High Court Grants gamekeeper go-ahead to challenge Natural England

[countrryboy]

The 'keeper in question, Ricky McMorn, is an interesting choice of horse for the NGO to back given his previous conviction.

I seriously hope u are wrong on this.

There is no doubt it needs challenged but the person/shoot will have to be whiter than white and every i will have to be dotted and t crossed. If it turns out there is a record of wildlife crime that will be a disaster for everyone involved and the shooting industry as a whole and possibly even set the 'stanard' as a test case.
I really hope NGO have done there homework, even more so that everyone else is jumping on the bandwagon

 

[iknownothing]

I seriously hope u are wrong on this.

There is no doubt it needs challenged but the person/shoot will have to be whiter than white and every i will have to be dotted and t crossed. If it turns out there is a record of wildlife crime that will be a disaster for everyone involved and the shooting industry as a whole and possibly even set the 'stanard' as a test case.
I really hope NGO have done there homework, even more so that everyone else is jumping on the bandwagon

This is from the NGO Blog - there response to the same thing:-

NGO Response
Yes the man was convicted of possessing banned pesticides – he pleaded guilty in 2007. But the newspaper story you refer to concludes: “the investigation had found no evidence that any of the toxins had been used by McMorn to poison wildlife”. The fine for possession was paid, the conviction is long since ‘spent’ and the man now has a right to fair treatment within the law. The narrative here is clear: there is a right way and a wrong way to manage wildlife. Applying for a licence is the right way and it should not be blocked by inconsistency and unreasonableness. That is why the NGO is supporting the case. We utterly condemn illegal persecution.
Comment posted by: National Gamekeepers Organisation / 26 November 2014 at 16:37

The blog can be found at with all the comments http://www.nationalgamekeepers.org.uk/blog/2014/11/fairness-in-licensing

 

[countrryboy]

i have said it before and will again ,killing buzzards or any BOP to' protect'released game birds that are there for shooting purposes is never going to be acceptable nor imho should it be , i understand the situation having keepered myself for long enough but all it will do even if licences are granted is give more and more ammunition to the anti shooting brigade . It is a situation that will come back to haunt in the future

Why should it not be??
BoP numbers are at an all time high. Wot other damage are they doing to the environment?

Why should any species get full protection forever no matter how the population changes over time? There is far too much blinkered thinking with BoP's (and badgers) why are they so special?
I doubt any BoP species are even amber listed species in UK or europe (apart from kestrals which used to be the most common) yet all the amber and red listed birds never get a mention by allegeed conservation charities as there is no class/jealosy issues and does not make them any money.

Licences and protection status should be on proper (populations, impact assesments etc) scietific evidence alone and not how cute/fluffy or how much cash it brings into ur charity or 'getting it up the toff's'
Many other european countries actively hunt badgers and they have no where near the density/population of badgers this country has. Even some european countries allow restricted/controlled shooting of BoP's as well as using brood management to manage problem poulations.

Must admit in our old pheasant pen we would be losing 2-5% to buzzards EVERY DAY not every season, not unusual to be losing 5 most days with the odd 10 for the first 2-3 weeks or so. And this is a small diy shoot of a pen of 300 odd birds. But i will say the pen was badly designed and sited, since we have moved them and improved habitat loses to buzzards are almost nil. But that will not always be possible with more commercial operations. Improvements and habitat will only go so far but must be tried first
Yet even with the new improved pens 1 is getting ht by a Goshawk to the extent the pens is coming down this year, birds used to love it, now hardly a bird there. 4 buzzards hovering over it/nearby never even bothered it, and birds quite happy as plenty of space/cover, no kills for 2 weeks, Gossy turns up only a few kills but birds are so nervous and plenty missing over the wire, wot's left is so stressed/spooked will hardly even feed, complete waste of time. And not a lot u can do about it

I'm not calling for a return to the bad old days but there has to be some comprimise, all these birds are eating something to survive all year, and if only focussing on pheasants for 1 month wot are they hammering the rest of the time?


