Who decides?

[greencard1]

Radio 4 have been replaying a series first aired in 2012 called 'The Alien Birds Have Landed'.
The series looks at several species, including pheasant, rose ringed parakeet, ruddy ducks and eagle owls. There are opinions from the BTO, RSPB and individual 'specialists'.
The overall impression is confusion and inconsistencies.
For example; pheasants are without doubt alien birds, having been introduced probably by the Romans, and definitely by the Normans. 20 million of them are introduced into the wild every year; but birders do not usually make a fuss about this. Until recently, an angler returning a zander to a UK water could be accused of stocking an alien species. The programme suggested that most birders despise pheasants because they are so common, and are so obviously alien to the UK. Is this why they do not make a fuss and accuse shoots of stocking an alien species?
There are thought to be more than 30,000 rose ringed parakeets in the UK now. They started breeding here in about 1969. The programme stated that they may become more of a problem as they start to move into broad leaf woodlands and compete for food with native birds. It stated that The Public would not like to see a cull of parakeets because they are such pretty birds.
Ruddy ducks were eliminated from the UK to save the Spanish white headed duck, because ruddy drakes and white headed ducks were producing hybrids, and pure white headed ducks were dying out. Sinensis cormorants are breeding with our native coastal cormorants and producing hybrids; but birders don't seem to care that the gene pool of our native bird is being diluted.
The most interesting bird that the programme looks at is the eagle owl. In 2012 there were eagle owls nesting in the UK, which is usually a criteria for calling them a British bird; although most of them were birds that had escaped from captivity.
Eagle owls nest in Belgium and in other European countries. There is a fossil record for eagle owls in the UK; and yet the birders can't decide if it is a British bird or not.
Eagle owls are known to disrupt other raptors. They will take other owls, and are known to disrupt breeding of hen harriers, golden eagles, goshawks and peregrines. And yet birders are in two minds what to do about them. The programme states that the situation would be monitored and that measures to reduce their numbers in the future may be taken, although lethal force is a last resort.
The programmes were recorded in 2012, does anyone know what the situation is now regarding eagle owls? Have they been accepted as a UK bird?

Of course I am raising these points because of Chinese cormorants. Who gets to decide what happens to bird species in the UK?
Eagle owls are most likely more of a UK bird than sinensis cormorants are. Both cause damage to native wildlife; and yet it seems to be up to birders to decide what happens to each species.
At the risk of sounding like a broken record, I am going to say again...birders do not give a hoot (pun intended) about fish, and want to see an end to angling in the UK. They will continue to defend Inland cormorants because inland cormorants are helping them achieve this goal.

[Mike J]

Who gets to decide what happens to bird species in the UK?

The official answer is that it was the Nature Conservancy Council (NCC) then it was English Nature (EN) now it is Natural England (NE) but always in consultation with their own and outside scientists, field staff, land owners and other interested parties.

The unofficial answer is it is those at the sharp end, for it is they who are the real conservationists in this country and the work they do eclipses almost everything those in the seats of power will ever achieve.

Birders do like pheasants, especially if it adds another bird to their UK list eg; Golden Pheasant.
Birders also want free access to every body of water or river and angling is a barrier to that objective so stopping angling would help acheive their goal.

[greencard1]

Natural England have got a dilemma. Eagle owls are very impressive birds, 10lbs plus in weight; they would prove very attractive to birders who want to tick them off their lists.
And yet they cause harm to other native birds.They are obviously a UK bird, but NE seem to be hedging their bets about what to do with them. They could prove very lucrative for conservation groups.
As far as I know, there is no fossil record for Chinese cormorants in mainland Europe, let alone the UK. They are obviously alien to the UK, and yet conservation groups will continue to defend them.
Satan's little helpers.

[davelumb]

Mark Avery and co don't like pheasants. Not the ones reared to be shot at any rate.

[greencard1]

It seems wrong that NE can decide what is, or is not a UK bird; and ignore evidence.

