31,000 signatures!

15 Replies to “31,000 signatures!”

1. 31013 a great number!

   1. Richard – good morning! All those still asleep missed it – 31,014 now 😉

2. I’m pleased that my estimate of just 27727 has long been passed, however it is with regret that it will not reach 100,000. Are there really 1,000,000 + RSPB members? If so where are they I wonder.

   Regardless, you have been a tireless campaigner for a worthwhile cause.

   1. They’re still out there Robert, all 1.1 million of them, it’s just that the RSPB have chosen not to tell them. Along with the wildlife trusts, and many more that could have publicised this petition and have chosen not to.
      I remain a member due to the thousands of hours given by dedicated volunteers and the many wonderful staff that they have, but I’m embarrassed by the current management and the answers I get from them.
      Where do you think the RSPB’s head office is these days? Sandy or Westminster?
      While politicians talked, it used to be that the NGO’s acted. Sadly no longer the case.

      1. Quite Paul.

         Bad enough for whatever their ‘reason’ not to get behind the BDG petition, but I’m at a loss as to why they’ve signed up in support / partner of the Joint [In]action Plan ….

         That really is a questionable inaction …. others have offered good comments about that but on that aspect they may well see people review their memberships?

         Perhaps they’ll have a change of heart (mmmh …. see above ) over the next day or so & really ‘twitter & tweet’ for Hen Harriers? Their ‘real’ conservation staff (not the politicians in senior management) must be as sick as parrots?

         1. Just been reading Spring Edition of Nature’s Voice. There are two Trustee vacancies. They say they are seeking candidates with a background in “sustainable agriculture, countryside management, digital communications, or audience growth and brand building” Is it just me, or is there something missing/worrying about these criteria? What about a background in environmental science, ecology, zoology, etc etc?
            I know that they have to have employees with varied backgrounds including finance, business and marketing but surely people with expertise in the natural environment should dominate the Trustees? Also they ask for experience in trustee or non-executive roles. Sounds a bit like the board of a financial institution or stock market listed company where “jobs for the boys” are passed around (e.g. Sir Philip Dilley’s 10 non-exec directorships including Grosvenor Estates with the Duke of Westminster).

            Or am I just disgruntled and cynical. Our RSPB membership (40 years +) is on probation this year. I am watching carefully.

            1. Northern Diver – maybe a bit cynical. each year there are vacancies for Council, and clearly with a five-year term it will be about a fifth of them who depart. Their skills must be replaced to keep the type of balance necessary. But I do wonder whether Council is entirely happy with where the RSPB is positioned.

3. 30000 is indeed a milestone. Well done for keeping the momentum going. As I have said before I enjoy a bit of shooting (bit of rough shooting for the pot and a bit of pest control, harriers and ……ooooops sorry mean squirrels and bunnies) but I cannot believe the utter bollocks (can’t think of a better word I’m afraid) that the CA, BASC and the GWCT are trolling out on behalf of the ‘shooting community’. I realise that they may think that a ban on DGS may be the thin end of the wedge to get shooting banned (I don’t and have happily signed the petition this time round) but between those organisations I think they have furthered the case for a campaign on a complete ban more than any collection of ‘anti-shooting organisations ever could have. All have shown they are happy for an unsustainable and widely damaging part of shooting to continue. I must add that I am a member of both BASC (for shooting insurance) and GWCT as I take part in the Partridge Count Scheme, but that like a maggot inside an apple, I am slowly munching away.

   My concerns are also growing as to how this epetition seems to be having problems generating confirmation emails, ie in some cases it isn’t. This has been mentioned on other social media and I dismissed these as ‘one offs’ (yes I realise that’s not the best phrase). However mindful of the above my daughter attempted to sign last week. I witnessed her doing it (checked correct email address etc) and so far she has not received her confirmation email. I hope there is a rational explanation to this?

   1. Martin – thank you for this comment and many others here.

      I am, of course, concerned that people who want to sign this (and I guess any other) e-petition are finding it difficult. That doesn’t sound good.

   2. Martin, I am heartened by your comment, we need more members of the shooting community to take a more caring approach to the promotion of a wildlife diversity that we can all enjoy.

   3. Martin, I don’t shoot but I am indebted to a dear friend who took me along wildfowling when I was a youth. Great birder, eyes like peregrine, and I learnt so much field craft as well as seeing restrained and sound qualities which allow me to appreciate the wildfowler and walk up shooter today.
      I talked to him last week ( he’s still active in his 70’s) on the toxic lead ammunition topic and if he says that there’s no problem with non lead shot and how he’s been using it for years then I accept his view.
      So, like you and like him there seem to be an increasing number within the shooting fraternity who are turning their backs on the voice of shooting which is coming from these organisations. They are shooting themselves in the foot and losing support amongst their own membership. Yes the snowball continues to roll.

4. That is me out for 30200. It is great to see it fly past as it seemed optimistic to me two weeks ago. All without help from any conservation organisations.

   It has done well for a environmental petition. Do you think it is worth asking the petitions committee to recommend to the environment committee that they hold a driven grouse shooting inquiry?

   I am lost in trying to understand why the RSPB signed off the Governments hen harrier plan for inaction.

   Is there a reason why the RSPB haven’t been selling Inglorious? It does not seem to make commercial sense not to sell it. Have they foregone profiting from sales to subdue support for banning driven grouse shooting?

   1. Owen, you make a few good points, but your last is excellent. I hadn’t noticed that they don’t sell Inglorious but I’m sure (Mark, correct me if I’m wrong) that they have sold other books of Mark’s. Very strange indeed.
      A bit of a naughty thought this, but I wonder how many RSPB trustees and/or top management shoot.
      Well, it would explain why they haven’t supported Rob’s Lead petition either.

      1. Please may I add a late correction. The RSPB does indeed sell Inglorious.

         If you go into the RSPB bookshop and type in ‘Mark Avery’, Inglorious is the first book to appear.
         Owen, I’m sure you will be as glad as I am that that is the case.

5. Great stuff Mark, and very happy to see my estimate fall by the wayside long ago!

Comments are closed.