ANIMAL FORUM

>As you know, I do not usually comment much about matters outside my direct
>experience.
>
>If people want to watch birds, as my wife does, that is fine by me,
>providing I dont have to stand in the cold with her.
>
>If my son-in-law and most of my male relatives and friends like to shoot,
>that is fine by me too, so long as I dont have to join them.
>
>So, Im pretty neutral on the issue and might be expected to acquiesce in
>the RSPB line of both protecting birds and facilitating their shooting.
>
>But, it is not the middle line. For the RSPB to be allowing shooting on land
>bought by charity money intended to be used for protecting birds is
>hypocritical in the extreme.
>
>That a charity should be so allowed to mislead the public is ludicrous.
>That the RSPB and their fellows should be allowed to control ever increasing
>areas of England, quite wrong.
>
>It is yet another example of an organisation flaunting their royal charter
>to cover-up low ethical standards. I have known for many years that the RSPB
>were pretty dodgy, but this is really beyond the pale.

>Virtually every national animal welfare organisation seems the same. Big
>presence coupled with big ideas: Low standards and lying.
>
>We really do need to force through a reform of both the Charity Commissions
>objectives and powers. We also need to look at the Privy Councils
>regulation of Royal Charters for both professional and chartable
>organisations.
>
>One wonders if charities should be allowed to own and control land on this
>scale?
>
>The people that exposed this scam are to be congratulated. When the RSPB and
>RSPCA makes enemies of neutrals like me, they have no future
>
>...and Im still not against shooting under appropriate controls. If the
>public want it banned, they will have to campaign peacefully and vote
>accordingly.
>
>In the meantime the RSPB need prosecuting for whatever technical offence can
>be dragged up for collecting money under false pretences.

> On Mon, 14 Jan 2008 12:38:30 -0000, Pat Gardiner
> wrote:
>
>>As you know, I do not usually comment much about matters outside my direct
>>experience.
>>
>>If people want to watch birds, as my wife does, that is fine by me,
>>providing I dont have to stand in the cold with her.
>>
>>If my son-in-law and most of my male relatives and friends like to shoot,
>>that is fine by me too, so long as I dont have to join them.
>>
>>So, Im pretty neutral on the issue and might be expected to acquiesce in
>>the RSPB line of both protecting birds and facilitating their shooting.
>>
>>But, it is not the middle line. For the RSPB to be allowing shooting on
>>land
>>bought by charity money intended to be used for protecting birds is
>>hypocritical in the extreme.
>>
>>That a charity should be so allowed to mislead the public is ludicrous.
>>That the RSPB and their fellows should be allowed to control ever
>>increasing
>>areas of England, quite wrong.
>>
>>It is yet another example of an organisation flaunting their royal charter
>>to cover-up low ethical standards. I have known for many years that the
>>RSPB
>>were pretty dodgy, but this is really beyond the pale.
>
> Its despicable. I shall be asking them for a refund, and if they
> refuse theyll be taken to caught. I feel like I have been mugged!
>
>>Virtually every national animal welfare organisation seems the same. Big
>>presence coupled with big ideas: Low standards and lying.
>>
>>We really do need to force through a reform of both the Charity
>>Commissions
>>objectives and powers. We also need to look at the Privy Councils
>>regulation of Royal Charters for both professional and chartable
>>organisations.
>>
>>One wonders if charities should be allowed to own and control land on this
>>scale?
>>
>>The people that exposed this scam are to be congratulated. When the RSPB
>>and
>>RSPCA makes enemies of neutrals like me, they have no future
>>
>>...and Im still not against shooting under appropriate controls. If the
>>public want it banned, they will have to campaign peacefully and vote
>>accordingly.
>>
>>In the meantime the RSPB need prosecuting for whatever technical offence
>>can
>>be dragged up for collecting money under false pretences.
>
>

>
>David L wrote in message
>news:uptmo3t49k0brvfpj09rjbvg2t6vcisv6d@4ax.com...