[Mike J]

It seems wrong that NE can decide what is, or is not a UK bird; and ignore evidence.

NE staff are almost all highly qualified scientists and they make all their decisions based on sound science, solid evidence and evaluation of all the available facts. What is wrong with that?
If not NE then who would you appoint if you had the opportunity?

New Zealand's Department of Conservation (DOC) has a policy of total eradication of all non native species, Ive seen it in action and its proving to be an uphill struggle but it just may be achievable as the human population is (almost) fully behind it.
Nothing remotly like it will ever happen in the UK because of the numbers involved and our human population which is too diverse and influenced by social media to make it financialy impossible.

[greencard1]

Aren't EN involved with the biomanipulation project on the Broads?
Evaluated the facts and ignored them.

[Duncan Holmes]

It seems wrong that NE can decide what is, or is not a UK bird; and ignore evidence.

NE staff are almost all highly qualified scientists and they make all their decisions based on sound science, solid evidence and evaluation of all the available facts. What is wrong with that?
If not NE then who would you appoint if you had the opportunity?

New Zealand's Department of Conservation (DOC) has a policy of total eradication of all non native species, Ive seen it in action and its proving to be an uphill struggle but it just may be achievable as the human population is (almost) fully behind it.
Nothing remotly like it will ever happen in the UK because of the numbers involved and our human population which is too diverse and influenced by social media to make it financialy impossible.

"they make all their decisions based on sound science, solid evidence and evaluation of all the available facts. "

They most certainly aren't doing that on the HGB project.....

[Stewlaws]

It seems wrong that NE can decide what is, or is not a UK bird; and ignore evidence.

NE staff are almost all highly qualified scientists and they make all their decisions based on sound science, solid evidence and evaluation of all the available facts. What is wrong with that?
If not NE then who would you appoint if you had the opportunity?

New Zealand's Department of Conservation (DOC) has a policy of total eradication of all non native species, Ive seen it in action and its proving to be an uphill struggle but it just may be achievable as the human population is (almost) fully behind it.
Nothing remotly like it will ever happen in the UK because of the numbers involved and our human population which is too diverse and influenced by social media to make it financialy impossible.

"they make all their decisions based on sound science, solid evidence and evaluation of all the available facts. "

They most certainly aren't doing that on the HGB project.....

I've seen first hand Natural England lobbied successfully by vociferous individuals of standing from the GWCT on a regional level, in saying that the GWCT also had an ear to NE and prior to its collapse they also had influence with the farming wildlife advisory group FWAG...

Some regions of NE were not so accommodating tellingly, which makes for a rather large playing field on certain issues.

[Mike J]

It seems wrong that NE can decide what is, or is not a UK bird; and ignore evidence.

NE staff are almost all highly qualified scientists and they make all their decisions based on sound science, solid evidence and evaluation of all the available facts. What is wrong with that?
If not NE then who would you appoint if you had the opportunity?

New Zealand's Department of Conservation (DOC) has a policy of total eradication of all non native species, Ive seen it in action and its proving to be an uphill struggle but it just may be achievable as the human population is (almost) fully behind it.
Nothing remotly like it will ever happen in the UK because of the numbers involved and our human population which is too diverse and influenced by social media to make it financialy impossible.

"they make all their decisions based on sound science, solid evidence and evaluation of all the available facts. "

They most certainly aren't doing that on the HGB project.....

Hi Duncan,
NE is a minor Gov. Dept. and its employees are subject to instructions from above, the closing of the Broad is just another incidence where wildlife is sacrificed on the alter of big business. It was ever so.


Hi Stew,
A previous Env. Minister restructured NE permitting many decisions to be made without reference to Regional Officers. Changing a decision made at hub level is extremely difficult but as you have experienced, achievable given unity and time both of which are limited by lack of funding from above.
(Apologise for not quoting your post)

[Duncan Holmes]

It seems wrong that NE can decide what is, or is not a UK bird; and ignore evidence.

