From guns and gundogs to the latest shooting news; the complete online network for the British shooting community.
The Scottish Countryside Alliance's Moorland Officer Tim Baynes Look carefully through the recent raven study by the RSPB and Aberdeen’s Centre for Environmental Sustainability. You will find that the triumphant headline on the RSPB’s website Raven increase does not spell the end for threatened waders cannot be justified by the facts. It quickly becomes clear that the data used is up to nine years out of date and was too thin to reach any firm conclusions. No doubt the analysis is scientifically correct, but a more honest interpretation for the media would have been: “We cannot tell from his historical data whether ravens are now having an impact on waders.”
We do not know how much taxpayers’ money was spent on this unenlightening study, but it seems to have been designed from the outset to miss the real point. It was co-funded by Scottish Natural Heritage (SNH) expressly to provide evidence for raven licence applications. However, the research does not examine the real problem for which licence applications have been made and for which SNH knows it will receive further applications — the impact of growing flocks of sub-mature ravens. Instead, the study confines itself to looking at resident breeding pairs of ravens between seven and nine years ago. Further questions should be asked as to how this study was commissioned and awarded.
The development of these raven “gangs” has not been scientifically monitored, and that is a real missed opportunity. Researchers could have consulted the land managers who have to live with the problem and been taken out to measure the problem at first hand. In north-east Scotland, where some of the licence applications have been made, raven numbers have increased by more than 400 per cent up to 2002, and that rate of growth has not slackened off since. In early spring the juveniles form highly mobile flocks of 200 to 300 birds and move about huge moorland areas in search of food. Highly intelligent birds, they know where there are good stocks of ground-nesting birds to predate. They descend en masse, clean up an area and move on. Keepers can only watch helplessly as the ravens pull birds off their nests by the wing and take the eggs. By early summer, the flocks disperse and anyone coming along later would find no evidence of the problem, apart from a lack of young ground-nesting birds. SNH has been repeatedly told that this is what happens and the scarce public funding should have been directed at measuring that impact, not on desk-based historical analysis.
In desperation, gamekeepers have exhausted all legal methods. Licence applications have been made to SNH to shoot a small number of ravens so that the others will realise there is a genuine threat and move away. There is no request being made to cull large numbers of ravens, SNH is merely being asked to enable the scaring required under its own licensing guidelines to be effective.
Spring is approaching and the ravens will soon flock again. More licence applications will be made, but now SNH will be able to use this new study to argue against land managers as proof that their problem is imagined.
Have your say: if you have a view on a current news topic, send it, in no more than 500 words, to selena_masson@ipcmedia.com.
Peter Thomson, biodiversity advisor, the Game & Wildlife Conservation Trust Last November, the National Farmers Union and the Country Land & Business Association launched the Campaign for the Farmed Environment (CFE), a new voluntary initiative that aims to encourage land managers to protect the nation’s countryside and to bring back the environmental benefits previously provided by set-aside.
Set-aside was originally introduced as a measure to reduce production. Over time, with a lot of work from the Game & Wildlife Conservation Trust (GWCT) and other organisations, land managers started to use their set-aside for the benefit of wildlife by planting seed mixes and grass margins on them. Many growers found this very useful and created much good habitat for game, as the GWCT did on its own farm in Leicestershire, where most “in field” options were placed on set-aside ground. However, turn to the wider countryside and many farmers found that the easiest way to deliver the set-aside requirement was to take an area out of production and grass it over with a cheap ryegrass mix and cut it once a year — not very exciting to game, or any other wildlife for that matter.
So, why another new scheme? Basically, the Government wanted to bring back a compulsory measure to replace the environmental benefits of set-aside. However, the CFE argued that land managers could make up for these “lost benefits” voluntarily, rather than through a compulsory system, and accordingly the Government has given landowners until June 2012 to show that they can indeed deliver.
I feel that keepers can play a major part in delivering these CFE targets — they already do. Fieldsports, and shooting in particular, are often the driving force behind farms and estates entering the Entry Level Scheme, as there are a good number of options that can benefit the shoot. The most obvious, of course, is the wild bird seed mix option — or gamecover. Understandably, keepers are sometimes reluctant to put their key gamecover drives into a scheme with rules attached, as they want to have control over the way it is grown and what is planted. However, though a maize or sorghum plot is not eligible under the scheme, once an area of wild bird seed mix is added, it can be included in the scheme. This way, the CFE wins, farmland birds win, the shoot wins and pheasants and partridges will love the addition, too. If every shoot did this across the country, not only would the wildlife benefits be enormous but the targets set by the CFE would start to look achievable.
If compulsory set-aside is reintroduced, it is likely to be around five to six per cent and farmers will undoubtedly position it in the least productive part of the farm. This may be convenient if it is specifically managed for the shoot, but if it is put in the wrong place it could be detrimental and might not hold the birds in the correct place.
For further details about registering with the CFE, tel 02476 858892.
Have your say: if you have a view on a current news topic, send it, in no more than 500 words, to selena_masson@ipcmedia.com.
Have your say: if you have a view on a current news topic, send it, in no more than 500 words, to selena_masson@ipcmedia.com.
Have your say: if you have a view on a current news topic, send it, in no more than 500 words, to selena_masson@ipcmedia.com.
Have your say: if you have a view on a current news topic,send it, in no more than 500 words, to selena_masson@ipcmedia.com.
Christopher Price, CLA chief legal advisor and head of policy services The news that Natural England (NE)stands to get wider enforcement powers is provoking a mixed response from shooters and land managers.