>> On Mon, 14 Jan 2008 12:38:30 -0000, Pat Gardiner
>> wrote:
>>
>>>As you know, I do not usually comment much about matters outside my direct
>>>experience.
>>>
>>>If people want to watch birds, as my wife does, that is fine by me,
>>>providing I dont have to stand in the cold with her.
>>>
>>>If my son-in-law and most of my male relatives and friends like to shoot,
>>>that is fine by me too, so long as I dont have to join them.
>>>
>>>So, Im pretty neutral on the issue and might be expected to acquiesce in
>>>the RSPB line of both protecting birds and facilitating their shooting.
>>>
>>>But, it is not the middle line. For the RSPB to be allowing shooting on
>>>land
>>>bought by charity money intended to be used for protecting birds is
>>>hypocritical in the extreme.
>>>
>>>That a charity should be so allowed to mislead the public is ludicrous.
>>>That the RSPB and their fellows should be allowed to control ever
>>>increasing
>>>areas of England, quite wrong.
>>>
>>>It is yet another example of an organisation flaunting their royal charter
>>>to cover-up low ethical standards. I have known for many years that the
>>>RSPB
>>>were pretty dodgy, but this is really beyond the pale.
>>
>> Its despicable. I shall be asking them for a refund, and if they
>> refuse theyll be taken to caught. I feel like I have been mugged!
>>
>>>Virtually every national animal welfare organisation seems the same. Big
>>>presence coupled with big ideas: Low standards and lying.
>>>
>>>We really do need to force through a reform of both the Charity
>>>Commissions
>>>objectives and powers. We also need to look at the Privy Councils
>>>regulation of Royal Charters for both professional and chartable
>>>organisations.
>>>
>>>One wonders if charities should be allowed to own and control land on this
>>>scale?
>>>
>>>The people that exposed this scam are to be congratulated. When the RSPB
>>>and
>>>RSPCA makes enemies of neutrals like me, they have no future
>>>
>>>...and Im still not against shooting under appropriate controls. If the
>>>public want it banned, they will have to campaign peacefully and vote
>>>accordingly.
>>>
>>>In the meantime the RSPB need prosecuting for whatever technical offence
>>>can
>>>be dragged up for collecting money under false pretences.
>>
>>
>I asked the RSPB about this and heres their reply:
>
>Thank you for your email Mr xxxxxxx.
>
>On most of our reserves, the RSPB holds the shooting rights and does not
>normally allow wildfowling unless there is a significant benefit for
>conservation. Langstone Harbour is internationally important for
>several bird species and, by entering into an agreement with the
>Langstone and District Wildfowlers and Conservation Association, we can
>effectively influence the level and manner of wildfowling across the
>whole harbour. We would only enter into such an agreement with a
>responsible and well-managed association. By swapping shooting rights
>on our reserve in exchange for not shooting over other areas under the
>clubs control, there is an overall benefit for wildlife in the estuary.
>Wildfowlers are only allowed to shoot a small number of birds within a
>legally designated season but we would always oppose shooting where it
>poses a threat to conservation.
>

>
>David L wrote in message
>news:uptmo3t49k0brvfpj09rjbvg2t6vcisv6d@4ax.com...
>> On Mon, 14 Jan 2008 12:38:30 -0000, Pat Gardiner
>> wrote:
>>
>>>As you know, I do not usually comment much about matters outside my direct
>>>experience.
>>>
>>>If people want to watch birds, as my wife does, that is fine by me,
>>>providing I dont have to stand in the cold with her.
>>>
>>>If my son-in-law and most of my male relatives and friends like to shoot,
>>>that is fine by me too, so long as I dont have to join them.
>>>
>>>So, Im pretty neutral on the issue and might be expected to acquiesce in
>>>the RSPB line of both protecting birds and facilitating their shooting.
>>>
>>>But, it is not the middle line. For the RSPB to be allowing shooting on
>>>land
>>>bought by charity money intended to be used for protecting birds is
>>>hypocritical in the extreme.
>>>
>>>That a charity should be so allowed to mislead the public is ludicrous.
