Thursday 30 September 2010
The RSPB Birdcrime Report
The RSPB Birdcrime Report as published by the Countryside Alliance
In July we reported that the RSPB's Birdcrime 2009 report was imminent. Now we have it we can report that, as in previous years, there are aspects of the report that are misleading.
The report should be a worthwhile and meaningful document, enabling resources to be targeted where they are most needed to prevent acts of illegal persecution. Instead, a half story emerges which is clearly pursuing an unbalanced agenda on birds of prey.
The RSPB took the inexplicable decision in 2009 to cease recording certain categories of incidents, such as the shooting and destruction of non bird of prey species. Therefore the 682 crimes against non birds of prey reported in 2008, an increase of 480% over the previous five years, are effectively sidelined by the Society. The RSPB does acknowledge that the figures supplied in this year's report fail to give a total figure for bird crime in the UK, rendering the report's title a misnomer.
The report is firmly focused on birds of prey and plays down the decrease in the number of incidents of illegal persecution against them. In the report's introduction, it states that the degree of overlap between the killing of birds of prey and driven grouse moor management in the uplands of England and Scotland is striking. Yet in 2009, of the 268 reported incidents of shooting and destruction of birds of prey, only 38 were confirmed, 16 of which were in the North of England. None have been directly linked to grouse moors. An RSPB spokesman's statement that conflict through the management of upland grouse shooting moors and estates in the North of England is the main problem for birds of prey is therefore totally unfounded.
The gulf between "reported" and "confirmed" cases is stark: 32 reported incidents of bird of prey persecution in Derbyshire, Greater Manchester, Lancashire and Cheshire in 2009. Number of confirmed cases? Two. There is a notable lack of evidence available; anyone can report an incident, however inaccurate, and it will be included in the report, giving a skewed picture of the truth. If hardly any of those cases are confirmed, well, why get in the way of some scare statistics?
The inclusion of figures which showed that since 1990, Northumbria has been one of the highest areas for reported bird of prey persecution in England, carefully omitted to point out that in 2009 there were only two confirmed incidents; a significant reduction on the average numbers over the previous 19 years, and something to be welcomed . As far as prosecutions are concerned, the report provides the details of 23 individual wild bird related prosecutions in 2009, involving a total of 74 charges of which 51 were proven. All but one of those concerned non bird of prey species, and that was not even in England.
Dodgy data or not, we can agree that all organisations need to work together to put an end to wildlife crime. The formation of the National Wildlife Crime Unit is a significant step on the way to achieving that. Although the RSPB claims to want to work with land managers, it is going an extremely odd way about doing so, and the fact is that, unlike in the past, there are many that will understandably no longer have anything to do with the organisation.
The RSPB needs its support more than the other way round, and it needs to be careful in its scare-story attitude and approach if real progress is to be achieved.
In July we reported that the RSPB's Birdcrime 2009 report was imminent. Now we have it we can report that, as in previous years, there are aspects of the report that are misleading.
The report should be a worthwhile and meaningful document, enabling resources to be targeted where they are most needed to prevent acts of illegal persecution. Instead, a half story emerges which is clearly pursuing an unbalanced agenda on birds of prey.
The RSPB took the inexplicable decision in 2009 to cease recording certain categories of incidents, such as the shooting and destruction of non bird of prey species. Therefore the 682 crimes against non birds of prey reported in 2008, an increase of 480% over the previous five years, are effectively sidelined by the Society. The RSPB does acknowledge that the figures supplied in this year's report fail to give a total figure for bird crime in the UK, rendering the report's title a misnomer.
The report is firmly focused on birds of prey and plays down the decrease in the number of incidents of illegal persecution against them. In the report's introduction, it states that the degree of overlap between the killing of birds of prey and driven grouse moor management in the uplands of England and Scotland is striking. Yet in 2009, of the 268 reported incidents of shooting and destruction of birds of prey, only 38 were confirmed, 16 of which were in the North of England. None have been directly linked to grouse moors. An RSPB spokesman's statement that conflict through the management of upland grouse shooting moors and estates in the North of England is the main problem for birds of prey is therefore totally unfounded.
