21 Replies to “Seen recently by readers of this blog”
Well, if it was ever in doubt, now we see NE in it’s true colours. I wonder how much shooting ground it will be letting this season.
Ospreys tolerated and encouraged by BASC and its members because nobody shoots fish?
Have you ever seen an Osprey near a barrel?
When I see a BASC funded Hen Harrier viewpoint on a grouse moor, then I will be impressed.
Shame on NE (once again) for this “we’re in bed with the shooters” attempt to make them look good.
How two faced can NE get, however I wonder just how much BASC actually contributed to this project. 2 rupees? In return for what?
Not sure how true this is but the source was very reliable – most of the red kites of the nearby south Lakes re-introduction scheme have been ‘removed’. It doesn’t take much guessing to decide who did the removing. What a sad and sickening shame. No wonder we don’t see as many wandering kites as might be expected in the skies over north Lancashire. Perhaps the kites should have eaten more fish and fewer worms, beetles, dead rabbits and road-kill pheasants – probably blamed for killing the latter.
Follow the money.
Natural England signed a partnership agreement with BASC back in 2015. At a BASC conference in 2016, NE’s Senior Specialist for protected sites explained how NE was “encouraging staff to go out onto the marsh with wildfowlers” because, “the consenting process becomes easier and more straightforward when there is an existing relationship and trust between NE and wildfowling clubs….we are working closely with… the BASC wildfowling team …and would like to hear from more clubs…”
Understandably, BASC have repeatedly talked up the extent of their influence with NE, but perhaps they haven’t had it all their own way. It will be interesting to see what emerges in the new NE Wildfowling Guidance Review, which so far as I know is due imminently but not yet published. BASC was not entirely happy with the consultation draft – in particular, they wanted complete removal of any restrictions on the number of shoot visits that could be made to a site, and the introduction of a minimum shoot consent duration of 20 years (!).
A half-serious suggestion – should we be crowdfunding useful projects for NE reserves?
In modern Britain donations always seem to buy influence.
I suppose we should not be that surprised, NE are in great need of funds ( as well as backbones, a need to go back to putting nature first etc.) and of course the “game lobby” is in need of being seen to be on the right side. So this is an easy option for both but clearly many of us are not fooled by GwCT they are still in league with the devil in that the whole of shooting is rife with criminality that has no intention of voluntarily changing its ways and THEY KNOW IT. Indeed the antics of their PR person is essentially apologism for all that is wrong in shooting and it is and never has been just driven grouse shooting, for me the mass uncontrolled release of millions of alien Pheasants and Red legs every year should not be allowed unless we know the effect on native ecology and I for one think it is responsible for invertebrate declines possibly amphibian and reptile declines, with of course the possibility they are outcompeting some declining farmland birds, not least Grey Partridge. Then there is the dodgy self serving science too! Langholm 2 anyone!
NE staff on the ground are often good, even excellent but betrayed by appalling funding and just as appalling senior managers busy keeping jobs by cow towing to ” customers” in their outcome driven agenda. What happened to nature comes first second and not last as now. The legacy of Derek Ratcliffe betrayed!!!
If both organisations were as they SHOULD be this partnership would not be a problem and would not raise a concern. that they are far from what they should and could be means this is a partnership we should ALL be suspicious of.
A Scottish wildlife artist has given a very credible account of seeing a pheasant eat a lapwing chick in spite of it being mobbed by a group of ten lapwings – they obviously recognized it as a predator. In ‘Our Place’ Mark Cocker noted that an estimated 236,000 tonnes of cereal are used to raise gamebirds each year – how much intensive farming is that to produce something that is more likely to end up as roadkill or fox fodder rather than in someone’s belly?
I know at least one grouse keeper of the recent past who habitually shot all pheasants on his moor and encouraged his under keepers to do the same because of their predation of grouse and wader chicks and eggs. He is no longer with us but I wonder if his replacement does the same.
Also quite a lot of those 236,000 tonnes of cereal is consumed by brown rats, I wonder what they eat in spring when the handouts stop? All those pheasants both live and dead provide unworldly young foxes crows magpies and may be even buzzards with the means to survive their first winters when they might otherwise have perished and of course both the grain and the pheasant supply is at a minimum when native wildlife is trying to breed. We desperately need answers to the effects of the mass game bird releases on native wildlife but it seems a chalice to hot to hold or investigate.
Then there is the persecution! there isn’t a native predator avian or land mammal that is not affected by this in numbers or distribution.
Stay pure ! See your Osprey’s at Forest Enterprise’s Bassenthwaite Lake and support the organisation that protects England’s last breeding Hen Harriers.