>>>That the RSPB and their fellows should be allowed to control ever
>>>increasing
>>>areas of England, quite wrong.
>>>
>>>It is yet another example of an organisation flaunting their royal charter
>>>to cover-up low ethical standards. I have known for many years that the
>>>RSPB
>>>were pretty dodgy, but this is really beyond the pale.
>>
>> Its despicable. I shall be asking them for a refund, and if they
>> refuse theyll be taken to caught. I feel like I have been mugged!
>>
>>>Virtually every national animal welfare organisation seems the same. Big
>>>presence coupled with big ideas: Low standards and lying.
>>>
>>>We really do need to force through a reform of both the Charity
>>>Commissions
>>>objectives and powers. We also need to look at the Privy Councils
>>>regulation of Royal Charters for both professional and chartable
>>>organisations.
>>>
>>>One wonders if charities should be allowed to own and control land on this
>>>scale?
>>>
>>>The people that exposed this scam are to be congratulated. When the RSPB
>>>and
>>>RSPCA makes enemies of neutrals like me, they have no future
>>>
>>>...and Im still not against shooting under appropriate controls. If the
>>>public want it banned, they will have to campaign peacefully and vote
>>>accordingly.
>>>
>>>In the meantime the RSPB need prosecuting for whatever technical offence
>>>can
>>>be dragged up for collecting money under false pretences.
>>
>>
>I asked the RSPB about this and heres their reply:
>
>Thank you for your email Mr xxxxxxx.
>
>On most of our reserves, the RSPB holds the shooting rights and does not
>normally allow wildfowling unless there is a significant benefit for
>conservation. Langstone Harbour is internationally important for
>several bird species and, by entering into an agreement with the
>Langstone and District Wildfowlers and Conservation Association, we can
>effectively influence the level and manner of wildfowling across the
>whole harbour. We would only enter into such an agreement with a
>responsible and well-managed association. By swapping shooting rights
>on our reserve in exchange for not shooting over other areas under the
>clubs control, there is an overall benefit for wildlife in the estuary.
>Wildfowlers are only allowed to shoot a small number of birds within a
>legally designated season but we would always oppose shooting where it
>poses a threat to conservation.
>
>Best wishes
>
>Valerie Osborne
>Wildlife Enquiries
>
>The RSPB
>The Lodge, Sandy, Bedfordshire SG19 2DL
>Tel: 01767 693061 Fax: 01767 692365
>
>The RSPB speaks out for birds and wildlife, tackling the problems that
>threaten our environment. Nature is amazing - help us keep it that way.
>Click here to join today www.rspb.org.uk/join The Royal Society for the
>Protection of Birds (RSPB) is a registered charity: England and Wales
>no. 207076, Scotland no. SC037654
>
>
>

>In message , The DA
> writes
>>
>>David L wrote in message
>>news:uptmo3t49k0brvfpj09rjbvg2t6vcisv6d@4ax.com...
>>> On Mon, 14 Jan 2008 12:38:30 -0000, Pat Gardiner
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>As you know, I do not usually comment much about matters outside my direct
>>>>experience.
>>>>
>>>>If people want to watch birds, as my wife does, that is fine by me,
>>>>providing I dont have to stand in the cold with her.
>>>>
>>>>If my son-in-law and most of my male relatives and friends like to shoot,
>>>>that is fine by me too, so long as I dont have to join them.
>>>>
>>>>So, Im pretty neutral on the issue and might be expected to acquiesce in
>>>>the RSPB line of both protecting birds and facilitating their shooting.
>>>>
>>>>But, it is not the middle line. For the RSPB to be allowing shooting on
>>>>land
>>>>bought by charity money intended to be used for protecting birds is
>>>>hypocritical in the extreme.
>>>>
>>>>That a charity should be so allowed to mislead the public is ludicrous.
>>>>That the RSPB and their fellows should be allowed to control ever
>>>>increasing
>>>>areas of England, quite wrong.
