As pointed out yesterday, NRW are looking at the role of shooting on our land, public land, in Wales.
The Countryside Alliance is asking its members to wade in with their views – which is a perfectly reasonable thing for them to do. And it’s perfectly reasonable for you to send in your views too.
I find it interesting that the Countryside Alliance is often described as a ‘countryside group’ rather than ‘a pro-killing of wildlife’ group. Why is that? I live in a rural area – the Countryside Alliance certainly doesn’t speak for me. We’ve seen this inaccurate description happen before – see here and here.
[registration_form]
An informal analysis of the relative numbers of CA newsletter items in defence of activities involving killing and of activities not involving killing (eg rural post offices) over the last year or two suggests to me that you are right.
dirtmother – indeed! They haven’t been very active on buses or broadband around these parts. Buzzards yes!
As someone who has lived in the British countryside for almost my entire life and also a landowner (albeit in a small way), and the owner of a rural consultancy, I can say without any hesitation that the Countryside Alliance does not bloody speak for me!
Concur with sentiments about CA representing rural residents. Why would they want broadband to reach us all, it would help rural conservationists challenge their claims?
They are like their pals in the MA, good with fake news and spin – so good that Mr Sells relies on their assistance to save NE media dept work?
As with many such organisations why is it that they are averse and fail to evidence their assertions?
Must look up their membership numbers add them to MA, NGO, BASC, GWCT and lest we forget HOT? Allowance for overlap and see if the numbers stack up in terms of representation cf. to wildlife and conservation organisations? Not an easy task as some seem rather ‘coy’ in that aspect of publicity?
One could wonder if their criticism of RSPB is likely to act as a good recruitment tool for the charity?
Similarly, the CA has in my experience never had any role, impact or influence on forestry & forestry people, and we’re probably the most rural of rural people.
Very rural and very not wanting to be connected in any way, shape or form with the Countryside Alliance and their supposed ‘Voice of the Countryside’ ……
I’d like to submit a response.
On reflection I don’t think I’ll submit it via the CA.
I would like to submit an individual response which requests that lead should be banned due to the environmental impact and include references to research showing that this would have little if any cost impact, or other adverse effects, other than on the annoyance that CA members might experience.
Has anyone previously submitted such a proposal, as I’d like to expand and tailor a previous one one to my needs?
Worth noting that the call for evidence includes guidance on acceptable and unacceptable evidence types as follows. Shame the government didn’t include such guidance for MPs before the grouse shooting debate!
Acceptable evidence types are:
Published / peer reviewed journal publications
Technical / research papers and reports
Government agency / research group or committee reports, working papers
Conference proceedings
Official publications
Academic publications
Trade publications
Observational studies – historical or recent
Systematic review
Expert opinion without critical appraisal – only if supplied with proof of professional membership of a recognised professional body such as the Chartered Institution of Water and Environmental Management.
Evidence types that will not be accepted are:
Popular publications
anecdotal findings
opinions
ideas
Oh …… that means I can’t submit what I see out of my kitchen window ….. pfft!
“Evidence types that will not be accepted are:
anecdotal findings
opinions
ideas”
Bang goes every EAC oral evidence submission session. Post-truth!!
House of Commons Petitions Committee when discussing the proposed Ban on Driven Grouse Shooting took from my recollection anecdotal, opinionated ideas, sadly from the vested interests brigade.
I seriously question whether any of the pro raptor eradication, mis-managing upland moorland (funded through the public purse) brigade read any of the peer reviewed academic papers submitted in support of a ban …. ever an agnostic:) Theirs failed IMHO to provide current data in terms of economic benefit &c.
Let’s hope NRW have a backbone unlike their English cousins?