NE staff are almost all highly qualified scientists and they make all their decisions based on sound science, solid evidence and evaluation of all the available facts. What is wrong with that?
If not NE then who would you appoint if you had the opportunity?

New Zealand's Department of Conservation (DOC) has a policy of total eradication of all non native species, Ive seen it in action and its proving to be an uphill struggle but it just may be achievable as the human population is (almost) fully behind it.
Nothing remotly like it will ever happen in the UK because of the numbers involved and our human population which is too diverse and influenced by social media to make it financialy impossible.

"they make all their decisions based on sound science, solid evidence and evaluation of all the available facts. "

They most certainly aren't doing that on the HGB project.....

Hi Duncan,
NE is a minor Gov. Dept. and its employees are subject to instructions from above, the closing of the Broad is just another incidence where wildlife is sacrificed on the alter of big business. It was ever so.


Hi Stew,
A previous Env. Minister restructured NE permitting many decisions to be made without reference to Regional Officers. Changing a decision made at hub level is extremely difficult but as you have experienced, achievable given unity and time both of which are limited by lack of funding from above.
(Apologise for not quoting your post)

Hi Mike,

Can you enlighten me regarding the big business quote?

I am a little confused how this links to HGB.

[Mike J]

It seems wrong that NE can decide what is, or is not a UK bird; and ignore evidence.

NE staff are almost all highly qualified scientists and they make all their decisions based on sound science, solid evidence and evaluation of all the available facts. What is wrong with that?
If not NE then who would you appoint if you had the opportunity?

New Zealand's Department of Conservation (DOC) has a policy of total eradication of all non native species, Ive seen it in action and its proving to be an uphill struggle but it just may be achievable as the human population is (almost) fully behind it.
Nothing remotly like it will ever happen in the UK because of the numbers involved and our human population which is too diverse and influenced by social media to make it financialy impossible.

"they make all their decisions based on sound science, solid evidence and evaluation of all the available facts. "

They most certainly aren't doing that on the HGB project.....

Hi Duncan,
NE is a minor Gov. Dept. and its employees are subject to instructions from above, the closing of the Broad is just another incidence where wildlife is sacrificed on the alter of big business. It was ever so.


Hi Stew,
A previous Env. Minister restructured NE permitting many decisions to be made without reference to Regional Officers. Changing a decision made at hub level is extremely difficult but as you have experienced, achievable given unity and time both of which are limited by lack of funding from above.
(Apologise for not quoting your post)

Hi Mike,

Can you enlighten me regarding the big business quote?

I am a little confused how this links to HGB.

A century ago all boats were wind or man powered and the Broads had clear water, the objective of the HGB project.

At the forefront of the BA website is a link for boating. There is not a link for wildlife despite it being the statutory duty of the BA to protect and conserve (all) its wildlife and the very reason why NCC/EN pressed for its establishment in the first place.
.

[Duncan Holmes]

It seems wrong that NE can decide what is, or is not a UK bird; and ignore evidence.

NE staff are almost all highly qualified scientists and they make all their decisions based on sound science, solid evidence and evaluation of all the available facts. What is wrong with that?
If not NE then who would you appoint if you had the opportunity?

New Zealand's Department of Conservation (DOC) has a policy of total eradication of all non native species, Ive seen it in action and its proving to be an uphill struggle but it just may be achievable as the human population is (almost) fully behind it.
Nothing remotly like it will ever happen in the UK because of the numbers involved and our human population which is too diverse and influenced by social media to make it financialy impossible.

"they make all their decisions based on sound science, solid evidence and evaluation of all the available facts. "

They most certainly aren't doing that on the HGB project.....

Hi Duncan,
NE is a minor Gov. Dept. and its employees are subject to instructions from above, the closing of the Broad is just another incidence where wildlife is sacrificed on the alter of big business. It was ever so.


Hi Stew,
A previous Env. Minister restructured NE permitting many decisions to be made without reference to Regional Officers. Changing a decision made at hub level is extremely difficult but as you have experienced, achievable given unity and time both of which are limited by lack of funding from above.
(Apologise for not quoting your post)

Hi Mike,

Can you enlighten me regarding the big business quote?