>>>>
>>>>It is yet another example of an organisation flaunting their royal charter
>>>>to cover-up low ethical standards. I have known for many years that the
>>>>RSPB
>>>>were pretty dodgy, but this is really beyond the pale.
>>>
>>> Its despicable. I shall be asking them for a refund, and if they
>>> refuse theyll be taken to caught. I feel like I have been mugged!
>>>
>>>>Virtually every national animal welfare organisation seems the same. Big
>>>>presence coupled with big ideas: Low standards and lying.
>>>>
>>>>We really do need to force through a reform of both the Charity
>>>>Commissions
>>>>objectives and powers. We also need to look at the Privy Councils
>>>>regulation of Royal Charters for both professional and chartable
>>>>organisations.
>>>>
>>>>One wonders if charities should be allowed to own and control land on this
>>>>scale?
>>>>
>>>>The people that exposed this scam are to be congratulated. When the RSPB
>>>>and
>>>>RSPCA makes enemies of neutrals like me, they have no future
>>>>
>>>>...and Im still not against shooting under appropriate controls. If the
>>>>public want it banned, they will have to campaign peacefully and vote
>>>>accordingly.
>>>>
>>>>In the meantime the RSPB need prosecuting for whatever technical offence
>>>>can
>>>>be dragged up for collecting money under false pretences.
>>>
>>>
>>I asked the RSPB about this and heres their reply:
>>
>>Thank you for your email Mr xxxxxxx.
>>
>>On most of our reserves, the RSPB holds the shooting rights and does not
>>normally allow wildfowling unless there is a significant benefit for
>>conservation. Langstone Harbour is internationally important for
>>several bird species and, by entering into an agreement with the
>>Langstone and District Wildfowlers and Conservation Association, we can
>>effectively influence the level and manner of wildfowling across the
>>whole harbour. We would only enter into such an agreement with a
>>responsible and well-managed association. By swapping shooting rights
>>on our reserve in exchange for not shooting over other areas under the
>>clubs control, there is an overall benefit for wildlife in the estuary.
>>Wildfowlers are only allowed to shoot a small number of birds within a
>>legally designated season but we would always oppose shooting where it
>>poses a threat to conservation.
>>
>>Best wishes
>>
>>Valerie Osborne
>>Wildlife Enquiries
>>
>>The RSPB
>>The Lodge, Sandy, Bedfordshire SG19 2DL
>>Tel: 01767 693061 Fax: 01767 692365
>>
>>The RSPB speaks out for birds and wildlife, tackling the problems that
>>threaten our environment. Nature is amazing - help us keep it that way.
>>Click here to join today www.rspb.org.uk/join The Royal Society for the
>>Protection of Birds (RSPB) is a registered charity: England and Wales
>>no. 207076, Scotland no. SC037654
>>
>>
>>
>Seems reasonable to me. However Angus will holdout for no shooting on
>the reserve and blast as many as possible out of the sky on the rest of
>the reserve.
>
>His vendetta coupled with his animal rights stance will not allow him to
>accept that this is a pragmatic and sensible way of reducing the numbers
>of birds that are detrimentally effected by shooting.

> On Tue, 15 Jan 2008 17:57:53 -0000, The DA
> wrote:
>
>>
>>David L wrote in message
>>news:uptmo3t49k0brvfpj09rjbvg2t6vcisv6d@4ax.com...
>>> On Mon, 14 Jan 2008 12:38:30 -0000, Pat Gardiner
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>As you know, I do not usually comment much about matters outside my
>>>>direct
>>>>experience.
>>>>
>>>>If people want to watch birds, as my wife does, that is fine by me,
>>>>providing I dont have to stand in the cold with her.
>>>>
>>>>If my son-in-law and most of my male relatives and friends like to
>>>>shoot,
>>>>that is fine by me too, so long as I dont have to join them.
>>>>
>>>>So, Im pretty neutral on the issue and might be expected to acquiesce
>>>>in
>>>>the RSPB line of both protecting birds and facilitating their shooting.
