Following on from NE failures - what do we do next ?

[kes]

his presumes everyone has written to their MP's, NE and complained to NE. The first letter should naturally include concerns about the links between Packham, Avery and the new NE CEO. all have been associated or are associated with RSPB. This puts a new perspective on why focus on raptor control, RSPB has been turned to focus on shooting by picking specifically species which predate gamebirds - in the hope that illegal raptor controls feed into the agenda for damaging shooting sports.

So what can we do ?
I suggest those with money (BASC/CA etc and special calls for financial support) carryout a specific research study using a third party which is above reproach to study 2 things, First the number and types of animals and birds killed annually by domestic cats. Second, the primary causes of songbird decline and the levels and types of predation they suffer as a percentage of total losses. This could start with red list species but would facilitate a fully academic argument about loss of species and exceed the credibility the name RSPB for example used to convey. Being on the back-foot needs thought to move properly to the front-foot.
I have consistently argued that there is more to the word 'conservation' than the 'shooting' in our sports. Its not in the nature of shooters to kill everything but to work to enrich the countryside we enjoy being in so much.
We also need to build a single campaigning organisation from all the Countryside organisations. One which uses research and intelligence and builds its reputation by being independent when it comes to reporting results. Its no surprise that the Public Accounts Commission (Public Accounts Commission. The Public Accounts Commission is a UK body created under the National Audit Act 1983 to audit the National Audit Office, i.e., to watch the watchers. ) wasset up when credibility was in doubt.

As far as I can see those who are anti shooting use profile, position, intelligence, research, specialist legal support, crowd funding to support this. Success breeds success and we need the ORGS to bring staff together at Marford (I suggest) and plan an intelligence led attack on the positions set out by the former respected orgs like RSPB, RSPCA, find their dark corners and dark secrets of culling predators and message parliamentarians regularly with these facts.
At the moment we are sleep-walking to our sports demise and if no-one cares about the individuals then who will care about the wildlife we love so much. How many have said "its not just the shooting,its more about the occasion and the place, the company - simply being there.

I call for a unified strategy of defence of field sports based on an intelligence led justification of care for the countryside and the animals within in.

As a final shooting thought, I havent shot a grey partridge for years, or a woodcock for obvious reasons - but I have created a rough meadow area for OWLS, breeding boxes for birds and released wild grey partridge chicks in an attempt to help re-population. I like may love shooting but have always wanted to preserve it and put something back. Maybe BASC/CA should add a very strong conservation string to their bow.
First though a strategy is required based on CONSERVATION not SHOOTING, pest and predator control is an essential part of that - corvids and foxes and managing raptors.
Please lets try this and get it right this time. Shooting with a conscience is shooting which will endure.

Sorry, trying to make a positive contribution after all this ***************. Make up your own expletives.

 

[jimmy milnes]

Nice post with some good ideas matey

 

[CarlW]

I agree with you 100%. I just don't know how to make it happen.

 

[Cottis]

I agree with all of that.

I have written to my MP. I have also voiced my concerns to all non shooters I know, both friends and colleagues and anyone else with ears. This is followed by rational arguments about why what we do is not just completely proportionate but actually needed. That for me is also what I feel is important in terms of my actual participation in rural activites, conservation and rural land management.

I feel by being confident and happy with my approach, I can easily talk positively about it to others. We can all do this. It is a bit like salesman being confident in his product. If he is, he can sell it piece of cake.

Too many people seem a bit quiet about what they do and more importantly, why they do it. Be proud of your rural contribution. The general public need to know how and why you do it.

If any organisation chose to properly address the issues, they would have my support, time and money but they will need to demonstrate credibility, a decent plan of action and make it clear to all what they are actually trying to achieve and how they are going to go about it. None do that at present and have not for a long while as far as I can tell.

In the meantime, I will take it upon myself to spread the word about what I do, why I am good at it, how it helps conserve the areas we love, why it is necessary to preserve the food chains everyone relies on and therefore why it should continue. We can all do that.

 

[countrryboy]

Pretty sure songbird survival has done cat predation surveys.
Sure I looked online a long time ago and either the American or NZ rspb have done studies possibly Oz too, those countries there rsspb are far more conservation minded
Probably for the last 30 years the rspb has caused more harm to bird species than helped

 

[Greenmist]

"presumes everyone has written to their MP's, NE and complained to NE"

If only, we'll be lucky if the percentage of shooters who done that are in double fiqures

 

[CarlW]

"presumes everyone has written to their MP's, NE and complained to NE"

If only, we'll be lucky if the percentage of shooters who done that are in double fiqures

Agreed. That's our problem. I am more impressed by Packham & Co. than I am by our side.