Cheers iknow nothing. While they are quite corrrect if conviction is spent it is opening a whole can of worms to be distorted picked at by others, most will not be interested in the facts.
Still think it would of been better if he was whiter than white so they can concentrate purely on the issue and not the side show.
Do u think they knew that before they put there wieght behind him?

 

[iknownothing]

Countryboy I agree with everything you say her, well put. I agree the licence system needs to be fair, if we were talking about gulls here this thread wouldn't have a single comment.

I don't know what the NGO knew about this chap before they went forward with the case but I doubt they wouldn't have all the facts. With BASC and the CA now onside as well it seems that this isn't a legal problem.

I will post a comment on the NGO blog asking the question for us.

PS you can comment on the NGO blog with your thoughts - I have

 

[landkeeper]

imho countrryboy because releasing large numbers of poults into artificially managed environment when they are intended as sporting targets later that season where they can be preyed on by any and all BOP is ill thought out and issuing licenses to cull said BOPs will be one of the triggers that will initiate the end of game bird release .We have to think of the negative publicity that will be generated and used against the industry in the future the scale of some shoots and the numbers released is abhorrent and indefensible to a lot of us, let alone the non shooting section of the public start adding culled raptors and all the other negatives together and your making a big snowball for the opposition to throw
what's next sparrowhawks ,goshawks , hen harriers , as mentioned above no-one gives a hoot about gulls or cormorants Bops are very different

 

[CharlieT]

I find it hard to understand why a "crop" of pheasants should be treated differently to one of trout. Pheasant shooting generates and brings vast amounts of much needed money into rural communities, it is only right and proper that such interests are treated fairly.

Here, it is common to see 20, 30, 40 buzzards in the air at any one time, it's not just the number of pheasants taken that one has to put up with but the stress such high densities cause the poults.

Well done the NGO.

 

[countrryboy]

I know where u are coming from landkeeper and agree that some shoots are putting out massive numbers of birds, but they are also bringing in vast sums of revinue and employment to rural areas off peak. I know of a few locally bringing in 1million quid plus a year to valleys with not a lot else, 100 odd shooting parties for accom, food etc

Charlie makes a cracking point why are trout or coarse fish treated differently? Atleast game ends up in the food chain.

Is a field of free range chickens/lambs natural? So why is it ok to cull foxes to protect those crops? Should he chicken farm not put up better fences?

It should not matter wot species an animal/bird is, if here is scientific evidence population is stable/increasing and u have answered all the critera of the licence it should be granted. It should be a last resort thou
Wether it is a fox, badger Pine martin, Mustelid or certain BoP etc have almost the exactly same diet/prey why should any of them be treated differently?
Wots the point in a keeper/reserve manger working there arse of to control legal predators only for badger, pine martins or BoP to wipe out wot ever there trying to protect?
Look at ur caper or black game in scotland is a prime example, but that is not fashionable enough

The big problem is more and more decsions are being made by people with no practical rural knowlege or experience or understanding and a very slick PR machine from certain parts that does not care about slipping some misinformatin in if it helps, it is now far more about the outcry from the public than wot is good for the countryside.
The badger cull fiasco shows that very well even ignoring the whole bTB issue

There has never been a time/need for BASC/NGO/CA/GWCT and any others to get there finger out join together and start putting some serious money into educating young kids about nature, both rural and urban or it will only get worse.

 

[landkeeper]

I know where u are coming from landkeeper and agree that some shoots are putting out massive numbers of birds, but they are also bringing in vast sums of revinue and employment to rural areas off peak. I know of a few locally bringing in 1million quid plus a year to valleys with not a lot else, 100 odd shooting parties for accom, food etc

Charlie makes a cracking point why are trout or coarse fish treated differently? Atleast game ends up in the food chain.

Is a field of free range chickens/lambs natural? So why is it ok to cull foxes to protect those crops? Should he chicken farm not put up better fences?