>>>>
>>>>But, it is not the middle line. For the RSPB to be allowing shooting on
>>>>land
>>>>bought by charity money intended to be used for protecting birds is
>>>>hypocritical in the extreme.
>>>>
>>>>That a charity should be so allowed to mislead the public is
>>>>ludicrous.
>>>>That the RSPB and their fellows should be allowed to control ever
>>>>increasing
>>>>areas of England, quite wrong.
>>>>
>>>>It is yet another example of an organisation flaunting their royal
>>>>charter
>>>>to cover-up low ethical standards. I have known for many years that the
>>>>RSPB
>>>>were pretty dodgy, but this is really beyond the pale.
>>>
>>> Its despicable. I shall be asking them for a refund, and if they
>>> refuse theyll be taken to caught. I feel like I have been mugged!
>>>
>>>>Virtually every national animal welfare organisation seems the same. Big
>>>>presence coupled with big ideas: Low standards and lying.
>>>>
>>>>We really do need to force through a reform of both the Charity
>>>>Commissions
>>>>objectives and powers. We also need to look at the Privy Councils
>>>>regulation of Royal Charters for both professional and chartable
>>>>organisations.
>>>>
>>>>One wonders if charities should be allowed to own and control land on
>>>>this
>>>>scale?
>>>>
>>>>The people that exposed this scam are to be congratulated. When the RSPB
>>>>and
>>>>RSPCA makes enemies of neutrals like me, they have no future
>>>>
>>>>...and Im still not against shooting under appropriate controls. If the
>>>>public want it banned, they will have to campaign peacefully and vote
>>>>accordingly.
>>>>
>>>>In the meantime the RSPB need prosecuting for whatever technical offence
>>>>can
>>>>be dragged up for collecting money under false pretences.
>>>
>>>
>>I asked the RSPB about this and heres their reply:
>>
>>Thank you for your email Mr xxxxxxx.
>>
>>On most of our reserves, the RSPB holds the shooting rights and does not
>>normally allow wildfowling unless there is a significant benefit for
>>conservation. Langstone Harbour is internationally important for
>>several bird species and, by entering into an agreement with the
>>Langstone and District Wildfowlers and Conservation Association, we can
>>effectively influence the level and manner of wildfowling across the
>>whole harbour. We would only enter into such an agreement with a
>>responsible and well-managed association. By swapping shooting rights
>>on our reserve in exchange for not shooting over other areas under the
>>clubs control, there is an overall benefit for wildlife in the estuary.
>>Wildfowlers are only allowed to shoot a small number of birds within a
>>legally designated season but we would always oppose shooting where it
>>poses a threat to conservation.
>>
>
> Lip service and double speak, and a bit of a change from the original
> hastily put together *excuse* of getting the shooting groups to police
> the area.
>
> I have asked them what other RSPB properties they allow shooting on
> and they have refused to answer. I shall now be seeking this
> information using the freedom of information act.
>
> The crooks.

>
>Adam Hart wrote in message
>news:s4tpo3t9g1sfdsrs3o96rs08p9jtdfv24p@4ax.com...
>> On Tue, 15 Jan 2008 17:57:53 -0000, The DA
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>David L wrote in message
>>>news:uptmo3t49k0brvfpj09rjbvg2t6vcisv6d@4ax.com...
>>>> On Mon, 14 Jan 2008 12:38:30 -0000, Pat Gardiner
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>As you know, I do not usually comment much about matters outside my
>>>>>direct
>>>>>experience.
>>>>>
>>>>>If people want to watch birds, as my wife does, that is fine by me,
>>>>>providing I dont have to stand in the cold with her.
>>>>>
>>>>>If my son-in-law and most of my male relatives and friends like to
>>>>>shoot,
>>>>>that is fine by me too, so long as I dont have to join them.
>>>>>
>>>>>So, Im pretty neutral on the issue and might be expected to acquiesce
>>>>>in
>>>>>the RSPB line of both protecting birds and facilitating their shooting.
>>>>>
>>>>>But, it is not the middle line. For the RSPB to be allowing shooting on
>>>>>land
>>>>>bought by charity money intended to be used for protecting birds is
>>>>>hypocritical in the extreme.