The gulf between "reported" and "confirmed" cases is stark: 32 reported incidents of bird of prey persecution in Derbyshire, Greater Manchester, Lancashire and Cheshire in 2009. Number of confirmed cases? Two. There is a notable lack of evidence available; anyone can report an incident, however inaccurate, and it will be included in the report, giving a skewed picture of the truth. If hardly any of those cases are confirmed, well, why get in the way of some scare statistics?
The inclusion of figures which showed that since 1990, Northumbria has been one of the highest areas for reported bird of prey persecution in England, carefully omitted to point out that in 2009 there were only two confirmed incidents; a significant reduction on the average numbers over the previous 19 years, and something to be welcomed . As far as prosecutions are concerned, the report provides the details of 23 individual wild bird related prosecutions in 2009, involving a total of 74 charges of which 51 were proven. All but one of those concerned non bird of prey species, and that was not even in England.
Dodgy data or not, we can agree that all organisations need to work together to put an end to wildlife crime. The formation of the National Wildlife Crime Unit is a significant step on the way to achieving that. Although the RSPB claims to want to work with land managers, it is going an extremely odd way about doing so, and the fact is that, unlike in the past, there are many that will understandably no longer have anything to do with the organisation.
The RSPB needs its support more than the other way round, and it needs to be careful in its scare-story attitude and approach if real progress is to be achieved.
Wednesday 22 September 2010
Thursday 16 September 2010
Monday 13 September 2010
Friday 10 September 2010
Loros Shooting Championships Raised £8800
The 2010 LOROS Shooting Championships
Congratulations to John Strowbridge and the Avery team for their victory and to Bertie Hoskyns-Abrahall for cleaning up with a maximum ten for “Top Gun”. The full TEAM RESULTS are attached.
A total of £8,800 was raised for LOROS across the auction, heads and tails, and the gun dog scurry. So thank you for your support.
Winners of the Dog Gun Scurry:
The results of the 200m Scurry were:- Ruari - 43 seconds; Tilly - 55 seconds; Tamar - 2 mins 20 seconds; Poppy - 1 min 22 seconds; Beano - 1 min 16 seconds
Robert Franks, who guessed that Tilley would retrieve in 57 seconds was the closest guess across the board.
The winner of the 100m Scurry were:- Tilley - 46 seconds; Tamar - 1 min 36 seconds; Ruari - 37.5 seconds; Poppy - 2 mins 9 seconds; Beano - 1 min 43 seconds.
Vanessa Blackmore, who guessed that Tilley would retrieve in 45 seconds was the closest guess across the board. Only 1 second out!
Photos: Photos will be available on the Stapleford Forum website from this weekend. An email will come out to you, once they are up.
Simon Jacot de Boinod would like to thank in particular:
Dylan Williams 01491 672 900 www.rbss.co.uk
Chris Sturgess 0116 282 6868 www.sturgessgroup.com
Stewart North 07836 736 868 www.workinggundogs.co.uk
Marisa Spiteri 07702 372 434 www.loros.com
Congratulations to John Strowbridge and the Avery team for their victory and to Bertie Hoskyns-Abrahall for cleaning up with a maximum ten for “Top Gun”. The full TEAM RESULTS are attached.
A total of £8,800 was raised for LOROS across the auction, heads and tails, and the gun dog scurry. So thank you for your support.
Winners of the Dog Gun Scurry:
The results of the 200m Scurry were:- Ruari - 43 seconds; Tilly - 55 seconds; Tamar - 2 mins 20 seconds; Poppy - 1 min 22 seconds; Beano - 1 min 16 seconds
Robert Franks, who guessed that Tilley would retrieve in 57 seconds was the closest guess across the board.
The winner of the 100m Scurry were:- Tilley - 46 seconds; Tamar - 1 min 36 seconds; Ruari - 37.5 seconds; Poppy - 2 mins 9 seconds; Beano - 1 min 43 seconds.
Vanessa Blackmore, who guessed that Tilley would retrieve in 45 seconds was the closest guess across the board. Only 1 second out!
Photos: Photos will be available on the Stapleford Forum website from this weekend. An email will come out to you, once they are up.