It should not matter wot species an animal/bird is, if here is scientific evidence population is stable/increasing and u have answered all the critera of the licence it should be granted. It should be a last resort thou
Wether it is a fox, badger Pine martin, Mustelid or certain BoP etc have almost the exactly same diet/prey why should any of them be treated differently?
Wots the point in a keeper/reserve manger working there arse of to control legal predators only for badger, pine martins or BoP to wipe out wot ever there trying to protect?
Look at ur caper or black game in scotland is a prime example, but that is not fashionable enough

The big problem is more and more decsions are being made by people with no practical rural knowlege or experience or understanding and a very slick PR machine from certain parts that does not care about slipping some misinformatin in if it helps, it is now far more about the outcry from the public than wot is good for the countryside.
The badger cull fiasco shows that very well even ignoring the whole bTB issue

There has never been a time/need for BASC/NGO/CA/GWCT and any others to get there finger out join together and start putting some serious money into educating young kids about nature, both rural and urban or it will only get worse.

really how much of the 'crop' of pheasants actually ends up in the human food chain it was only last year or maybe the year before i read of large numbers of shot birds being dumped
the difference between reared pheasants and lambs/trout etc is that the pheasant is there as a sporting target the fact that it's edible is a secondary concern and that's where the problem lies to my mind anyway it's not there from necessity or need but for someones whim

 

[countrryboy]

But surely that is the exact same as a trout in a fishery or a coarse fish that will never enter the food chain?

I have often heard of these 'dumped birds' but never actually ever met some one who has actually seen it first hand. Have u ever seen it? U say u read it, they was a photo doing the rounds quite recently about a scottish estate, but if u actually looked at it closely it diid look pretty staged, same photo taken from different angles etc
There are reason's where some that are badly shot/landed hard or within the withdrawal period for madication may not be fit for the food chain so possibly be buried but this widespread dumping?

 

[landkeeper]

i grant you that with a fishery and have had the same discussions here with others over otter predation again an indefensible argument
no i have never seen shot birds dumped and trust i never will , and yes there are many reasons why there might have been pictures of dumped birds but again that poses other issues that again may be indefensible if brought to light

 

[shrek1]

I seriously hope u are wrong on this.

There is no doubt it needs challenged but the person/shoot will have to be whiter than white and every i will have to be dotted and t crossed. If it turns out there is a record of wildlife crime that will be a disaster for everyone involved and the shooting industry as a whole and possibly even set the 'stanard' as a test case.
I really hope NGO have done there homework, even more so that everyone else is jumping on the bandwagon

I know the keeper in question well and am sure the NGO will have done their homework on him and any past conviction !

 

[shrek1]

I know where u are coming from landkeeper and agree that some shoots are putting out massive numbers of birds, but they are also bringing in vast sums of revinue and employment to rural areas off peak. I know of a few locally bringing in 1million quid plus a year to valleys with not a lot else, 100 odd shooting parties for accom, food etc

Charlie makes a cracking point why are trout or coarse fish treated differently? Atleast game ends up in the food chain.

Is a field of free range chickens/lambs natural? So why is it ok to cull foxes to protect those crops? Should he chicken farm not put up better fences?

It should not matter wot species an animal/bird is, if here is scientific evidence population is stable/increasing and u have answered all the critera of the licence it should be granted. It should be a last resort thou
Wether it is a fox, badger Pine martin, Mustelid or certain BoP etc have almost the exactly same diet/prey why should any of them be treated differently?
Wots the point in a keeper/reserve manger working there arse of to control legal predators only for badger, pine martins or BoP to wipe out wot ever there trying to protect?
Look at ur caper or black game in scotland is a prime example, but that is not fashionable enough

The big problem is more and more decsions are being made by people with no practical rural knowlege or experience or understanding and a very slick PR machine from certain parts that does not care about slipping some misinformatin in if it helps, it is now far more about the outcry from the public than wot is good for the countryside.
The badger cull fiasco shows that very well even ignoring the whole bTB issue

There has never been a time/need for BASC/NGO/CA/GWCT and any others to get there finger out join together and start putting some serious money into educating young kids about nature, both rural and urban or it will only get worse.