 

[kes]

Cottis, Thanks for that - the main reason for a strategy is to achieve what you say. A bit like,
"ok these guys shoot but the effect they have is very positive for the countryside and animals and birds" There are two audiences - the anti - everything who will never change their minds but must be Vegan to be taken at all seriously and the majority of the population who would go along with what is done in the countryside if the basis for what is done is firmly bedded in conservation credentials and sold to them in an unbiased way with science to confirm the message." I like killing things" is all they hear and its simply not true of any shooters I know.
Most just have Countryfile and the anti's attack any badger control messages for example, with death threats to Adam ?
I would argue a return to the pest list for badgers with numbers monitoring by impartial scientists which would lay to rest the ghosts of a million hedgehogs etc.
Take your point very much about being satisfied that what we do is right and not shrinking from telling people but we need scientific credibility and that means specific studies independently verified, which support what we do as 'sport' and 'killing are very strong negatives when taken together, I suggest

 

[Mick Miller]

"presumes everyone has written to their MP's, NE and complained to NE"

If only, we'll be lucky if the percentage of shooters who done that are in double fiqures

I wrote to mine to request that the relationship between the main protagonists in this, along with the environment secretary with his responsibility for oversight of NE, be examined in the interests of impartiality as it appeared that some of the decisions and actions recently suggested an anti-shooting agenda.

Haven't heard owt. Prolly thinks I wear a foil hat at night.

 

[sh1kar]

For me there are 3 different agenda points here:

1. A strategy from the shooting, farming, fisheries and conservation organisations to address the current issue. Supporting and refining wording of a short term replacement of the GL in the short term that is hassle free and longer term (Jan 2020) preparing a position - either continuance of GL, or ideally, removing the need altogether and taking these species of the protected list and negate the need for a GL at all. With research based arguments to challenge any WJ/RSPB etc positions
2. The creation of a far more powerful, influential and united single shooting and conservation organisation
3. Lobbying re the cosy relationships and influencing the Gove vision (see 2.)

A separate issue is to get the Beeb to drop Packham

We can all play a role in each off these - especially the last 3 and encourage all of our colleagues and friends to do the same

S

 

[VSS]

Agreed. That's our problem. I am more impressed by Packham & Co. than I am by our side.

Sad but true.

 

[merlin]

"presumes everyone has written to their MP's, NE and complained to NE"

If only, we'll be lucky if the percentage of shooters who done that are in double fiqures

I am forlornly hoping that the reason I've not had a reply from my MP yet is that he is busy answering very other piece of correspondence sent to him by other shooting folk in his constituency.....
(Although I somewhat doubt that.)

Signing online petitions has its place - and I did that too - but sending an email to your MP takes not much longer..... and yet some people seem strangely reluctant to invest that time to try and protect what they claim to be passionate about.

Apathy will do the work of others for them if people are not willing to step up and put a degree of effort in now and again.

 

[Syncerus Caffer]

Not all will like this suggestion but desperate times do require more drastic measures. There is an uncanny parallel to this recent NE General Licence debacle with our last referendum. The latter was in part argued by leave due to its citing of the current undemocratic nature of the EU. We have all just witnessed how a law without the necessity of Parliament (granted by Government) can be changed by so few affecting so many. Acting collectively within the farming, rural and shooting circles is a must. However, I would argue that our current two and a bit political party system is devoid of any true representative impetus of rural communities and issues affecting them such as NE's GL. What we have on the table is piecemeal Public Relations in its current fragmented manner representing a more thinly concentrated electoral base than our urban cousins. This last point is significant when lobbying and despite personal efforts amongst some rural focused organisations is a realistic buffer to progress or support. In our midst is a new political movement with no correlation to our cause (yet). It is according to polls ripping up seat posts of the traditional two main parties and at its core focuses on the democratic will of the people and as a bastion for democracy versus undemocratic processes. Given its projected electoral trajectory, it's composition of representatives from differing backgrounds, its hunger for non-brexit related national manifesto pledges and the current overall demographic between leave and remain voters between towns and countryside it could be harnessed as a true supporter and voice of our (or at least some of our causes). I am not saying or suggesting that we should all necessarily become Farage voters but his new party could be a vehicle with focus for us. Just a thought.

