RSPB at the CLA Game Fair

We could certainly create a large enough membership to influence policy, or will we do what we always do, ignore it in the hope that the threat will go away.

A lovely thought, if only it were achievable.

When you hear the bleating from many current members of fieldsports organisations about the cost of membership, and complaints such as "what do they do for us", "jobs for the boys", "paying for their big salaries and smart cars", and the generally pitiful turnout when voting for their own committee members, signing petitions, etc. do you really think they'd voluntarily pay for RSPB membership as well?

Sadly most people's willingness to fight for fieldsports ends at the keyboard.

Or perhaps I'm just being too cynical.....
 
A lovely thought, if only it were achievable.

When you hear the bleating from many current members of fieldsports organisations about the cost of membership, and complaints such as "what do they do for us", "jobs for the boys", "paying for their big salaries and smart cars", and the generally pitiful turnout when voting for their own committee members, signing petitions, etc. do you really think they'd voluntarily pay for RSPB membership as well?

Sadly most people's willingness to fight for fieldsports ends at the keyboard.

Or perhaps I'm just being too cynical.....

No Willie you are not being too cynical, what you say is fact, plenty that will moan , but are not prepared to fight their corner.
 
And If we where asked to march again we would even with a torn hamstring :doh:ouch I just wouldn't get into bed with someone I don't trust once you've been done over ,I don't give second and third chances these days and something my old school master said sad as it may sound treat everyone as though they will stab you in the back unless they prove otherwise and this would be right in the RSPB s case .politics and ethics think i'll leave it at that my last word on it I'm out !
Norma
 
I do not belive that all BASC/SGC etc members joining the RSPB will influence their wider policy
his is not like buying shares in Tesco and given the tone and resentment towards them I can only imagine that increasing after shooting members watch them "misuse" their £36 membership

I am slightly concerned that people who claim to be conservations, nature lovers and actively involved in managing the countryside would be so averse to a stand at the Game fair.
They have as much right to be there as all the accountancy and legal sponsored tents and areas..

It is fostering a "them and us" attitude that is making the situation worse not better.
views and opinions should be respected, just because some of their members do not respect ours we must not fall into the same trap of rejecting anything they do as anti-shooting and therefore bad.

If the GWCT, BASC, various Gamekeepers associations really want to impact their wider policy they need to be closer, not further away
Getting the non shooting public involved and aware of the non-shooting related impact we have on the countryside.

I responded to a predator cull/larsen trap discussion on another forum a while back
It was getting out of hand and the ill informed and against all killing were spouting rubbish without fact to back it up.
I hope that my response was well received but I demonstrated with a direct example of how my actions had increased the biodiversity and number of songbirds in a small self contained area of a city.
We have a 10 fold increase in numbers in 3 years solely due to removing 75% of the magpies.

don't fight them
educate them

I agree with all most all of that, but any organisation has to respect the views of its membership too not do so is to perish

Do I believe it will happen no, a hell of a lot won't even support our own organisations, so its nothing short of a pipe dream.

But if all shooting people did join it would make up somewhere between a third and half their membership, not something they could afford to ignore.

And a final thought 200,000 members of the RSPB are junior members, yes youngsters, as we all know its possible to educate youngsters a lot easier than it is adults, would it not be even easier from the inside.

As I say only a pipe dream.
 
Given that both we and the RSPB want good, healthy populations of birds, we should really be able to find quite a lot of common ground. I know that at a local level, wildfowling clubs often work very well with the RSPB. They may have different motivations, but they're both trying to look after breeding and wintering grounds, and that's best done by working together. Obviously at head office, there's a serious ideological divide, but we can't ignore them or hope to win in a straightforward fight, so we'd best try and work on that common ground, which is caring for biodiversity, birds and the practices and environments that support them. Whether you include millions of released pheasants in that is probably one of the contentious details though. As I've just mentioned in another thread, people often laugh when they hear the name "British Association for Shooting and Conservation" because they think it's an oxymoron. I point out that it isn't at all because if you want to have something to shoot, you need to make sure that it's there.

They have this same argument in France opposing "Les chasseurs" and "les Ecolos". In that frame of reference, I tend to say that they should be one and the same thing most of the time, because if hunting isn't ecologically sound, it shouldn't be happening.
 
Given that both we and the RSPB want good, healthy populations of birds, we should really be able to find quite a lot of common ground. I know that at a local level, wildfowling clubs often work very well with the RSPB. They may have different motivations, but they're both trying to look after breeding and wintering grounds, and that's best done by working together. Obviously at head office, there's a serious ideological divide, but we can't ignore them or hope to win in a straightforward fight, so we'd best try and work on that common ground, which is caring for biodiversity, birds and the practices and environments that support them. Whether you include millions of released pheasants in that is probably one of the contentious details though. As I've just mentioned in another thread, people often laugh when they hear the name "British Association for Shooting and Conservation" because they think it's an oxymoron. I point out that it isn't at all because if you want to have something to shoot, you need to make sure that it's there.

They have this same argument in France opposing "Les chasseurs" and "les Ecolos". In that frame of reference, I tend to say that they should be one and the same thing most of the time, because if hunting isn't ecologically sound, it shouldn't be happening.