I am a little confused how this links to HGB.

A century ago all boats were wind or man powered and the Broads had clear water, the objective of the HGB project.

At the forefront of the BA website is a link for boating. There is not a link for wildlife despite it being the statutory duty of the BA to protect and conserve (all) its wildlife and the very reason why NCC/EN pressed for its establishment in the first place.
.

Closing the Broad doesn't benefit the boating industry at all, in fact potentially it damages it by reducing angling tourism if our fears become reality.

This year in particular there has been clear water over much of broadland, right up until the 2nd week in July when the boat traffic increased massively so I agree abut the boat effect. We also had far less nutrient discharge as well 100 years ago.

The HGB project is being rolled out under the conservation banner and gathers support from BA based on this. In fact I would suggest that support for this project actually favours conservation over other statutory duties such as recreation, navigation and business.

The HGB project in my opinion benefits a few small businesses to a moderate level, a few "scientists" and a few egos along the way.

[Mike J]

It seems wrong that NE can decide what is, or is not a UK bird; and ignore evidence.

NE staff are almost all highly qualified scientists and they make all their decisions based on sound science, solid evidence and evaluation of all the available facts. What is wrong with that?
If not NE then who would you appoint if you had the opportunity?

New Zealand's Department of Conservation (DOC) has a policy of total eradication of all non native species, Ive seen it in action and its proving to be an uphill struggle but it just may be achievable as the human population is (almost) fully behind it.
Nothing remotly like it will ever happen in the UK because of the numbers involved and our human population which is too diverse and influenced by social media to make it financialy impossible.

"they make all their decisions based on sound science, solid evidence and evaluation of all the available facts. "

They most certainly aren't doing that on the HGB project.....

Hi Duncan,
NE is a minor Gov. Dept. and its employees are subject to instructions from above, the closing of the Broad is just another incidence where wildlife is sacrificed on the alter of big business. It was ever so.


Hi Stew,
A previous Env. Minister restructured NE permitting many decisions to be made without reference to Regional Officers. Changing a decision made at hub level is extremely difficult but as you have experienced, achievable given unity and time both of which are limited by lack of funding from above.
(Apologise for not quoting your post)

Hi Mike,

Can you enlighten me regarding the big business quote?

I am a little confused how this links to HGB.

A century ago all boats were wind or man powered and the Broads had clear water, the objective of the HGB project.

At the forefront of the BA website is a link for boating. There is not a link for wildlife despite it being the statutory duty of the BA to protect and conserve (all) its wildlife and the very reason why NCC/EN pressed for its establishment in the first place.
.

Closing the Broad doesn't benefit the boating industry at all, in fact potentially it damages it by reducing angling tourism if our fears become reality.

This year in particular there has been clear water over much of broadland, right up until the 2nd week in July when the boat traffic increased massively so I agree abut the boat effect. We also had far less nutrient discharge as well 100 years ago.

The HGB project is being rolled out under the conservation banner and gathers support from BA based on this. In fact I would suggest that support for this project actually favours conservation over other statutory duties such as recreation, navigation and business.

The HGB project in my opinion benefits a few small businesses to a moderate level, a few "scientists" and a few egos along the way.

Thank you for confirming your belief that the HGB project favours wildlife conservation.
.

[Duncan Holmes]

It seems wrong that NE can decide what is, or is not a UK bird; and ignore evidence.

NE staff are almost all highly qualified scientists and they make all their decisions based on sound science, solid evidence and evaluation of all the available facts. What is wrong with that?
If not NE then who would you appoint if you had the opportunity?

New Zealand's Department of Conservation (DOC) has a policy of total eradication of all non native species, Ive seen it in action and its proving to be an uphill struggle but it just may be achievable as the human population is (almost) fully behind it.
Nothing remotly like it will ever happen in the UK because of the numbers involved and our human population which is too diverse and influenced by social media to make it financialy impossible.