Simon Jacot de Boinod would like to thank in particular:
Dylan Williams 01491 672 900 www.rbss.co.uk
Chris Sturgess 0116 282 6868 www.sturgessgroup.com
Stewart North 07836 736 868 www.workinggundogs.co.uk
Marisa Spiteri 07702 372 434 www.loros.com
Firearms Enquiry Article Countryside Alliance
Firearms Inquiry - remaining united by Countryside Alliance
You may have read in this week's "Shooting Times" that the Home Affairs Select Committee on firearms control "experienced such a large volume of emails from members of the shooting community submitting evidence to the current inquiry that its computers crashed". The magazine reports that, as at the submission deadline of 27th August, the clerk of the committee had received over 300 submissions; a huge number.
The Countryside Alliance has responded to the Inquiry and you can download our full submission here. As ever, we are working closely with the British Shooting Sports Council and are prepared to give oral evidence as the Inquiry continues.
It is to the shooting community's credit that you are prepared to face head on the repercussions of the awful events in Cumbria that prompted this Inquiry. We all agree that gun ownership is a serious responsibility for those who choose to accept it, and a maturity and openness must accompany that responsibility. We must always be prepared to make our case. We have a duty to ensure that the Committee has the benefit of our experience and knowledge of the technical, social and economic aspects of legally held firearms.
We already have some of the most stringent gun laws in the world. It is vital that any changes to the law as a result of the tragic events in Cumbria actually improve public safety and do not simply penalise law abiding shooters.
There will be a full parliamentary debate later in the autumn, and it is essential that the debate is fair and reasoned. The Alliance and other shooting organisations have been contacting members with a view to lobbying the many new MPs whose views on this subject are unknown. It is important that you lobby your MP to ensure that he or she understands some of the issues that will be raised. Click here for some key points to note when contacting your MP, and please feel free to borrow from our own submission.
The key issues being looked at by the Inquiry include the fitness for purpose of the current licensing system, airguns, the relationship between licence holders and their doctors and the justification for ownership of a shotgun. The three separate police inquiries into the Cumbrian killings are due to report and we remain concerned that the current Inquiry is looking at these issues before the full facts are known.
It would be tragic if Cumbria became a pretext to attack lawful shooting rather than a genuine exercise in learning any lessons from the events themselves.
Shooting, and those who defend it, will be under intense scrutiny throughout this winter and we must remain united.
You may have read in this week's "Shooting Times" that the Home Affairs Select Committee on firearms control "experienced such a large volume of emails from members of the shooting community submitting evidence to the current inquiry that its computers crashed". The magazine reports that, as at the submission deadline of 27th August, the clerk of the committee had received over 300 submissions; a huge number.
The Countryside Alliance has responded to the Inquiry and you can download our full submission here. As ever, we are working closely with the British Shooting Sports Council and are prepared to give oral evidence as the Inquiry continues.
It is to the shooting community's credit that you are prepared to face head on the repercussions of the awful events in Cumbria that prompted this Inquiry. We all agree that gun ownership is a serious responsibility for those who choose to accept it, and a maturity and openness must accompany that responsibility. We must always be prepared to make our case. We have a duty to ensure that the Committee has the benefit of our experience and knowledge of the technical, social and economic aspects of legally held firearms.
We already have some of the most stringent gun laws in the world. It is vital that any changes to the law as a result of the tragic events in Cumbria actually improve public safety and do not simply penalise law abiding shooters.
There will be a full parliamentary debate later in the autumn, and it is essential that the debate is fair and reasoned. The Alliance and other shooting organisations have been contacting members with a view to lobbying the many new MPs whose views on this subject are unknown. It is important that you lobby your MP to ensure that he or she understands some of the issues that will be raised. Click here for some key points to note when contacting your MP, and please feel free to borrow from our own submission.
The key issues being looked at by the Inquiry include the fitness for purpose of the current licensing system, airguns, the relationship between licence holders and their doctors and the justification for ownership of a shotgun. The three separate police inquiries into the Cumbrian killings are due to report and we remain concerned that the current Inquiry is looking at these issues before the full facts are known.
It would be tragic if Cumbria became a pretext to attack lawful shooting rather than a genuine exercise in learning any lessons from the events themselves.
Shooting, and those who defend it, will be under intense scrutiny throughout this winter and we must remain united.
