+1 to Lakey, Caorach and Paul above

I would not trust thr Rspb they have more feaces than big ben and are typical off this country nowadays great sound bites that mean nothing and will be forgotten about as soon as.
How many times do RSPB reseves have to come bottom off bird cencus tables/leagues trailing behind keepered estates. It's not rocket science. The game conservancy jhave been preaching the need for habitat, feed and predator control for years, they have jist proved it with the otterburn results and still they slag us off and treat us with contempt. Yet they won't publicly admit some predator control goes on on there resrves they manage.

I see in this weeks shooting times a study BTO showed Nightjars almost completely ingnored a large area of wood and were only found in the deer fenced area.
By the time the RSPB wake up to the damage they have caused to the nations bird population be very little left to protect

I'm on a commitee of the local wildlife trust, this time last yeat the reserve manager picked up around 50 mallard eggs all been ate by corbies(that he found), i've offered to shoot the nest out or larsen trap them this year, he's not bad but said shouldn't even suggest it at a commitee meeting. And they are'nt wot u would call total green nutters.
I can't even begin to imagine the other eggs and nests there raiding that we don't find, yet they are ok killing grey squirrels (thankfully) as we still have some reds. Hypocrites
 
Unfortunately have to agree with alot of the comments about RSPB activities especially the documented lack of biodiversity on RSPB land and how hypocritcal some of their actions are. Where I do get realy p****ed off with them is that at the end of the day they are a charity and have no law making powers, but seem to get their way by using the Fuffy Bunny Card( If it's cute and cuddly and the majority of the puplic don't understand it, protect it or use it to political ends). They could also be accused of trying to exploit a void that has opened up in agriculture, as alot of agri-environmental schemes ended last year and in doing so getting their own way while bragging about saving the countryside. If they really wanted to save our environment its about time they listen to the people with generations of experience of doing it.

As far as bedfellows, maybe we ought to wait and see who they are courting before we jump to conclusions!!:-|
 
Quick follow on from last post. One of the biggest problems all field sports have is the general lack of knowledge and understanding of the wider public. Is it about time that we used TV more to educate the public about what we do. Not just a one off TV special, but a series. I can remember being glued to the tv every time Jack Hargreaves was on. It was one of the things that made me want to become a Gamekeeper when I left school (not keeping any more). David Belamy also done a great series where he followed a shoot for a year, his final statement was along the lines of; Although he would never intentionally kill any animal, he would never campaign against shooting as the good it does to the countryside and biodiversty far outweighs any downside.

If the general public does not understand the reasons why and for our activities, they are easy targets for those with differing views / adgendas and are easily swayed by emotional campaigns, just look at some of campaign leaflets used by the RSPCA before the hunting ban.
 
Couldn't agree with u more 270, possibly its about time the Basc start to use its new media lab and get some good PR out there. They already do plenty off good work(Green shoots, young shots) also the musto(basc) and purdey(shooting times) awards, plenty off there affilated wildfowling clubs do a lot too; its amazing some off the work that people do that goes unnoticed. Most people jist think the land looks the way it does and don't realise the time effort and sometimes money involved. I don't imagine it would take that much to write about it in normal papers.

The biggest problem is it does'nt sell papers and make headlines the way the the oher ones do. Possibly BASC, NGO,SGA, CA etc should get together bury the hatchet and target certain groups and try and educate them and open their minds a bit.
a/ schoolkids and educate them about the basic cirle of life type stuff,footprints/dropping AND NOT TO DROP LITTER :evil:
b/ colleges that either do agriculture/vet nurseing/ environmental studies type stuff and journo's. U never know it might help there attitude for when they leave. Also might stop stupid rules like the tail docking ban when they understand why u want it done.
I know 2 seasons ago when that HUnt it, Kill it, Eat it was on, everyone i spoke to thought it was pretty good the estate, staff and keepers were excellent and i would say would do a lot off good for fieldsports in general. And a very positive edit from the bbc not like them at all.
 
Other lines for a tv program would be similar to the discovery programs like Deadliest Catch, where they follow them through a whole season . Any TV producers or media bods reading this? How about asking Marco Pierre White(hope thats his correct name!!) to front or narrate the program. He was quite open about his shooting activities in his series last year.
 
agree with a lot of whats been posted but these lot are keen to knock any shooting activity.
How many of you wander about dogs running wild on land where you do not have permission, none.
They say nothing of the general public wandering where they like I know who does most damage to wildlife, but none of these
RSPB/RSPCA Natural England SNH etc will not come out and say keep off land and keep dogs under control that would hit their donations and public image.They would be far better spending effort on educating jo public than calling for planting a few car park corners.
 
Back
Top