"they make all their decisions based on sound science, solid evidence and evaluation of all the available facts. "

They most certainly aren't doing that on the HGB project.....

Hi Duncan,
NE is a minor Gov. Dept. and its employees are subject to instructions from above, the closing of the Broad is just another incidence where wildlife is sacrificed on the alter of big business. It was ever so.


Hi Stew,
A previous Env. Minister restructured NE permitting many decisions to be made without reference to Regional Officers. Changing a decision made at hub level is extremely difficult but as you have experienced, achievable given unity and time both of which are limited by lack of funding from above.
(Apologise for not quoting your post)

Hi Mike,

Can you enlighten me regarding the big business quote?

I am a little confused how this links to HGB.

A century ago all boats were wind or man powered and the Broads had clear water, the objective of the HGB project.

At the forefront of the BA website is a link for boating. There is not a link for wildlife despite it being the statutory duty of the BA to protect and conserve (all) its wildlife and the very reason why NCC/EN pressed for its establishment in the first place.
.

Closing the Broad doesn't benefit the boating industry at all, in fact potentially it damages it by reducing angling tourism if our fears become reality.

This year in particular there has been clear water over much of broadland, right up until the 2nd week in July when the boat traffic increased massively so I agree abut the boat effect. We also had far less nutrient discharge as well 100 years ago.

The HGB project is being rolled out under the conservation banner and gathers support from BA based on this. In fact I would suggest that support for this project actually favours conservation over other statutory duties such as recreation, navigation and business.

The HGB project in my opinion benefits a few small businesses to a moderate level, a few "scientists" and a few egos along the way.

Thank you for confirming your belief that the HGB project favours wildlife conservation.
.

Thats slightly out of context Mike, I didn't say that my belief IN the project. BA have a perverse and often polarised view on conservation as you (appear) to know. We were discussing BA statuary duties not my personal beliefs in he project.

For the sake of any missunderstanding, let me rephrase my words..


"The HGB project is being rolled out under the conservation banner and gathers support from BA based on this. In fact I would suggest that support for this project demonstrates a desire to put conservation over other statutory duties such as recreation, navigation and business in this case."

I quite clearly don't think that it benefits conservation. I wouldn't be fighting the bloody thing if I felt that.

Any reason for trying to twist my words on this??"

[Mike J]

It seems wrong that NE can decide what is, or is not a UK bird; and ignore evidence.

NE staff are almost all highly qualified scientists and they make all their decisions based on sound science, solid evidence and evaluation of all the available facts. What is wrong with that?
If not NE then who would you appoint if you had the opportunity?

New Zealand's Department of Conservation (DOC) has a policy of total eradication of all non native species, Ive seen it in action and its proving to be an uphill struggle but it just may be achievable as the human population is (almost) fully behind it.
Nothing remotly like it will ever happen in the UK because of the numbers involved and our human population which is too diverse and influenced by social media to make it financialy impossible.

"they make all their decisions based on sound science, solid evidence and evaluation of all the available facts. "

They most certainly aren't doing that on the HGB project.....

Hi Duncan,
NE is a minor Gov. Dept. and its employees are subject to instructions from above, the closing of the Broad is just another incidence where wildlife is sacrificed on the alter of big business. It was ever so.


Hi Stew,
A previous Env. Minister restructured NE permitting many decisions to be made without reference to Regional Officers. Changing a decision made at hub level is extremely difficult but as you have experienced, achievable given unity and time both of which are limited by lack of funding from above.
(Apologise for not quoting your post)

Hi Mike,

Can you enlighten me regarding the big business quote?

I am a little confused how this links to HGB.

A century ago all boats were wind or man powered and the Broads had clear water, the objective of the HGB project.

At the forefront of the BA website is a link for boating. There is not a link for wildlife despite it being the statutory duty of the BA to protect and conserve (all) its wildlife and the very reason why NCC/EN pressed for its establishment in the first place.
.