Friday 3 September 2010
Thursday 2 September 2010
Blair and Hunting Countryside Alliance Gundogs
An article written by the Countryside Alliance
Blair and hunting - the truth
Tony Blair's reputation for not being wholly wedded to the truth has been supported by more important evidence than his behaviour over the Hunting Act, but that issue and his re-writing of history in his newly published memoir, 'A Journey,' typifies his delusion. In it he says that the hunting ban is "one of the domestic legislative measures I most regret," but claims he ensured that the Hunting Act was "a masterly British compromise" that left enough loopholes to allow hunting to continue "provided certain steps were taken to avoid cruelty when the fox is killed."
To anyone with the most limited understanding of the Parliamentary process that put the Act on the Statute Book this is complete and utter nonsense. Blair's Government, after a Government Inquiry and years of public and political debate, published a Hunting Bill in December 2002. That Bill did not seek to ban hunting. It would have allowed fox hunting and other activities to continue if they could persuade a tribunal they could meet twin tests based on 'utility' and 'cruelty'. The Bill would, however, have banned stag hunting and coursing outright. In defiance of all logic, but to no one's surprise, Labour MPs in the House of Commons rejected the Government's proposals for licensing and, led by Gerald Kaufman and the late Tony Banks, turned the bill into a complete ban on all hunting.
The House of Lords, however, was ready to compromise and instead of rejecting the ban entirely turned the Bill back into its original 'licensing' form. Although, after Defra Minister Alun Michael's claim that there was incontrovertible evidence that staghunting was cruel was condemned as 'scientifically illiterate' by the scientist who carried out the definitive study of staghunting, the Lords did amend the original licensing Bill to allow the tribunal to consider applications for a licence from all types of hunts. It also introduced a conservation element into the tests so that hunts could support license applications on the grounds of environmental benefits.
With only 20% of even Labour peers supporting it there was quite obviously no way that the House of Lords was ever going to support a total ban on hunting. Without the support of peers a ban could only be passed using the mighty constitutional hammer of the Parliament Acts (the very rarely used route by which Bills can become law without the assent of the House of Lords) which put Blair in a remarkably strong position to push through a classic New Labour 'middle way' resolution.
But by the summer of 2004 things were not going well for Blair in the Parliamentary Labour Party (PLP). Iraq, Foundation Hospitals and any number of other unpopular policies were causing dissent in the ranks and at every PLP meeting one issue was at the top of backbenchers' agenda: they wanted the Hunting Act back in its banning form in a timescale that would engage the Parliament Act. Gerald Kaufman even wrote a comment piece in The Guardian stating that he would vote against the Government on Foundation Hospitals for the first time in his long, long parliamentary career if it did not give him a hunting ban. By July Chief Whip Hilary Armstrong and Leader of the House Peter Hain, never shy of trying to endear himself to his colleagues, went to Blair and told him that they could not hold the PLP unless he gave them their hunting ban, and he agreed in the full knowledge of exactly what he was doing.
For the first and only time in 13 years of Labour Government, Parliament was recalled in September. The Hunting Bill was brought back as a total ban and on September 15th 2004 it passed all stages in the Commons in one day despite massive demonstrations. Blair emerged from Downing Street to vote against the ban, but this act, like the denials in his book, was completely duplicitous. By bringing back the Bill and engaging the Parliament Act he had sabotaged a carefully crafted position which should have allowed the Government and parliament to agree a workable licensing regime.
The Daily Telegraph's Matt cartoon, November 2004
The law that was passed does not allow hunting to continue "provided certain steps were taken to avoid cruelty when the fox is killed". It bans nearly all hunting of nearly all species. This was not "a masterly British compromise," it was a craven retreat from evidence and logic for short term political ends. If there is any compromise it is in the enforcement of the law, and Blair can claim no credit for passing an Act which is both so illogical and so reviled by every single person it is meant to affect that the police take the view that they have better things to do than try and make it work.
Tony Blair's re-writing of history is not going to fool anyone. He, and he alone, was responsible for the rejection of the 'middle way' proposals for licensed hunting and the passing of a complete ban on all hunting. A compromise was on the table, but by bringing back the Hunting Bill as a complete ban in a timetable that allowed the Parliament Acts to be used he created one of the most illiberal, ineffective and wasteful laws of modern times. The fact that he knew what he was doing was wrong makes his actions more reprehensible, not less.