>>>>>
>>>>>That a charity should be so allowed to mislead the public is
>>>>>ludicrous.
>>>>>That the RSPB and their fellows should be allowed to control ever
>>>>>increasing
>>>>>areas of England, quite wrong.
>>>>>
>>>>>It is yet another example of an organisation flaunting their royal
>>>>>charter
>>>>>to cover-up low ethical standards. I have known for many years that the
>>>>>RSPB
>>>>>were pretty dodgy, but this is really beyond the pale.
>>>>
>>>> Its despicable. I shall be asking them for a refund, and if they
>>>> refuse theyll be taken to caught. I feel like I have been mugged!
>>>>
>>>>>Virtually every national animal welfare organisation seems the same. Big
>>>>>presence coupled with big ideas: Low standards and lying.
>>>>>
>>>>>We really do need to force through a reform of both the Charity
>>>>>Commissions
>>>>>objectives and powers. We also need to look at the Privy Councils
>>>>>regulation of Royal Charters for both professional and chartable
>>>>>organisations.
>>>>>
>>>>>One wonders if charities should be allowed to own and control land on
>>>>>this
>>>>>scale?
>>>>>
>>>>>The people that exposed this scam are to be congratulated. When the RSPB
>>>>>and
>>>>>RSPCA makes enemies of neutrals like me, they have no future
>>>>>
>>>>>...and Im still not against shooting under appropriate controls. If the
>>>>>public want it banned, they will have to campaign peacefully and vote
>>>>>accordingly.
>>>>>
>>>>>In the meantime the RSPB need prosecuting for whatever technical offence
>>>>>can
>>>>>be dragged up for collecting money under false pretences.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>I asked the RSPB about this and heres their reply:
>>>
>>>Thank you for your email Mr xxxxxxx.
>>>
>>>On most of our reserves, the RSPB holds the shooting rights and does not
>>>normally allow wildfowling unless there is a significant benefit for
>>>conservation. Langstone Harbour is internationally important for
>>>several bird species and, by entering into an agreement with the
>>>Langstone and District Wildfowlers and Conservation Association, we can
>>>effectively influence the level and manner of wildfowling across the
>>>whole harbour. We would only enter into such an agreement with a
>>>responsible and well-managed association. By swapping shooting rights
>>>on our reserve in exchange for not shooting over other areas under the
>>>clubs control, there is an overall benefit for wildlife in the estuary.
>>>Wildfowlers are only allowed to shoot a small number of birds within a
>>>legally designated season but we would always oppose shooting where it
>>>poses a threat to conservation.
>>>
>>
>> Lip service and double speak, and a bit of a change from the original
>> hastily put together *excuse* of getting the shooting groups to police
>> the area.
>>
>> I have asked them what other RSPB properties they allow shooting on
>> and they have refused to answer. I shall now be seeking this
>> information using the freedom of information act.
>>
>> The crooks.
>
>Reply from RSPB:
>
>There are 11 other RSPB reserves where wildfowling takes place. At
>four, there are similar arrangements to the one at Langstone Harbour
>where there are overall conservation benefits. At the other seven we do
>not have control over the shooting rights - although we always strive to
>acquire these if the opportunity arises.
>
>Best wishes
>
>
>Valerie Osborne
>Wildlife Enquiries

>On Fri, 18 Jan 2008 18:31:57 -0000, The DA
> wrote:
>
>>
>>Adam Hart wrote in message
>>news:s4tpo3t9g1sfdsrs3o96rs08p9jtdfv24p@4ax.com...
>>> On Tue, 15 Jan 2008 17:57:53 -0000, The DA
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>David L wrote in message
>>>>news:uptmo3t49k0brvfpj09rjbvg2t6vcisv6d@4ax.com...
