NRW To end pheasant shooting

[Red Dragon 2]

Pheasant shoots on Natural Resources Wales land to end - BBC News
Seems the anti's tactics have worked again. As usual BASC are astounded!
No more pheasant shooting on public land owned by Natural Resources Wales.

 

[Trufflehunting]

All the country sports organisations we have, are all fighting for the same people to join them to allow them to continue.
Why don't they amalgamate and become more effective. !!!
It will be interesting to see what comment they make on this thread in the coming days

 

[VSS]

NRW can only do this if it also holds the sporting rights to the land that it owns. Where the sporting rights are owned by a third party there's nothing that NRW can do about it. I don't know what proportion of their land holding they also own sporting rights to, but I know that on the patch that's local to me they do not.

 

[baguio]

NRW can only do this if it also holds the sporting rights to the land that it owns. Where the sporting rights are owned by a third party there's nothing that NRW can do about it. I don't know what proportion of their land holding they also own sporting rights to, but I know that on the patch that's local to me they do not.

They can make it very hard to keep going though VSS. Very sad but not sure what any of our shooting organisations can do about it. Obviously some will blame them though as they appear to get great enjoyment out of it!

 

[Kalahari]

I have already contacted BASC, please contact your organisation as well, en masse, to ask that this should be subject to judicial review on the grounds that it is perverse! If the WAG ban a legal leisure activity they have to ban all of them. This means all of a sudden we would have the walkers, bikers, canoeists etc. forced to be on our side.

David.

 

[Rusty Gate]

I have already contacted BASC, please contact your organisation as well, en masse, to ask that this should be subject to judicial review on the grounds that it is perverse! If the WAG ban a legal leisure activity they have to ban all of them. This means all of a sudden we would have the walkers, bikers, canoeists etc. forced to be on our side.

David.

The discrimination card! I like it

 

[VSS]

There's a slightly more detailed report just popped up on the Daily Post website.

 

[baguio]

There's a slightly more detailed report just popped up on the Daily Post website.

Have you got a link VSS?

 

[ben0850]

David, I like your suggestion wth respect to banning a legal activity.. shame the same couldn’t be brought to bear with respect to grouse on ilkley moor.

 

[VSS]

Have you got a link VSS?

Shock and outrage as pheasant shooting is banned in public Welsh woodlands - Daily Post

 

[Greymaster]

I have already contacted BASC, please contact your organisation as well, en masse, to ask that this should be subject to judicial review on the grounds that it is perverse! If the WAG ban a legal leisure activity they have to ban all of them. This means all of a sudden we would have the walkers, bikers, canoeists etc. forced to be on our side.

David.

It is a perverse decision and ripe for a JR. But as we all know, the BASC is JR AVERSE.

 

[novice]

The JR point is very valid and something one or all of the shooting organisations need to take up asap. The antis have started to use this mechanism more often to further their own position. We need to do the same where appropriate.

Novice

 

[Apthorpe]

I have already contacted BASC, please contact your organisation as well, en masse, to ask that this should be subject to judicial review on the grounds that it is perverse! If the WAG ban a legal leisure activity they have to ban all of them. This means all of a sudden we would have the walkers, bikers, canoeists etc. forced to be on our side.

David.

While this development by NRW is undoubtedly stupid and bigoted, I can't quite see how a judicial review would be justified. I'd have thought that as a landowner, they were entitled to stop permitting whatever they like. Walkers and bikers presumably enjoy access partly via rights of way, and partly via permissive access. There is no equivalent to a right of way for shooting, all sporting access is reliant on the permission of the landowner or owner of the sporting rights.

Notwithstanding that, I think it's rather optimistic to hope that walkers, canoeists and other land users would support shooters in any numbers at all. Ramblers, being an offshoot of the Communist Party are not obvious sympathisers with fieldsport participants.

 

[Apthorpe]

All the country sports organisations we have, are all fighting for the same people to join them to allow them to continue.
Why don't they amalgamate and become more effective. !!!
It will be interesting to see what comment they make on this thread in the coming days

This isn't particular to your comment, but I don't really understand why amalgamating country sports organisations into a single body is likely to make it more effective.
I'm far from impressed by the campaigning and lobbying stance of BASC, but we have to realise that a lot of dissatisfied members on here have some pretty unrealistic expectations of it. Rational lobbying cannot be effective on bigots. In this case, BASC may have lobbied already very effectively, the rational case in favour of shooting was recommended in the report and over-ruled by the single bigot in charge, because she didn't like it. There's not a lot anyone can do about that, as long as politicians have the freedom to enact policies without having to be held to objective standards. The issue there is to campaign more widely in favour of civil liberties and demand our MPs act scrupulously in accordance with evidence and not small pressure groups. British politics is too accommodating of loud minority pressure groups because the rest of us don't reject them all - consistently.