Actually Rod I go and see my local Ospreys here in Wales either on the Clywedog Which I think is forestry Enterprise or The Dyfi Osprey Project, which is my local Wildlife trust and I would recommend visiting this wonderful public viewing experience in a great setting, much closer than on Bassenthwaite. But I take your point Rod and yes we should be singing the praises of FE too! Harriers are back in Bowland this year too so praise be to local RSPB staff and vols who work so very hard to make it work and the land owners UU. I think they have bred elsewhere this year but await it being announced publicly.
That’s great news, Paul but its so sad that the good managers like FE and UU can’t protect their birds once they leave the safe ground – as we saw with the death of Finn this year.
Indeed Roderick, despite claims of a change of attitude amongst “the dark side” there is precious little evidence of it and doubtless some of this years crop of young harriers will wander into good harrier habitat that is unoccupied for very good reason and die at the hand of some ignorant criminal in tweed or other traditional outfit. The tide may be turning but for me there is only one way to stop persecution–BAN DRIVEN SHOOTING, grouse and the canned sport of pheasants and redlegs.
I am not sure about this one to be honest. I deeply object to the ongoing persecution of birds of prey on shooting estates and I deplore the fact that the various organisations representing shooting so often play down the scale of the problem but I am not sure on what grounds NE could or should refuse money from BASC.
1) Although there is clearly criminality within the shooting community the identity of the perpetrators of wildlife crime in most cases remains unknown or unproven. However, BASC itself officially condemns raptor persecution (however ineffectually), is not accused itself of being a criminal organisation and is a partner of NE on the Hen Harrier Action plan (however misguided and ineffectual we may believe that plan to be).
2) The activity represented by BASC – shooting – is legal in the UK under the present law. Whilst many people may disapprove of shooting and wish to see the law changed, NE as a statutory body is obliged to treat all law-abiding persons or organisations in the same way (and while the perpetrators of BOP persecution may or may not be members of BASC, I am not aware of any suggestion that the organisation itself is accused of breaking the law). NE cannot adopt a position that is not supported by the law and/or govt policy (which as Therese Coffey keeps telling us is that shooting is a good thing and the source of marvellous benefits to the countryside).
3) Assuming NE accepts money for this kind of thing from other bodies, organisations or individuals and, given the above, refusal of money from BASC on the grounds that it is a shooting organisation would be a decision that it would surely struggle to justify to its political masters.
It would certainly be inappropriate for NE to accept funds from, say, a shooting estate that it was currently investigating but I don’t really think that accepting money from BASC particularly for a project that is not directly relevant to the shooting-BOP conflict, ‘shows NE in its true colours’ or means that it is in the pocket of the shooting organisations (any more than accepting support – financial or in kind – from the RSPB or other conservation bodies would mean it was in the pocket of them).
Of course NE could refuse support from all quarters and rely solely on its funding from the government but that would bring other problems…
I may be naive, but if BASC supports the release of millions of non-native birds into the British countryside and supports the killing of our native predators (part of the natural ecological cycle) to maintain maximum numbers of the alien birds in order for them to be shot for a hobby and occasionally for the lead-contaminated & medicated pot, then how can “NATURAL England” take their money with a clear conscience?
Also, apart from spouting platitudes, have BASC ever reported anyone for wildlife crime. I’d love to know if they have?
The point I was making Carole is that as an agency of the government NE can only take decisions that are supported by the current law and government policy. It is not at liberty to take decisions on the basis of its own conscience or moral deliberations. I agree that the release of large numbers of pheasants is ecologically undesirable but it is nevertheless legal so I don’t think NE can discriminate against people who do it or advocate it.
Whilst that is true Jonathan they do not necessarily have to enter into such agreements with any of the “dark side” organisations— GWCT, BASC, MA, Countryside Areliars, NGO, SGA, SLE, Moors for the future etc. It lowers NE’s reputation even lower if that were possible and enhances the dark side organisations ( just)!
Sadly NE appears to have abandoned safeguarding wildlife and is becoming a tool for those seek to maximise profit and which now regularly authorises culling of wildlife and protected species.
There is little evidence that they undertake science to support such actions and in failing to conduct their business in an open and transparent way, they bring their organisation into disrepute. That a number of JRs and challenges are pending is surely an indication of lack of confidence/respect for the organisation?
One might be forgiven for asking what public service they deliver and would we be better off without them as it seems many of us could provide some excellent examples and case studies which illustrate failure/incompetence etc.? NNR estate teams excepted.
They are unlikely to be abolished as they provide that legitimacy and to a degree protection for those we really need to be challenging?
Comments are closed.
This website uses cookies to improve your experience. We'll assume you're ok with this, but you can opt-out if you wish.AcceptRejectRead More
Privacy & Cookies Policy
Privacy Overview
This website uses cookies to improve your experience while you navigate through the website. Out of these, the cookies that are categorized as necessary are stored on your browser as they are essential for the working of basic functionalities of the website. We also use third-party cookies that help us analyze and understand how you use this website. These cookies will be stored in your browser only with your consent. You also have the option to opt-out of these cookies. But opting out of some of these cookies may affect your browsing experience.
