RSPB Judicial Review

So the RSPB have decided not to go for a judicial review which is not all that unsurprising.

A judicial review will only investigate and rule on whether or not a decision has been reached based on the proper procedures, and will not rule on the actual decision itself.

Even if a judicial review had fallen in their favour that would not necessarily mean that the decision would be reversed. It would be more likely that the authority would re-evaluate using the correct procedures and then make the same decision.

When you disregard the "spin" from the RSPB Press Officer what they are saying is that; using the new Freedom of Information Act that they may ask for reviews on individual cases to see that some evidence of damage by cormorants to fish stocks was available before licences were issued.

It therefore behoves EVERY Club applying for a license to ensure that they fully conform to the rules when applying for a license.

These are the same people who sanctioned the shooting of 6,000 ruddy ducks. If the cormorants were destroying populations of birds rather than fish they'd have been shot 10 years ago with the RSPB's blessing.

ANDY!!

THE NAIL, THE HEAD!!

YOU GOT IT IN ONE!!

Ruddy ducks are not one of the commoner seen ducks but because they were inter breeding with the spanish white fronted ducks(i believe)which is quite a rare duck bang! bang! your dead!!

A similar thing happened to mergansers on a game fishery about seven or eight years ago, too many parr for breakfast and bang, bang!!

Stinks of double standards!!

Whilst the RSPB are going to use the FOI Act (their Right) on individual cases to make sure the process is an open and transparent one for the granting of licenses. One fundamental question arises to me, that being ?Are they going to be open and transparent about how they arrive at the figure they do for the resident (all year round) birds?
Unfortunately, as they are not a public body the FOI does apply to them.

That said, I have a sneaky feeling they ain?t, because reading many of their reports on bird numbers and how they collect the data to arrive at those estimates, it leaves a lot to be desired about it?s scientific rigour.

As a further comment, if I?ve spotted this fact, surely DEFRA has with all their resources and manpower? And if so why have they not challenged them on it?

Perhaps it?s the line they DEFRA will not or shouldn?t cross, because they are the RSPB and you mustn?t ask such question of such an illustrious body?

The great British Taboos eh!!!!!

Any comment on this RSPB Officer lurkers?????

P.S. anybody on here know the e-mail address of the Chief Executive of the RSPB, I?d like to ask him a few questions ;0)

I haven't got the CE's number but this might help:

Grahame Madge, RSPB press officer, 01767 681577.

Out of hours: 07702 196902 (mobile)

The Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, The Lodge, Sandy, Beds SG19 2DL

Press office telephone 01767 681577

www.rspb.org.uk

Ask yourselves why the rspb, an organisation numbering a few thousand can become so powerful and high profile whilst we,the angling fraternity with numbers in the millions can barely raise our profile or voice above the waterline let alone up the banks of the thames to westminster. They are an example to us all as to how a few can force their views on a the national stage. If we were as organised and as in the face of government as they are we would be unstoppable.

Bill,

The RSPB has over a million members (according to their website) paying between ?38 and ?48 per annum each.
Over and above that they are a relatively single minded group with little or no discernable split or factions within their organisation.

Whilst I would like to believe that we Anglers could organise ourselves in a similar manner I cannot ever see it happening.

Bill, birdwatching as a pastime is far bigger than fishing, just take a look at the viewing figures for this one website,

http://www.birdforum.net/

(third section down, *Currently active users*) I'd be surprised if FM can match those figures.

As an example, FM was almost dead on xmas day, the birdforum had it's record number of users on line on that day.

BTW I dropped out of the RSPB many years ago because of it's stance on lead shot and would have done so also over the cormorant issue had I still been a member.

Just joined the birdforum above an interesting site i recomend it to anyone interested in more than fish whilst they are on the bankside.

I do not believe bird watching is a singularly bigger pastime than angling its simply that it can exist with other pastimes such as walking and fishing therefore gaining a larger overall group of active members.