NE is already responsible for overseeing much of what we do in the countryside. Among a whole range of issues, it decides what you can do on Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI), such as whether you can burn heather or control various pest species.
If you get something wrong, such as failing to obtain consent for a prohibited operation on a SSSI, or failing to comply with all of the conditions of a General Licence, NE has the right to issue a caution or prosecute. The way in which NE has used its powers to date seems fairly reasonable. Land managers suspected of falling foul of its requirements do not, as a rule, find themselves faced with immediate threat of prosecution. More likely, a series of discussions will take place. On the one hand, NE may decide that, on reflection, some activities can go ahead, and, on the other, the land manager may be persuaded to cease some of his activities or not to proceed with others. However, if he refuses to behave responsibly, the ultimate sanction of prosecution is still available to NE.
As a result, the environment is properly protected, land managers are not treated disproportionately and relations between the regulator and the regulated are maintained as well as they can be. In essence, the system works.
All this looks like it is about to change, though. Under recent proposals, NE is set to be given a range of new powers. Perhaps most importantly, it will be able to charge so-called Variable Monetary Penalties (VMPs). This basically means NE can impose fines, the level of which vary according to the perceived gravity of the offence and the willingness of the person involved to put matters right.
VMPs are only to be used in the more serious cases, though it is not yet clear what these would be. For the more minor offences, we will have Fixed Monetary Penalties. These are intended to be used in cases such as failing to maintain records or to give notice when required.
A range of mechanisms focusing on preventing damage or putting damage right have also been proposed. Restoration notices will be used to require the land to be returned to the condition it was in before the offence was committed. Stop notices will require a particular activity to cease within a specified time period.
These alternatives to prosecution can seem attractive. After all, nobody wants to be prosecuted. Even if the suspect is eventually found to be not guilty, he would have lost time, paid for lawyers and had his reputation called into question. No doubt many land managers who find their conduct questioned will be willing to accept a financial penalty as an alternative to going to court.
There is absolutely no reason to suppose that NE has any intention of using its new powers to circumvent the various checks and balances in the current system. But we cannot be completely sure that such an event would never happen. From now on, those responsible for managing the land who find themselves having disagreements with NE will need to ensure more than ever that they fully understand what they are accused of and what the various options are.
Have your say: if you have a view on a current news topic, send it, in no more than 500 words, to selena_masson@ipcmedia.com.
Have your say: if you have a view on a current news topic, send it, in no more than 500 words, to selena_masson@ipcmedia.com.
Have your say: if you have a view on a current news topic,send it, in no more than 500 words, to selena_masson@ipcmedia.com.
Lord Lindsay, Chairman of the Moorland forum Scotland’s Moorland Forum has established a novel project named “Upland Solutions”, which seeks to gain the views of people with experience of upland sporting management in two study areas.
The forum was established in 2002 to provide an opportunity for a range of organisations to come together to consider issues that affect the management and future of Scotland’s iconic moorland and upland areas. Twenty-four organisations founded the forum and membership has since expanded to 30.
The forum is dedicated to understanding the challenges that face Scotland’s moorland and upland areas, as well as to identifying and enabling solutions. The future viability of these areas is critical to the delivery of key economic, social, cultural, environmental and ecosystem benefits. In addition to the backing of the forum’s 30 member organisations, we have particular support for the Upland Solutions project from the minister for environment and other key stakeholders. Focusing on two study areas, namely the region surrounding Muirkirk and the Upper Findhorn Catchment, southwest of Tomatin, the project will obtain the views of landowners, land managers, communities and other interests about the management of their upland areas.
The project will cover three themes: upland economics, upland birds and carbon. It will identify practical problems and, more importantly, practical solutions at ground level. The project will also aim to identify and understand where there are blockages (for example, institutional or regulatory) to what would otherwise be practical solutions.
At workshops in each area members of the forum will listen to and discuss the day-to-day problems faced by the people managing the two study areas. Experience of solutions to similar problems that have worked in other areas will be explored to see if they can be applied in the study areas. Ultimately this project is focused on identifying practical solutions to practical problems. Our findings will therefore be disseminated to other landowners,land managers, local communities and the public agencies. Where we identify solutions that are frustrated by institutional or regulatory obstacles, these will be taken up with the relevant minister, officials and agencies.
The Upland Solutions project will also provide the forum with a first-hand understanding of issues that we will present in a report to the minister for environment and use to inform an upland strategy that we plan to develop during the year. A workshop will be held in the Muirkirk area on 25 February and this will be followed by one at Tomatin on 4 March. A flyer, which includes an application form, can be downloaded from the forum’s website at www.moorlandforum.org.uk or by contacting Alison Young at info@moorlandforum.org.uk, or tel 01387 723201.
I hope that this project will help to make a difference, but we cannot do this without the support of the shooting community in the study areas. People in or near the two study areas are encouraged to attend to have their views heard.
Have your say: if you have a view on a current news topic, send it, in no more than 500 words, to selena_masson@ipcmedia.com.
Have your say: if you have a view on a current news topic,send it, in no more than 500 words, to selena_masson@ipcmedia.com.
Comment and opinion on country and field sports and countryside events and issues
10th February 10:
03rd February 10:
20th January 10:
07th January 10:
07th January 10:
16th December 09:
09th December 09:
09th December 09:
Despite controversy surrounding Crufts’ breed standards, ... Read more
Save up to 30% on a subscription to Shooting Times & Country Magazine, subscribe today!