+1 well said

 

[timbrayford]

Does anyone know how you go about asking for a judicial review and what costs are involved, particularly in respect of individuals taking on public sector organisations such as NE?
atb Tim

 

[User00001]

Now after seeing what the reaction to the NGO stance would be BASC have put up a release supporting the judicial review.

BASC supports judicial review of buzzard decision | The British Association for Shooting and Conservation

I never thought I'd say it but well done them. Of course most congratulations go to the good people at the National Gamekeepers Organisation.

Keep up the good work.

Very interesting that the BASC are also backing this particularly after Duncan Thomas clearly stated on Countryfile last week that the association would expel any members who are involved in wildlife crime? I can only assume that Ricky McMorn was using his Carbofuran for decorative purposes!

 

[countrryboy]

Think all the shooting orgs are the same lifetine ban if guilty of a wildlife crime, i supppose strictly speaking he was mibee guilty of a pesticide storage crime rather than a wildlife crime.

Like i said a massive can of worms, case would always be messy now its going to be a nightmare, cost of fortune and i'd saying the chances of winning lower than if he was an angel.
The debate needs to be had but i think they have picked the wrong test case, any sensible debate will be lost in the slanging/PR assination that will follow.

I think they would be better dropping this case afore any more damage/credability is done/lost. Shame that for once a shooting org is standing up for itself and fighting back only to fight a losing bttle, was always going to be a hard 1 to win but now i'd say it's impossible

 

[Tamar]

I’m afraid that this is not an argument about ‘fairness’ however much NGO/CA/BASC want to play it as such. The fact is that we Brits are irrationally and disproportionately fond of raptors.

The majority of people (myself included) think raptors are amazing, and that there is something that sets them apart from say gulls, or woodpeckers (see the popularity of falconry centres or displays at shows, or the number of countries that have raptors as national symbols or their appearance in mythology and legend). I’ve no idea why this is, but it’s not some political stance just made up by anti-shooting organisations to impale gamekeepers. It’s simply a reflection of public will. The public are irrational about many things, and this is frequently what drives the rules that we make and decisions we take. We decide that it’s fine to factory farm chickens to eat, but it’s wrong to shoot a cute deer; we decide that horses are not for eating, but rapidly plummeting populations of cod or sea bass are OK; we decide that it’s unsporting to shoot pheasants on the ground or perched in a tree, but it’s fine and indeed admirable to have a go at one at 60yrds out after a glass or two of sloe gin; we choose to watch Strictly Come Dancing over an Attenborough program. Such decisions are often wrong to the disinterested observer, but they are what make our and societies social norms. If we want or hope to overturn them, we need to have a very good case, and we should expect strong opposition from the neutral public in doing so.

In the case of killing raptors in order to preserve released gamebirds, I think that the benefit that could be achieved is far outweighed by the damage that the changing of a social norm (‘we don’t kill raptors’) is negligible, if not non-existent. How many pheasants do we KNOW are being killed by buzzards? At the moment, we are fortunate to have legal control of the main predator of adult pheasants (foxes) and the main predators of nests and chicks (corvids, squirrels, rats, mustelids). The public generally accept these, in part because: it has been clearly demonstrated that they account for sizable losses – foxes accounting for >25% of predated birds across all studies; and there are perceived benefits for other non-game species in the form of better nesting success etc. I think there is a real risk of jeopardizing these controls if a provocative push is made against raptors for which we have little if any evidence of similar scales of damage to released populations and little evidence that they are impacting populations of other ‘liked’ species such as songbirds etc, but instead likely do deplete rabbits and rats which have less effective PR organizations on their side.

