• Welcome to BirdForum, the internet's largest birding community with thousands of members from all over the world. The forums are dedicated to wild birds, birding, binoculars and equipment and all that goes with it.

    Please register for an account to take part in the discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.
ZEISS DTI thermal imaging cameras. For more discoveries at night, and during the day.

RSPB allows "wildfowling" (2 Viewers)

So your saying that the RSPB should not allow it to occur on the reserve where it is monitored, controlled and limited but if it was to occur on any one else's private land then they could shoot as much as they want and not have it licenced.

Any one else see an issue there........

The RSPB is working with local community groups (i.e. Wildfowlers) to aid the protection (noting they will be paying for the licence) of the wildfowl in the long run.

Just to also note here that also the NNR at Holy Island (Northumberland) also allow wild fowling to much greater level of birds. And they do not have any issues there with lack of birds.
 
I don't know the full details of the situation at this reserve, but these things often relate to the circumstances under which the RSPB acquires reserves. As the article states, wildfowling at the site dates back to the 1600s and it may be that when the RSPB acquired the site, allowing a limited and sustainable amount of wildfowling to continue avoided confrontation and other problems that could have otherwise jeopardised the establishment of the reserve.

Similar situations exist at other reserves. For example, a small amount of Red Grouse shooting takes place on the Abernethy RSPB reserve each year, simply because the family that used to own the land included a clause to that effect when they sold it to the RSPB.
 
"Chris Cockburn, RSPB warden for Langstone harbour, said: "If wildfowling was banned the only way we could make it work would be by policing it.

"The reality is that would be very difficult whereas by licensing it we are effectively controlling the amount of shooting that can occur. At the moment the controls in place are pretty stringent. The alternative to the situation we have is grim."

Can anyone explain how it is apparently easy enough to "police" licensed shooting but would be very difficult to "police" a ban?
 
rozinante said:
Can anyone explain how it is apparently easy enough to "police" licensed shooting but would be very difficult to "police" a ban?
Click to expand...

I think the answer to this is quite simple: absolute prohibition of anything is hard to police, whereas controlled licencing is self policing, generally by those who hold the licences.
 
I think it is very important that if anyone has any doubts about this, to contact the RSPB directly. As pointed out on this and other similar threads, ancestral shooting rights can be expensive and legally difficult to remove. The Langstone warden does not mention this but it would not be the first time that the news media only printed up what they wanted out of a quote. Capercaillie71 points out that the article refers to shooting on the site going back to the 1600s so it would have been stange for the warden not to have commented on this although I could be putting words into his mouth.

I certainly understand the self-policing system pointed out by David Hunter but I suspect there is much more to this than the news media has reported.

Capercaillie71 also pointed out that local confrontations are best avoided and I know of one reserve in the east of England where pigeon shooting blatantly takes place within full view of the visitor centre. The shooters do not have to be where they are so I could not help thinking there was a level of cynicism going on and not sheer coincidence.

Ian
 
Ian Peters said:
As pointed out on this and other similar threads, ancestral shooting rights can be expensive and legally difficult to remove.

I certainly understand the self-policing system pointed out by David Hunter but I suspect there is much more to this than the news media has reported.

Capercaillie71 also pointed out that local confrontations are best avoided
Ian
Click to expand...

Hi Ian

I am no expert with these matters but I have always understood that there is a shooting season for wildfowl (no matter not) as you have stated. I believe it is from historical roots too.

To me there is not much point in preserving Wild Birds/Wildlife in their natural habitat means of Nature Reserves, if some ego-maniacs, with their guns want to take a pop for the fun of it. To me people who do this, are undoing all the work that has been done to preserve the bird species in the first place. :C

RSPB are there for a reason, to manage birds and their habitat. Their position in the matter is to solely discourage the killing of birds of any description, or so I thought :eek!:

Anyway this is my quota without becoming to deepseated myself with the subject here.

Rozinante: Sorry we posted at the same time.
 
Last edited:
Côg & David

I understand the point you are both making but if these people are so hard to detect and police it must be equally difficult to detect and police them under a licensing scheme.

If there were no shooting allowed I would have thought that any shots would be easily detected.

Neither do I think that an implied threat to break the law is a good precedent for not having the law.

As David suggests, I don't think we have the full story here.
 
Hi.
As the RSPB reserve is right next to the Farlington Marshes reserve whats the point of visiting when most of the birds have been frightened away as I have seen over my last Two visits, there was a noticable drop in numbers seen
Regards John B
 
baggy2508 said:
Hi.
As the RSPB reserve is right next to the Farlington Marshes reserve whats the point of visiting when most of the birds have been frightened away as I have seen over my last Two visits, there was a noticable drop in numbers seen
Regards John B
Click to expand...