Blair and hunting - the truth
Tony Blair's reputation for not being wholly wedded to the truth has been supported by more important evidence than his behaviour over the Hunting Act, but that issue and his re-writing of history in his newly published memoir, 'A Journey,' typifies his delusion. In it he says that the hunting ban is "one of the domestic legislative measures I most regret," but claims he ensured that the Hunting Act was "a masterly British compromise" that left enough loopholes to allow hunting to continue "provided certain steps were taken to avoid cruelty when the fox is killed."
To anyone with the most limited understanding of the Parliamentary process that put the Act on the Statute Book this is complete and utter nonsense. Blair's Government, after a Government Inquiry and years of public and political debate, published a Hunting Bill in December 2002. That Bill did not seek to ban hunting. It would have allowed fox hunting and other activities to continue if they could persuade a tribunal they could meet twin tests based on 'utility' and 'cruelty'. The Bill would, however, have banned stag hunting and coursing outright. In defiance of all logic, but to no one's surprise, Labour MPs in the House of Commons rejected the Government's proposals for licensing and, led by Gerald Kaufman and the late Tony Banks, turned the bill into a complete ban on all hunting.
The House of Lords, however, was ready to compromise and instead of rejecting the ban entirely turned the Bill back into its original 'licensing' form. Although, after Defra Minister Alun Michael's claim that there was incontrovertible evidence that staghunting was cruel was condemned as 'scientifically illiterate' by the scientist who carried out the definitive study of staghunting, the Lords did amend the original licensing Bill to allow the tribunal to consider applications for a licence from all types of hunts. It also introduced a conservation element into the tests so that hunts could support license applications on the grounds of environmental benefits.
With only 20% of even Labour peers supporting it there was quite obviously no way that the House of Lords was ever going to support a total ban on hunting. Without the support of peers a ban could only be passed using the mighty constitutional hammer of the Parliament Acts (the very rarely used route by which Bills can become law without the assent of the House of Lords) which put Blair in a remarkably strong position to push through a classic New Labour 'middle way' resolution.
But by the summer of 2004 things were not going well for Blair in the Parliamentary Labour Party (PLP). Iraq, Foundation Hospitals and any number of other unpopular policies were causing dissent in the ranks and at every PLP meeting one issue was at the top of backbenchers' agenda: they wanted the Hunting Act back in its banning form in a timescale that would engage the Parliament Act. Gerald Kaufman even wrote a comment piece in The Guardian stating that he would vote against the Government on Foundation Hospitals for the first time in his long, long parliamentary career if it did not give him a hunting ban. By July Chief Whip Hilary Armstrong and Leader of the House Peter Hain, never shy of trying to endear himself to his colleagues, went to Blair and told him that they could not hold the PLP unless he gave them their hunting ban, and he agreed in the full knowledge of exactly what he was doing.
For the first and only time in 13 years of Labour Government, Parliament was recalled in September. The Hunting Bill was brought back as a total ban and on September 15th 2004 it passed all stages in the Commons in one day despite massive demonstrations. Blair emerged from Downing Street to vote against the ban, but this act, like the denials in his book, was completely duplicitous. By bringing back the Bill and engaging the Parliament Act he had sabotaged a carefully crafted position which should have allowed the Government and parliament to agree a workable licensing regime.
The Daily Telegraph's Matt cartoon, November 2004
The law that was passed does not allow hunting to continue "provided certain steps were taken to avoid cruelty when the fox is killed". It bans nearly all hunting of nearly all species. This was not "a masterly British compromise," it was a craven retreat from evidence and logic for short term political ends. If there is any compromise it is in the enforcement of the law, and Blair can claim no credit for passing an Act which is both so illogical and so reviled by every single person it is meant to affect that the police take the view that they have better things to do than try and make it work.
Tony Blair's re-writing of history is not going to fool anyone. He, and he alone, was responsible for the rejection of the 'middle way' proposals for licensed hunting and the passing of a complete ban on all hunting. A compromise was on the table, but by bringing back the Hunting Bill as a complete ban in a timetable that allowed the Parliament Acts to be used he created one of the most illiberal, ineffective and wasteful laws of modern times. The fact that he knew what he was doing was wrong makes his actions more reprehensible, not less.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)