Do we want to alienate more disinterested public and hence call down judgement on the lethal methods that we can already deploy? Is it really worth poking the wasp nest, just because we can? And getting personal, is it really wise to use as a test case a man convicted of possessing an illegal poison that is or was commonly used to control pheasant predators? And do we really have strong evidence that it is explicitly buzzards killing pheasants that would not otherwise have died and could not be protected in ANY other legal way? I believe that if I was called on by NE to attack this case, it would be like shooting partridge in a pen.

You can call me defeatist or spineless if you like, but to my mind this is real politick. Play with fire, and someone will get hurt.

 

[iknownothing]

Countryboy I agree with everything you say her, well put. I agree the licence system needs to be fair, if we were talking about gulls here this thread wouldn't have a single comment.

I don't know what the NGO knew about this chap before they went forward with the case but I doubt they wouldn't have all the facts. With BASC and the CA now onside as well it seems that this isn't a legal problem.

I will post a comment on the NGO blog asking the question for us.

PS you can comment on the NGO blog with your thoughts - I have

This is the response from the NGO about the conviction

Yes we were aware. The previous conviction has been public knowledge and widely available since 2007.

It comes from the blog which has got lots of comments about it and different views http://www.nationalgamekeepers.org.uk/blog/2014/11/fairness-in-licensing

 

[Sinistral]

Does anyone know how you go about asking for a judicial review and what costs are involved, particularly in respect of individuals taking on public sector organisations such as NE?
atb Tim

This question is answered in part on Page 11 of the latest NGO 'Keeping The Balance' magazine - Winter 2014/15 which has just landed on the doormat. Thankfully this will be my last one.

This isn't just a question of NGO general support & backing. They have committed to underwrite the litigants legal costs for the judicial review. They've instructed a firm of solicitors, and sought legal opinion from a QC. Their estimate of Costs is at least a hit of £100K initially from NGO funds. There is an inset appeal for donations .... 'Can you help us?' .... so if anyone is feeling philanthropic here's your chance, boys.

It might be a 'no win - no fee' deal, but I doubt that. Should the case be lost then it will be twice the 'six-figure sum' of their estimate as they will have to pay the defendant's costs (NE) too.

The NGO article (full page) says this is the sixth refusal from NE in four years. The NGO member isn't named. The grounds for the Appeal are that NE has been inconsistent and unreasonable in refusing a control licence.

Good luck with that one.

 

[User00001]

This question is answered in part on Page 11 of the latest NGO 'Keeping The Balance' magazine - Winter 2014/15 which has just landed on the doormat. Thankfully this will be my last one.

This isn't just a question of NGO general support & backing. They have committed to underwrite the litigants legal costs for the judicial review. They've instructed a firm of solicitors, and sought legal opinion from a QC. Their estimate of Costs is at least a hit of £100K initially from NGO funds. There is an inset appeal for donations .... 'Can you help us?' .... so if anyone is feeling philanthropic here's your chance, boys.

It might be a 'no win - no fee' deal, but I doubt that. Should the case be lost then it will be twice the 'six-figure sum' of their estimate as they will have to pay the defendant's costs (NE) too.

The NGO article (full page) says this is the sixth refusal from NE in four years. The NGO member isn't named. The grounds for the Appeal are that NE has been inconsistent and unreasonable in refusing a control licence.

Good luck with that one.

I see that BASC and CA are 'supporting' this. I sincerely hope that doesn't include financial assistance? I also hope that no BASC council members are involved? Maybe David BASC can confirm this for us.

 

[TheShooter]

Hi all. I'm new here and didn't exspect to come across this topic as the first thing to comment on... I hear a lot of talk about large numbers of birds being taken by the Buzzards and the word proof but what is the proof. The only documents that I have seen have all suggested the opposite. Can someone put up a link for the proof of the Buzzards kill a majority or large percentage of the birds?

I would post a link but I have less than 5 points

Just as thought am missing the point and there is another reason that people want to shoot them?