Shooting has been on-going since 1979 with, apparently, no problems whatsoever, so what has now changed?

"I can't see any justification for it. It's a macho, egotistical, self gratifying act and I think it's disgusting."

So, no axe to grind there then . . .

Jonathan
 
The system in England Wales and Northern Ireland is complicated by Leasehold or Freehold Titles or Sporting Rights. Scotland is a different matter. A lot of land belongs to the Crown who own the Sporting Rights and The Church who may own the sporting rights.
Sporting and grazing rights will have been granted by acts of Parliament, some of them a hundred or more years ago. (The Lord Mayor of London has the right to drive sheep across London bridge, or some such nonsense.) Some of these Acts of Parliament don't have much relevance for the modern day general public and only affect the minority, this being the case they will remain as they are until they challenged.
The foreshore may include tidal marshes (I'm not sure of this) but 55% of the foreshore is owned by the Crown and the Crown gives members of the BASC the right to shoot the foreshore.
BASC Patron HRH, Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh. RSPB Patron HRH Queen Elizabeth II must make for interesting conversations when lying back sharing a cigarette. ;)
I don't doubt for a second, if the RSPB could ban shooting outright they would. But it's obviously more complicated than that.

Twite.
 
Last edited:
Twite said:
I don't doubt for a second, if the RSPB could ban shooting outright they would. But it's obviously more complicated than that.

Twite.
Click to expand...

Hi Twite

As you have mentioned in your last posting, it is deep seated historical influences that make shooting legal as it is now.

I may be ignored for my efforts in being interested here, but would it be because there is some financial gain for all bodies associated with the winter shoot outs. - just wondering here?
 
Twite said:
I don't doubt for a second, if the RSPB could ban shooting outright they would. But it's obviously more complicated than that.

Twite.
Click to expand...

What? And lose all the valuable habitat created and maintained by shooting interests? They'd have to be mad.

The RSPB are (or should be) concerned with conservation first and formost, not pandering to the wishes of individuals who wish to press their moral values onto everyone else. In this particular case the two parties involved have worked quite happily together for thirty years, why should they change things? If it aint broke, don't fix it.

Jonathan
 
rozinante said:
Côg & David

I understand the point you are both making but if these people are so hard to detect and police it must be equally difficult to detect and police them under a licensing scheme.

If there were no shooting allowed I would have thought that any shots would be easily detected.

Neither do I think that an implied threat to break the law is a good precedent for not having the law.

As David suggests, I don't think we have the full story here.
Click to expand...

I think the point is Rozinate that wildfowlers are the best people from a knowledge perspective to find and stop illegal wildfowlers - they are likely to know the best spots, giveaway signs of activity and by virtue of having paid their cash to do it legally be highly motivated to stop poaching. Also they are probably more likely to be presnt at the appropriate times than joe public.
 
Isurus said:
I think the point is Rozinate that wildfowlers are the best people from a knowledge perspective to find and stop illegal wildfowlers - they are likely to know the best spots, giveaway signs of activity and by virtue of having paid their cash to do it legally be highly motivated to stop poaching. Also they are probably more likely to be presnt at the appropriate times than joe public.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the explanation.

I hope that the principle is never applied to eggers.
 
Saluki - agree completely with you. Also just wondering, the person who found the shot bird, if they are a "conservationist" as they describe them selves would I would have thought understood the logic of the agreement and know's it happens across the UK.
 
saluki said:
What? And lose all the valuable habitat created and maintained by shooting interests? They'd have to be mad.

The RSPB are (or should be) concerned with conservation first and formost, not pandering to the wishes of individuals who wish to press their moral values onto everyone else. In this particular case the two parties involved have worked quite happily together for thirty years, why should they change things? If it aint broke, don't fix it.

Jonathan
Click to expand...

I was under the impression that their first priority was the protection of birds.
 
Warning! This thread is more than 16 years ago old.
It's likely that no further discussion is required, in which case we recommend starting a new thread. If however you feel your response is required you can still do so.

Similar threads

F
Identification Atlas of the Continental Birds of Southwestern Europe (Javier Blasco Zumeta & Gerd-Michael Henze)
Replies
0
Views
698
fdokykcu
F
G
New Swarovski Smart Binoculars
Replies
5
Views
2K
Dyrlege
D
G
  • Article
GreenSand's 2023
Replies
3
Views
413
Stonefaction
Stonefaction
G
  • Article
Memories
Replies
0
Views
322
Green Sandpiper
G
E
Sharm-el-Sheikh, 13-16 December 2023
2
Replies
22
Views
2K
Earnest lad
E

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 3 (members: 0, guests: 3)
Back
Top