Necessary cookies are absolutely essential for the website to function properly. This category only includes cookies that ensures basic functionalities and security features of the website. These cookies do not store any personal information.
Any cookies that may not be particularly necessary for the website to function and is used specifically to collect user personal data via analytics, ads, other embedded contents are termed as non-necessary cookies. It is mandatory to procure user consent prior to running these cookies on your website.
Well, if it was ever in doubt, now we see NE in it’s true colours. I wonder how much shooting ground it will be letting this season.
Ospreys tolerated and encouraged by BASC and its members because nobody shoots fish?
Have you ever seen an Osprey near a barrel?
When I see a BASC funded Hen Harrier viewpoint on a grouse moor, then I will be impressed.
Shame on NE (once again) for this “we’re in bed with the shooters” attempt to make them look good.
How two faced can NE get, however I wonder just how much BASC actually contributed to this project. 2 rupees? In return for what?
Not sure how true this is but the source was very reliable – most of the red kites of the nearby south Lakes re-introduction scheme have been ‘removed’. It doesn’t take much guessing to decide who did the removing. What a sad and sickening shame. No wonder we don’t see as many wandering kites as might be expected in the skies over north Lancashire. Perhaps the kites should have eaten more fish and fewer worms, beetles, dead rabbits and road-kill pheasants – probably blamed for killing the latter.
Follow the money.
Natural England signed a partnership agreement with BASC back in 2015. At a BASC conference in 2016, NE’s Senior Specialist for protected sites explained how NE was “encouraging staff to go out onto the marsh with wildfowlers” because, “the consenting process becomes easier and more straightforward when there is an existing relationship and trust between NE and wildfowling clubs….we are working closely with… the BASC wildfowling team …and would like to hear from more clubs…”
Understandably, BASC have repeatedly talked up the extent of their influence with NE, but perhaps they haven’t had it all their own way. It will be interesting to see what emerges in the new NE Wildfowling Guidance Review, which so far as I know is due imminently but not yet published. BASC was not entirely happy with the consultation draft – in particular, they wanted complete removal of any restrictions on the number of shoot visits that could be made to a site, and the introduction of a minimum shoot consent duration of 20 years (!).
A half-serious suggestion – should we be crowdfunding useful projects for NE reserves?
In modern Britain donations always seem to buy influence.
I suppose we should not be that surprised, NE are in great need of funds ( as well as backbones, a need to go back to putting nature first etc.) and of course the “game lobby” is in need of being seen to be on the right side. So this is an easy option for both but clearly many of us are not fooled by GwCT they are still in league with the devil in that the whole of shooting is rife with criminality that has no intention of voluntarily changing its ways and THEY KNOW IT. Indeed the antics of their PR person is essentially apologism for all that is wrong in shooting and it is and never has been just driven grouse shooting, for me the mass uncontrolled release of millions of alien Pheasants and Red legs every year should not be allowed unless we know the effect on native ecology and I for one think it is responsible for invertebrate declines possibly amphibian and reptile declines, with of course the possibility they are outcompeting some declining farmland birds, not least Grey Partridge. Then there is the dodgy self serving science too! Langholm 2 anyone!
NE staff on the ground are often good, even excellent but betrayed by appalling funding and just as appalling senior managers busy keeping jobs by cow towing to ” customers” in their outcome driven agenda. What happened to nature comes first second and not last as now. The legacy of Derek Ratcliffe betrayed!!!
If both organisations were as they SHOULD be this partnership would not be a problem and would not raise a concern. that they are far from what they should and could be means this is a partnership we should ALL be suspicious of.
A Scottish wildlife artist has given a very credible account of seeing a pheasant eat a lapwing chick in spite of it being mobbed by a group of ten lapwings – they obviously recognized it as a predator. In ‘Our Place’ Mark Cocker noted that an estimated 236,000 tonnes of cereal are used to raise gamebirds each year – how much intensive farming is that to produce something that is more likely to end up as roadkill or fox fodder rather than in someone’s belly?
I know at least one grouse keeper of the recent past who habitually shot all pheasants on his moor and encouraged his under keepers to do the same because of their predation of grouse and wader chicks and eggs. He is no longer with us but I wonder if his replacement does the same.
Also quite a lot of those 236,000 tonnes of cereal is consumed by brown rats, I wonder what they eat in spring when the handouts stop? All those pheasants both live and dead provide unworldly young foxes crows magpies and may be even buzzards with the means to survive their first winters when they might otherwise have perished and of course both the grain and the pheasant supply is at a minimum when native wildlife is trying to breed. We desperately need answers to the effects of the mass game bird releases on native wildlife but it seems a chalice to hot to hold or investigate.