Certainly BASC's campaigning is frequently stupid and counter-productive. There's no point trying to argue a case about money and rural jobs on an issue which the decision makers view as being one of preventing acts they wrongly perceive as barbaric or distasteful. It's completely the wrong approach and the only effect it is likely to have is counter-productive. If we think of an issue that we all consider barbaric and would ban - e.g. pay-per-view real gladiators - none of us are going to persuaded by the argument that actually people are making money out of it and therefore it should be permitted to continue. We'd find that argument repulsive! That's why I can't understand what the hell BASC thinks it's doing. Make and win the moral, libertarian or relative cruelty arguments!

 

[novice]

While this development by NRW is undoubtedly stupid and bigoted, I can't quite see how a judicial review would be justified. I'd have thought that as a landowner, they were entitled to stop permitting whatever they like. Walkers and bikers presumably enjoy access partly via rights of way, and partly via permissive access. There is no equivalent to a right of way for shooting, all sporting access is reliant on the permission of the landowner or owner of the sporting rights.

Notwithstanding that, I think it's rather optimistic to hope that walkers, canoeists and other land users would support shooters in any numbers at all. Ramblers, being an offshoot of the Communist Party are not obvious sympathisers with fieldsport participants.

I think the intention would be to scrutinise the process behind the decision and the weight given to the supposed pressure from anti groups. If any inappropriate actions are not addressed at this stage, it sets a dangerous precedent.

Novice

 

[Apthorpe]

I think the intention would be to scrutinise the process behind the decision and the weight given to the supposed pressure from anti groups. If any inappropriate actions are not addressed at this stage, it sets a dangerous precedent.

Novice

I understand the motivation. I'm doubtful that the decision could be subject to judicial review anyway. The "dangerous precedent" already exists. Stupid or bigoted policymaking is well established. The foxhunting legislation is a prime and similar example.

Most Home Office policy is equally defective.​

Another example includes Sadiq Khan apparently signing London up to some crackpot target to reduce deaths and serious injuries on the roads to zero over the next few years - a truly stupid and harmful scheme. Oddly, he hasn't adopted any target to eliminate death or serious injury from other causes.

 

[novice]

I understand the motivation. I'm doubtful that the decision could be subject to judicial review anyway. The "dangerous precedent" already exists. Stupid or bigoted policymaking is well established. The foxhunting legislation is a prime and similar example.

Most Home Office policy is equally defective.​

Another example includes Sadiq Khan apparently signing London up to some crackpot target to reduce deaths and serious injuries on the roads to zero over the next few years - a truly stupid and harmful scheme. Oddly, he hasn't adopted any target to eliminate death or serious injury from other causes.

Judicial review exists to take issue with decisions made by public bodies, not changes to legislation at parliamentary level such as you refer to with the Hunting With Dogs Act.

I've assumed that the NRW falls within the public body definition for the purposes of judicial review, but may be incorrect on that.

Novice

 

[Greymaster]

While this development by NRW is undoubtedly stupid and bigoted, I can't quite see how a judicial review would be justified. I'd have thought that as a landowner, they were entitled to stop permitting whatever they like. Walkers and bikers presumably enjoy access partly via rights of way, and partly via permissive access. There is no equivalent to a right of way for shooting, all sporting access is reliant on the permission of the landowner or owner of the sporting rights.

Notwithstanding that, I think it's rather optimistic to hope that walkers, canoeists and other land users would support shooters in any numbers at all. Ramblers, being an offshoot of the Communist Party are not obvious sympathisers with fieldsport participants.

The concept of judicial review. Judicial review (JR) is the process of challenging the lawfulness of decisions of public authorities, usually local or central government. The court has a "supervisory" role - making sure the decision maker acts lawfully.

Just because NRW is the landowner, they hold it on behalf of the public good, and are subject to Administrative Law, and are not free to deal with as they see fit.

 

[VSS]

Rural backlash as Welsh nature agency moves to ban pheasant shooting - Farmers Weekly

 

[Highlandsjohn]

Rural backlash as Welsh nature agency moves to ban pheasant shooting - Farmers Weekly

Thanks for posting that VSS.