>>>>> On Mon, 14 Jan 2008 12:38:30 -0000, Pat Gardiner
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>As you know, I do not usually comment much about matters outside my
>>>>>>direct
>>>>>>experience.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>If people want to watch birds, as my wife does, that is fine by me,
>>>>>>providing I dont have to stand in the cold with her.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>If my son-in-law and most of my male relatives and friends like to
>>>>>>shoot,
>>>>>>that is fine by me too, so long as I dont have to join them.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>So, Im pretty neutral on the issue and might be expected to acquiesce
>>>>>>in
>>>>>>the RSPB line of both protecting birds and facilitating their shooting.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>But, it is not the middle line. For the RSPB to be allowing shooting on
>>>>>>land
>>>>>>bought by charity money intended to be used for protecting birds is
>>>>>>hypocritical in the extreme.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>That a charity should be so allowed to mislead the public is
>>>>>>ludicrous.
>>>>>>That the RSPB and their fellows should be allowed to control ever
>>>>>>increasing
>>>>>>areas of England, quite wrong.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>It is yet another example of an organisation flaunting their royal
>>>>>>charter
>>>>>>to cover-up low ethical standards. I have known for many years that the
>>>>>>RSPB
>>>>>>were pretty dodgy, but this is really beyond the pale.
>>>>>
>>>>> Its despicable. I shall be asking them for a refund, and if they
>>>>> refuse theyll be taken to caught. I feel like I have been mugged!
>>>>>
>>>>>>Virtually every national animal welfare organisation seems the same. Big
>>>>>>presence coupled with big ideas: Low standards and lying.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>We really do need to force through a reform of both the Charity
>>>>>>Commissions
>>>>>>objectives and powers. We also need to look at the Privy Councils
>>>>>>regulation of Royal Charters for both professional and chartable
>>>>>>organisations.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>One wonders if charities should be allowed to own and control land on
>>>>>>this
>>>>>>scale?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>The people that exposed this scam are to be congratulated. When the RSPB
>>>>>>and
>>>>>>RSPCA makes enemies of neutrals like me, they have no future
>>>>>>
>>>>>>...and Im still not against shooting under appropriate controls. If the
>>>>>>public want it banned, they will have to campaign peacefully and vote
>>>>>>accordingly.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>In the meantime the RSPB need prosecuting for whatever technical offence
>>>>>>can
>>>>>>be dragged up for collecting money under false pretences.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>I asked the RSPB about this and heres their reply:
>>>>
>>>>Thank you for your email Mr xxxxxxx.
>>>>
>>>>On most of our reserves, the RSPB holds the shooting rights and does not
>>>>normally allow wildfowling unless there is a significant benefit for
>>>>conservation. Langstone Harbour is internationally important for
>>>>several bird species and, by entering into an agreement with the
>>>>Langstone and District Wildfowlers and Conservation Association, we can
>>>>effectively influence the level and manner of wildfowling across the
>>>>whole harbour. We would only enter into such an agreement with a
>>>>responsible and well-managed association. By swapping shooting rights
>>>>on our reserve in exchange for not shooting over other areas under the
>>>>clubs control, there is an overall benefit for wildlife in the estuary.
>>>>Wildfowlers are only allowed to shoot a small number of birds within a
>>>>legally designated season but we would always oppose shooting where it
>>>>poses a threat to conservation.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Lip service and double speak, and a bit of a change from the original
>>> hastily put together *excuse* of getting the shooting groups to police
>>> the area.
>>>
>>> I have asked them what other RSPB properties they allow shooting on
>>> and they have refused to answer. I shall now be seeking this
>>> information using the freedom of information act.
>>>
>>> The crooks.
>>
>>Reply from RSPB:
>>
>>There are 11 other RSPB reserves where wildfowling takes place. At
>>four, there are similar arrangements to the one at Langstone Harbour
>>where there are overall conservation benefits. At the other seven we do
>>not have control over the shooting rights - although we always strive to
>>acquire these if the opportunity arises.
>>
>>Best wishes
>>
>>
>>Valerie Osborne
>>Wildlife Enquiries
>
>Thats interesting. Very careful to specifically stick to wildfowling
>discussion as its well known that they allow other shooting groups
>for deer and grouse.