Then there is the persecution! there isn’t a native predator avian or land mammal that is not affected by this in numbers or distribution.
Stay pure ! See your Osprey’s at Forest Enterprise’s Bassenthwaite Lake and support the organisation that protects England’s last breeding Hen Harriers.
Actually Rod I go and see my local Ospreys here in Wales either on the Clywedog Which I think is forestry Enterprise or The Dyfi Osprey Project, which is my local Wildlife trust and I would recommend visiting this wonderful public viewing experience in a great setting, much closer than on Bassenthwaite. But I take your point Rod and yes we should be singing the praises of FE too! Harriers are back in Bowland this year too so praise be to local RSPB staff and vols who work so very hard to make it work and the land owners UU. I think they have bred elsewhere this year but await it being announced publicly.
That’s great news, Paul but its so sad that the good managers like FE and UU can’t protect their birds once they leave the safe ground – as we saw with the death of Finn this year.
Indeed Roderick, despite claims of a change of attitude amongst “the dark side” there is precious little evidence of it and doubtless some of this years crop of young harriers will wander into good harrier habitat that is unoccupied for very good reason and die at the hand of some ignorant criminal in tweed or other traditional outfit. The tide may be turning but for me there is only one way to stop persecution–BAN DRIVEN SHOOTING, grouse and the canned sport of pheasants and redlegs.
I am not sure about this one to be honest. I deeply object to the ongoing persecution of birds of prey on shooting estates and I deplore the fact that the various organisations representing shooting so often play down the scale of the problem but I am not sure on what grounds NE could or should refuse money from BASC.
1) Although there is clearly criminality within the shooting community the identity of the perpetrators of wildlife crime in most cases remains unknown or unproven. However, BASC itself officially condemns raptor persecution (however ineffectually), is not accused itself of being a criminal organisation and is a partner of NE on the Hen Harrier Action plan (however misguided and ineffectual we may believe that plan to be).
2) The activity represented by BASC – shooting – is legal in the UK under the present law. Whilst many people may disapprove of shooting and wish to see the law changed, NE as a statutory body is obliged to treat all law-abiding persons or organisations in the same way (and while the perpetrators of BOP persecution may or may not be members of BASC, I am not aware of any suggestion that the organisation itself is accused of breaking the law). NE cannot adopt a position that is not supported by the law and/or govt policy (which as Therese Coffey keeps telling us is that shooting is a good thing and the source of marvellous benefits to the countryside).
3) Assuming NE accepts money for this kind of thing from other bodies, organisations or individuals and, given the above, refusal of money from BASC on the grounds that it is a shooting organisation would be a decision that it would surely struggle to justify to its political masters.
It would certainly be inappropriate for NE to accept funds from, say, a shooting estate that it was currently investigating but I don’t really think that accepting money from BASC particularly for a project that is not directly relevant to the shooting-BOP conflict, ‘shows NE in its true colours’ or means that it is in the pocket of the shooting organisations (any more than accepting support – financial or in kind – from the RSPB or other conservation bodies would mean it was in the pocket of them).
Of course NE could refuse support from all quarters and rely solely on its funding from the government but that would bring other problems…
I may be naive, but if BASC supports the release of millions of non-native birds into the British countryside and supports the killing of our native predators (part of the natural ecological cycle) to maintain maximum numbers of the alien birds in order for them to be shot for a hobby and occasionally for the lead-contaminated & medicated pot, then how can “NATURAL England” take their money with a clear conscience?
Also, apart from spouting platitudes, have BASC ever reported anyone for wildlife crime. I’d love to know if they have?
The point I was making Carole is that as an agency of the government NE can only take decisions that are supported by the current law and government policy. It is not at liberty to take decisions on the basis of its own conscience or moral deliberations. I agree that the release of large numbers of pheasants is ecologically undesirable but it is nevertheless legal so I don’t think NE can discriminate against people who do it or advocate it.
Whilst that is true Jonathan they do not necessarily have to enter into such agreements with any of the “dark side” organisations— GWCT, BASC, MA, Countryside Areliars, NGO, SGA, SLE, Moors for the future etc. It lowers NE’s reputation even lower if that were possible and enhances the dark side organisations ( just)!
Sadly NE appears to have abandoned safeguarding wildlife and is becoming a tool for those seek to maximise profit and which now regularly authorises culling of wildlife and protected species.
There is little evidence that they undertake science to support such actions and in failing to conduct their business in an open and transparent way, they bring their organisation into disrepute. That a number of JRs and challenges are pending is surely an indication of lack of confidence/respect for the organisation?
One might be forgiven for asking what public service they deliver and would we be better off without them as it seems many of us could provide some excellent examples and case studies which illustrate failure/incompetence etc.? NNR estate teams excepted.
They are unlikely to be abolished as they provide that legitimacy and to a degree protection for those we really need to be challenging?