Closing the Broad doesn't benefit the boating industry at all, in fact potentially it damages it by reducing angling tourism if our fears become reality.

This year in particular there has been clear water over much of broadland, right up until the 2nd week in July when the boat traffic increased massively so I agree abut the boat effect. We also had far less nutrient discharge as well 100 years ago.

The HGB project is being rolled out under the conservation banner and gathers support from BA based on this. In fact I would suggest that support for this project actually favours conservation over other statutory duties such as recreation, navigation and business.

The HGB project in my opinion benefits a few small businesses to a moderate level, a few "scientists" and a few egos along the way.

Thank you for confirming your belief that the HGB project favours wildlife conservation.
.

Thats slightly out of context Mike, I didn't say that my belief IN the project. BA have a perverse and often polarised view on conservation as you (appear) to know. We were discussing BA statuary duties not my personal beliefs in he project.

For the sake of any missunderstanding, let me rephrase my words..


"The HGB project is being rolled out under the conservation banner and gathers support from BA based on this. In fact I would suggest that support for this project demomstrates a desire to put conservation over other statutory duties such as recreation, navigation and business in this case."

I quite clearly don't think that it benefits conservation. I wouldn't be fighting the bloody thing if I felt that.

Any reason for trying to twist my words on this??"

Not trying or intended. I have no interest in the subject apart from supporting my fellow anglers.

From memory the clear water was initiated over 30years ago, the root cause is well known and everything that has happened since has just been tinkering with its effects however the rise in popularity of wild swimming, paddle boarding and kayaking by the younger generations may a solve the problem for all concerned, and not just in Broadland.

.

[Duncan Holmes]

It seems wrong that NE can decide what is, or is not a UK bird; and ignore evidence.

NE staff are almost all highly qualified scientists and they make all their decisions based on sound science, solid evidence and evaluation of all the available facts. What is wrong with that?
If not NE then who would you appoint if you had the opportunity?

New Zealand's Department of Conservation (DOC) has a policy of total eradication of all non native species, Ive seen it in action and its proving to be an uphill struggle but it just may be achievable as the human population is (almost) fully behind it.
Nothing remotly like it will ever happen in the UK because of the numbers involved and our human population which is too diverse and influenced by social media to make it financialy impossible.

"they make all their decisions based on sound science, solid evidence and evaluation of all the available facts. "

They most certainly aren't doing that on the HGB project.....

Hi Duncan,
NE is a minor Gov. Dept. and its employees are subject to instructions from above, the closing of the Broad is just another incidence where wildlife is sacrificed on the alter of big business. It was ever so.


Hi Stew,
A previous Env. Minister restructured NE permitting many decisions to be made without reference to Regional Officers. Changing a decision made at hub level is extremely difficult but as you have experienced, achievable given unity and time both of which are limited by lack of funding from above.
(Apologise for not quoting your post)

Hi Mike,

Can you enlighten me regarding the big business quote?

I am a little confused how this links to HGB.

A century ago all boats were wind or man powered and the Broads had clear water, the objective of the HGB project.

At the forefront of the BA website is a link for boating. There is not a link for wildlife despite it being the statutory duty of the BA to protect and conserve (all) its wildlife and the very reason why NCC/EN pressed for its establishment in the first place.
.

Closing the Broad doesn't benefit the boating industry at all, in fact potentially it damages it by reducing angling tourism if our fears become reality.

This year in particular there has been clear water over much of broadland, right up until the 2nd week in July when the boat traffic increased massively so I agree abut the boat effect. We also had far less nutrient discharge as well 100 years ago.

The HGB project is being rolled out under the conservation banner and gathers support from BA based on this. In fact I would suggest that support for this project actually favours conservation over other statutory duties such as recreation, navigation and business.

The HGB project in my opinion benefits a few small businesses to a moderate level, a few "scientists" and a few egos along the way.

Thank you for confirming your belief that the HGB project favours wildlife conservation.
.