Glad to see I am not a lone voice in the wilderness.
 
Haven't got time to read all the posts unfortunatly but I'll be another one to raise his head over the parapet.

I have found there is a pro shooting contingent within the RSPB. Whether they are listened to is another question but at least they are there.
 
They own a lot of land though don't they? Anyone ask them what they are doing about managing their deer? :D
 
Thanks, I was being facetious though, just thought a couple of hundred deer stalkers asking for permission might have brightened up their otherwise empty stand! ;)
 
The way the RSPB are behaving at the minute and in recent years i don't think it will ever be possible to work closer with them. As far as i'm concerned they are now causing more harm to UKs bird life, sad day when seen as more of a hinderance than a help

They are far too quick to stab shooting in the back as and when it suits them (which is often) but to very occasionally give a small positive soundbite u think they've changed and its only so they can stab the knife in deeper and twist it.


It would be great if shooters could change the RSPB but don't think it would mke any difference, if anything it would make it worse,, they would see there new increases membership as a sign that this anti shooting stance is the way to go. U only have to read or listen to Robin Page who used to write in ST think he was on the commitee with RSPB for years and could not change it, he ended up setting up Songbird Survival Trust a far better charity if u have some spare money!!

Also the RSPB are'nt exactly honest with there membership, are they?? Do they publise the fact they do carry out limited vermin control, on 1 reserve they have increased wader numbers by 400% due to vermin control. They should be shouting that from the rafters and rolling it out across all there reserves
Same with the deer (was a thread on here a while ago about a tender on an RSPB site was quite a large cull too)

Until the rspb care more about birds than money/membership/politics and start being honest about the fact that some birds/animals eat other birds/animals and when there numbers are high it can have sevre impact on other birds populations. Too many people (esp some of the intellectials/lecturers) believe that predators numbers do not efect prey populations, which is simply b****cks in this country as most predators are oportunist and will just switch prey when 1 becomes scarce

Shooters are the best conservationsits and probably have 90-95% the same ideas in common with most rspb members and workers (and most on the ground workers u meet are brand new even if they don't agree with shooting can see the benefits) Most nature reserve workers would be envious if they knew the time and money spent on habitat/conservation on a wild bird shoot.
The problem with the rspb is there public/political side and bosses, until that changes there is no way shooting should have anything to do with them, any info they get they will use aggainst us (putting out dubious reports just before ofical reports are due to muddy the waters and grab the attn org langholm moorJRP, LAG, controversial study into non lethal methods to move buzzards despite rspb sitting on the commitee and agreeing with the study, until they wanted to torpedo it in the tabloids; even there annual wildlife crime stats which every report is considered true wether or not any evidence, HH down at windsor/sandringham? even thou no evidence was found)

It's a shame that they have falling so far that the people most able to help them don't trust them or give them the time of day.
If our local wildlife trust ever goes a reserve visit elsewhere the first thing i ask is if its an rspb reserve as refuse to give them a penny
 
The doubter's amongst us should talk to the Wildfowling Clubs,I along with others worked tirelessly to help keep the Wash, RSPB free,trust me give them an inch and they will worm ten miles.The Three Harbours Clubs had the same as did many other clubs around the coasts.Do not trust them at all, tell them nothing if they hear of wetlands coming up for sale they will pay huge sums over the top to stop shooting .As for joining them on mass to change them from within, the Countryside Alliance tried to do that to the National Trust to preserve hunting with hounds on their property.Wf1
 
In today's Times is a report of Marks and Spencer removing grouse from sale. This follows an open letter to the Chief Exec demanding that he not sell grouse "as it comes from an industry that reeks of criminality".
Admittedly the letter comes from Mark Aviary, who is a former director of the Really Super Pensions and Benefits, but it makes me doubt the possibility of considering any co-operation with this sort of DNA.
 
"The Times reported today that M&S has now decided not to sell the meat until a code of conduct can be enforced with all of its suppliers.

The store's Head of Agriculture told the paper 15 estates in North Yorkshire and the Scottish borders had agreed to comply with the new code and would supply the game once it had been independently verified that they are sticking to the rules.

The decision was welcomed by the RSPB, who likened it to the responsible sourcing of many other products the stores sell.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ores-successful-trial-year.html#ixzz38UfKw5UW"
 
In today's Times is a report of Marks and Spencer removing grouse from sale. This follows an open letter to the Chief Exec demanding that he not sell grouse "as it comes from an industry that reeks of criminality".
Admittedly the letter comes from Mark Aviary, who is a former director of the Really Super Pensions and Benefits, but it makes me doubt the possibility of considering any co-operation with this sort of DNA.

Avery has also mentioned on his campaigning blog that he has joined the LACS.

The Hen Harrier issue on grouse moors is becoming a mill stone around the necks of the entire shooting community.

Even from my own very pro shooting stand point it is hard to argue that there is something wrong with the way some grouse moors are managed, aside from the Hen Harrier and other raptors there is the elimination of deer, elimination of mountain hares, even in days gone past elimination of black grouse.

I think the grouse moor managers need to get their house in order before we all get dragged down with them.
 
Back
Top