SNH - Big mistake regarding licencing (1 Viewer)

[Pugs1]

Just to make people aware that SNH has decided in their wisdom that all raptor workers in Scotland have to join and pay an annual charge to the Scottish Raptor Groups in order to secure a Schedule 1 licence (applied for by a regional rep).

To me this is a dreadful move and forces those experts whom volunteer there time and dedication, and have for many many years monitored BoPs, to join another group. Many field workers are already members of other committed and specialist groups.

Apparently this is to prevent duplication of records however without dedicated workers who submit their work, they would not have this data in the first place!

This maybe the beginning of the end with my work as I will not be dictated to by somebody in an office!

Shame on YOU SNH.

 

[Farnboro John]

Just to make people aware that SNH has decided in their wisdom that all raptor workers in Scotland have to join and pay an annual charge to the Scottish Raptor Groups in order to secure a Schedule 1 licence (applied for by a regional rep).

To me this is a dreadful move and forces those experts whom volunteer there time and dedication, and have for many many years monitored BoPs, to join another group. Many field workers are already members of other committed and specialist groups.

Apparently this is to prevent duplication of records however without dedicated workers who submit their work, they would not have this data in the first place!

This maybe the beginning of the end with my work as I will not be dictated to by somebody in an office!

Shame on YOU SNH.

Unless you don't drive, earn money etc, you are already dictated to by people in offices. This is no different. Get over it, remember why you got into raptor conservation and carry on with the important stuff.

John

 

[Pugs1]

Unless you don't drive, earn money etc, you are already dictated to by people in offices. This is no different. Get over it, remember why you got into raptor conservation and carry on with the important stuff.

John

Clearly you need to 'get over it' as you dont quite understand how unbeneficial this is and how it could create a divide but you happen to pick up on the most unimportant part of the whole thread...reference to an 'office'..jees!

I on the other hand do not need to get over anything, simply stating that this is a backwards step and I have for years, 'been getting on with it' and carrying on with BoP conservation.

 

[Mickr]

Just to make people aware that SNH has decided in their wisdom that all raptor workers in Scotland have to join and pay an annual charge to the Scottish Raptor Groups in order to secure a Schedule 1 licence (applied for by a regional rep).

To me this is a dreadful move and forces those experts whom volunteer there time and dedication, and have for many many years monitored BoPs, to join another group. Many field workers are already members of other committed and specialist groups.

Apparently this is to prevent duplication of records however without dedicated workers who submit their work, they would not have this data in the first place!

This maybe the beginning of the end with my work as I will not be dictated to by somebody in an office!

Shame on YOU SNH.

That seems crazy unless the licences are being abused in some way or the wrong people are getting them.

What do you use yours for?

 

[Farnboro John]

Clearly you need to 'get over it' as you dont quite understand how unbeneficial this is and how it could create a divide but you happen to pick up on the most unimportant part of the whole thread...reference to an 'office'..jees!

I on the other hand do not need to get over anything, simply stating that this is a backwards step and I have for years, 'been getting on with it' and carrying on with BoP conservation.

Yes, but you haven't really explained why it is a backward step and you have explained the authority's given reason for doing it, which sounds sensible. So now you need to show us (if you want sympathy which presumably is why you posted in the first place) why the reason is wrong. A central authority for licensing and records to avoid duplication sounds eminently sensible and can not only avoid duplication but ensure all areas are covered without gaps.

So why is it a backward step? What will be missed now that hasn't been? What will be more bureaucratic than it was? How will your records now fail to be used effectively for conservation?

John

 

[Pugs1]

Simples, do you have any idea on how political it is with all of these groups (not just RSG) and what SNH are doing is forcing either individual workers or those associated with other groups and already pay annual subscriptions to join yet another group in order to attain a licence. So, if those people stand down then that is a backward step because they lose valuable scientific data. No matter how you want to dress it up, that could be the result.

Many volunteers whom may or may not work for any one or more of the organisations have done sterling work without having to be affiliated to or forced to join an organisation.

Scenario: Would you agree with that happening in England & Wales and that all raptor workers were told to join a group in order to acquire a licence to work on BoPs and have to pay for the privilege, one in which has been working for years for the good? I actually believe there is not much duplication since most are well known or established sites and generally local workers know or co-ordinate efforts anyway. I’d like to know what raptor workers would think if Natural England came up with that, anybody like to comment? Maybe the Nest Record Scheme members should also be forced to join another organisation in order to prevent duplication, where does it stop!

The Scottish RSG have a good reputation but just look at the shenanigans that went on with the Bowland raptors and the arguments between so called professional groups and the ‘bitching’ that went on. That is why I want to remain as an individual reporting my annual returns directly to SNH and BTO.

As a side note: John, do you work with raptors?

 

[Pugs1]

After a chat with SNH it appears that there is some confusion with the new regulations and that workers DO NOT have to be or join a RSG.

So MODS can this thread be locked or removed as it is no longer relevant please

 

[Farnboro John]

Simples, do you have any idea on how political it is with all of these groups (not just RSG) and what SNH are doing is forcing either individual workers or those associated with other groups and already pay annual subscriptions to join yet another group in order to attain a licence. So, if those people stand down then that is a backward step because they lose valuable scientific data. No matter how you want to dress it up, that could be the result.

Many volunteers whom may or may not work for any one or more of the organisations have done sterling work without having to be affiliated to or forced to join an organisation.

Scenario: Would you agree with that happening in England & Wales and that all raptor workers were told to join a group in order to acquire a licence to work on BoPs and have to pay for the privilege, one in which has been working for years for the good? I actually believe there is not much duplication since most are well known or established sites and generally local workers know or co-ordinate efforts anyway. I’d like to know what raptor workers would think if Natural England came up with that, anybody like to comment? Maybe the Nest Record Scheme members should also be forced to join another organisation in order to prevent duplication, where does it stop!

The Scottish RSG have a good reputation but just look at the shenanigans that went on with the Bowland raptors and the arguments between so called professional groups and the ‘bitching’ that went on. That is why I want to remain as an individual reporting my annual returns directly to SNH and BTO.

As a side note: John, do you work with raptors?

No, but I'm learning. If you'd said all this to start with, I wouldn't have had to ask questions which you clearly feel form an attack on you rather than a search for knowledge. Assuming knowledge in others is the commonest error I have to deal with at work.

John