It seems that there is as much interest in declaring open season on the RSPB as there is on cormorants. As someone who is both a birder and fisherman, I find the petty sniping that goes on between both camps exasperating.
It obscures the main issue.. that both camps comprise large numbers of people who care about our precious and threatened environment, spend time in it, enjoy it and conserve it for future generations. The RSPB does superb conservation work, not just for birds but for all our native flora and fauna. Thank god that they do and they should be applauded by all of us for it. Surely as anglers we can take a more balanced view of the RSPB than just a narrow partisan stance because they want to defend cormorants?
I'd rather see angler's really getting their own house in order than throwing brickbats at the RSPB. How about not leaving discarded tackle and litter on our fisheries? How about supporting the ACA properly rather than relying on a minority of anglers paying a pittance annually to prosecute polluters? How about turning over a small part of every fishery over to wildlife and not fishing that area? How about doing away with the absurd grossly overstocked, unhealthy commercial fisheries full of stressed fish where noddy anglers are guaranteed to catch something and fishery owners make a fat profit?
I'm reminded of the old story about people who live in glass houses..

Well said Andy there is a lot to be learned from the RSPB and its related type of organisations all around the world fishing has to be about more than PBs and top-flite tackle. I saw a green woodpecker on my last session I remember it more vividly than the fishing!!

Andy
The RSPB picked this fight by being intransigent on this issue and refusing to accept there?s a problem with these birds.

They like us supplied the ?EVIDENCE? to the Minister, and may I add, used their paid lobbyists as well. The Minister rejected their argument in favour of ours.
They then attempted to overturn the decision by Judicial Review and found it was blocked, so they?re going to now fight every individual case by JR usig FOI.

Spin it how you like but its still sour grapes on their part mate!

Interesting that when anybody asks legitimate scientific questions of the RSPB they?re sniping at them and castigating their good work/record.

But Birders can snip away at anglers all they want and have been for years!
And we do nothing for conservation of the water and riparian zones?????

Are birders & the RSPB pure as the driven snow???..I don?t think so!

Sorry Andy they put their name to the reports, they are accountable for them! It?s that simple!
For me there are no Taboo questions that can?t be asked of any organisation, institution in this or any country in the world.

Whilst I?d agree anglers should support their organisations that defend and protect their fishing such as the ACA, but they are also accountable for their action or inaction as the case may be. And if they fail, then people vote with their feet, as I did from the ACA, which wasn?t over the most recent affair, but that?s another story for another day.

As for creating wildlife habitats on waters, I don?t have a problem with it, providing that it can be clearly shown that there is a need for it by independently qualified people. Not by birders, whose real aim as has happened in my area, is to stop angling on those waters because they are closet antis.
Yes Andy I met quite high up individuals in the RSPB from time to time, and it?s pure venom and bile from them as far as angling is concerned.

As a final comment and question to you ?What do you think the consequences of the loss of fish to the black death is to the whole ecology of a water that is ravaged by them? And has the illustrious RSPB asked itself this question?

Again I don?t think so!

Phil,
If you re-read my post you'll see that I've made no attempt to defend the RSPB over its actions re. cormorants, nor would I try to defend it re. its policy on ruddy ducks. I think its erred on cormorants in some respects and I think that the ruddy duck issue is too hard to call to judgement by a layman (i.e. me!) Nor am I trying to defend anti angling views on the part of many birders.
What I am saying is that there are plenty of skeletons in the closet of both the birding and angling communities (rather more in anglers' I'm afraid to say.)

Seeing birders and anglers at each others' throats is my real problem. At a time when our precious planet is more threatened than ever, it's clear to me that common threats should join us together to fight our common enemies. Breaking the log jam of the old historic conflicts and dogmas between the two groups should be the priority of the leaders and right thinking members of both camps.

I've got no time for overly emotive, single issue moans by anglers about e.g. the RSPB's tactics on cormorants, when it's blindingly obvious to all but the most neanderthal members of society that the RSPB is in overall terms a powerful and effective agent for change for everyone's benefit. Some of the recent coverage on the topic has been short sighted and hysterical and has done little to move the world forward to a better place, where everyone with a keen interest in a clean and healthy environment, puts their differences aside and works for a greater common good. Or are we all just going to carry on as if it's business as usual?