 

[B&W FOX]

BBC has this on the news site today..... this has become them and us. ( Farage voters but his new party could be a vehicle with focus for us. Just a thought.) taken from above post...
Those that Know him will also know he enjoys his days in the field shooting




Rural communities being ignored and underrated, say peers

Rural communities have been "ignored" and had "inappropriate" policies forced upon them, a report says.
A group of peers said a new agenda for the countryside was needed similar to the government's industrial strategy.
Priorities included improving mobile and broadband connections, replacing lost bank and bus services and tackling social isolation, the House of Lords Rural Economy Committee said.
The government said it was committed to "rural proofing" policies.
Ministers plan to spend £3.5bn on supporting economic development in the countryside by the end of 2020 through the Rural Development Programme.

The cross-party committee of peers said policies suitable for urban and suburban areas had too often been foisted upon the countryside.

• Rural areas stuck in data slow lanes
• Poverty in the English countryside

As well as improving communications, it is calling for action to address the supply and cost of housing and a lack of training for people working in rural industries.
"Successive governments have underrated the contribution rural economies can make to the nation's prosperity and wellbeing," it said.
"They have applied policies which are often inappropriate for rural England. This must change. With rural England at a point of major transition, a different approach is needed."
Lord Foster, the Lib Dem peer and former MP who chairs the committee, said the "clear inequalities" between urban and rural areas could not be allowed to continue.
He called for a policy blueprint of equal ambition to the government's industrial strategy to realise the potential of struggling and under-performing areas.
'Left behind'
The Campaign to Protect Rural England said too few politicians had a real understanding of the needs of the countryside, despite the fact one in five of the population lived there.
It said investment was needed in housing and other infrastructure to make market towns and villages attractive places to live and work.
"A failure to address the unique and specific needs of these communities has put them at risk of being left behind," said its chief executive Crispin Truman.
Telecoms regulator Ofcom warned last year of a widening urban-rural divide in broadband provision.
Only 41% of rural premises received a mobile data link of of 2Mbps or higher, it found, compared with 83% in urban areas.
The government has set aside £200m to fund full fibre broadband connections in rural and hard-to-reach areas across the UK by 2033.
"We will continue to champion the countryside, driving forward high-speed broadband in hard-to-reach places, increasing housing availability in rural areas and supporting the creation of more than 6,000 jobs through our dedicated fund for rural businesses," it said.
Related Topics

• Rural life

 

[Sash]

This puts a new perspective on why focus on raptor control, RSPB has been turned to focus on shooting by picking specifically species which predate gamebirds [....]
I suggest those with money (BASC/CA etc and special calls for financial support) carryout a specific research study using a third party which is above reproach to study 2 things, First the number and types of animals and birds killed annually by domestic cats. Second, the primary causes of songbird decline and the levels and types of predation they suffer as a percentage of total losses. This could start with red list species but would facilitate a fully academic argument about loss of species and exceed the credibility the name RSPB for example used to convey.

While I think this is a good idea, I think we need to be aware that:
- such research costs huge amounts of money (tens of £millions), especially to acquire good data, and will take many years: a 5-year trend is insignificant compared to the 50+ year data sets available for many species in conservation.
- We are decades behind the conservation bodies in acquiring high quality (and quantity) data, and lack the ability to use what we have credibly. Remember that the BTO-led Atlases of breeding and wintering birds have now been done 4 times since the mid-70s, and each have had thousands of contributors.
- The argument about songbirds comes back all too quickly to loss of food and suitable habitat: predation can be distressing to observe, but is generaly a natural process. And, to labour the point, the long-term data collated by the BTO and made available to Government and conservation bodies is utterly compelling about the impacts of changes in land use and agriculture having the demonstrable impact on songbird numbers.
- One final point, again relating to how we are being defeated by the side with the better data: I talked to a previous Chair of BASC at a reception just before the most recent BTO Atlas was published (but after the fieldwork). Even then, he was clearly painfully aware of how awful the Hen Harrier data would look for shooters, and the degree to which this would be used as the tip of a weapon to be used against us. He was dead right.

Great point about cats, though. I would, however, rather the RSPB made the running against cats than us!

 

[kes]

I understand what you are saying but disagree.
If a structured approach to research was agreed, after a base level assessment of all relevant data/studies currently available from ANY source we would then be ahead of the game - it would allow the IMPARTIAL leader of the research (a university professor perhaps) to comment on any research and ensure any money spent would be worth the result. Such a group could hunt for industry funding (pesticide effects) and, crucially call for specific funding with obvious justification to NFU e.g. whose part in the GL crisis has been largely overlooked. There is loads of potential here to be a scientifically respected, campaigning impartial support for the countryside and shooting community. We might have to change to respond to the results but thats better than having the GL fiasco again and being slowly pushed down a route for reasons we cannot understand or justify to ourselves.