Thats slightly out of context Mike, I didn't say that my belief IN the project. BA have a perverse and often polarised view on conservation as you (appear) to know. We were discussing BA statuary duties not my personal beliefs in he project.

For the sake of any missunderstanding, let me rephrase my words..


"The HGB project is being rolled out under the conservation banner and gathers support from BA based on this. In fact I would suggest that support for this project demomstrates a desire to put conservation over other statutory duties such as recreation, navigation and business in this case."

I quite clearly don't think that it benefits conservation. I wouldn't be fighting the bloody thing if I felt that.

Any reason for trying to twist my words on this??"

Not trying or intended. I have no interest in the subject apart from supporting my fellow anglers.

From memory the clear water was initiated over 30years ago, the root cause is well known and everything that has happened since has just been tinkering with its effects however the rise in popularity of wild swimming, paddle boarding and kayaking by the younger generations may a solve the problem for all concerned, and not just in Broadland.

.

OK, thanks

The clearwater 2000 project on Barton, IMO has been very successful despite being one of the busiest broads for boat traffic.

And guess what? they managed that without total fish exclusion, why they feel the need to change successful methodology is beyond me

[Mike J]

It seems wrong that NE can decide what is, or is not a UK bird; and ignore evidence.

NE staff are almost all highly qualified scientists and they make all their decisions based on sound science, solid evidence and evaluation of all the available facts. What is wrong with that?
If not NE then who would you appoint if you had the opportunity?

New Zealand's Department of Conservation (DOC) has a policy of total eradication of all non native species, Ive seen it in action and its proving to be an uphill struggle but it just may be achievable as the human population is (almost) fully behind it.
Nothing remotly like it will ever happen in the UK because of the numbers involved and our human population which is too diverse and influenced by social media to make it financialy impossible.

"they make all their decisions based on sound science, solid evidence and evaluation of all the available facts. "

They most certainly aren't doing that on the HGB project.....

Hi Duncan,
NE is a minor Gov. Dept. and its employees are subject to instructions from above, the closing of the Broad is just another incidence where wildlife is sacrificed on the alter of big business. It was ever so.


Hi Stew,
A previous Env. Minister restructured NE permitting many decisions to be made without reference to Regional Officers. Changing a decision made at hub level is extremely difficult but as you have experienced, achievable given unity and time both of which are limited by lack of funding from above.
(Apologise for not quoting your post)

Hi Mike,

Can you enlighten me regarding the big business quote?

I am a little confused how this links to HGB.

A century ago all boats were wind or man powered and the Broads had clear water, the objective of the HGB project.

At the forefront of the BA website is a link for boating. There is not a link for wildlife despite it being the statutory duty of the BA to protect and conserve (all) its wildlife and the very reason why NCC/EN pressed for its establishment in the first place.
.

Closing the Broad doesn't benefit the boating industry at all, in fact potentially it damages it by reducing angling tourism if our fears become reality.

This year in particular there has been clear water over much of broadland, right up until the 2nd week in July when the boat traffic increased massively so I agree abut the boat effect. We also had far less nutrient discharge as well 100 years ago.

The HGB project is being rolled out under the conservation banner and gathers support from BA based on this. In fact I would suggest that support for this project actually favours conservation over other statutory duties such as recreation, navigation and business.

The HGB project in my opinion benefits a few small businesses to a moderate level, a few "scientists" and a few egos along the way.

Thank you for confirming your belief that the HGB project favours wildlife conservation.
.

Thats slightly out of context Mike, I didn't say that my belief IN the project. BA have a perverse and often polarised view on conservation as you (appear) to know. We were discussing BA statuary duties not my personal beliefs in he project.

For the sake of any missunderstanding, let me rephrase my words..


"The HGB project is being rolled out under the conservation banner and gathers support from BA based on this. In fact I would suggest that support for this project demomstrates a desire to put conservation over other statutory duties such as recreation, navigation and business in this case."

I quite clearly don't think that it benefits conservation. I wouldn't be fighting the bloody thing if I felt that.

Any reason for trying to twist my words on this??"

Not trying or intended. I have no interest in the subject apart from supporting my fellow anglers.

From memory the clear water was initiated over 30years ago, the root cause is well known and everything that has happened since has just been tinkering with its effects however the rise in popularity of wild swimming, paddle boarding and kayaking by the younger generations may a solve the problem for all concerned, and not just in Broadland.

.

OK, thanks

The clearwater 2000 project on Barton, IMO has been very successful despite being one of the busiest broads for boat traffic.

And guess what? they managed that without total fish exclusion, why they feel the need to change successful methodology is beyond me

Re 2000 project, I have only read the 'darkness' report by the BA, I would like to read the research papers behind it if you have a link.

I only remember the exclusion cages I visited in the late '80's that I have mentioned in a previous thread.
.

[Duncan Holmes]

It seems wrong that NE can decide what is, or is not a UK bird; and ignore evidence.

NE staff are almost all highly qualified scientists and they make all their decisions based on sound science, solid evidence and evaluation of all the available facts. What is wrong with that?
If not NE then who would you appoint if you had the opportunity?

New Zealand's Department of Conservation (DOC) has a policy of total eradication of all non native species, Ive seen it in action and its proving to be an uphill struggle but it just may be achievable as the human population is (almost) fully behind it.
Nothing remotly like it will ever happen in the UK because of the numbers involved and our human population which is too diverse and influenced by social media to make it financialy impossible.

"they make all their decisions based on sound science, solid evidence and evaluation of all the available facts. "

They most certainly aren't doing that on the HGB project.....

Hi Duncan,
NE is a minor Gov. Dept. and its employees are subject to instructions from above, the closing of the Broad is just another incidence where wildlife is sacrificed on the alter of big business. It was ever so.


Hi Stew,
A previous Env. Minister restructured NE permitting many decisions to be made without reference to Regional Officers. Changing a decision made at hub level is extremely difficult but as you have experienced, achievable given unity and time both of which are limited by lack of funding from above.
(Apologise for not quoting your post)

Hi Mike,

Can you enlighten me regarding the big business quote?

I am a little confused how this links to HGB.

A century ago all boats were wind or man powered and the Broads had clear water, the objective of the HGB project.

At the forefront of the BA website is a link for boating. There is not a link for wildlife despite it being the statutory duty of the BA to protect and conserve (all) its wildlife and the very reason why NCC/EN pressed for its establishment in the first place.
.

Closing the Broad doesn't benefit the boating industry at all, in fact potentially it damages it by reducing angling tourism if our fears become reality.

This year in particular there has been clear water over much of broadland, right up until the 2nd week in July when the boat traffic increased massively so I agree abut the boat effect. We also had far less nutrient discharge as well 100 years ago.

The HGB project is being rolled out under the conservation banner and gathers support from BA based on this. In fact I would suggest that support for this project actually favours conservation over other statutory duties such as recreation, navigation and business.

The HGB project in my opinion benefits a few small businesses to a moderate level, a few "scientists" and a few egos along the way.

Thank you for confirming your belief that the HGB project favours wildlife conservation.
.

Thats slightly out of context Mike, I didn't say that my belief IN the project. BA have a perverse and often polarised view on conservation as you (appear) to know. We were discussing BA statuary duties not my personal beliefs in he project.

For the sake of any missunderstanding, let me rephrase my words..


"The HGB project is being rolled out under the conservation banner and gathers support from BA based on this. In fact I would suggest that support for this project demomstrates a desire to put conservation over other statutory duties such as recreation, navigation and business in this case."

I quite clearly don't think that it benefits conservation. I wouldn't be fighting the bloody thing if I felt that.

Any reason for trying to twist my words on this??"

Not trying or intended. I have no interest in the subject apart from supporting my fellow anglers.

From memory the clear water was initiated over 30years ago, the root cause is well known and everything that has happened since has just been tinkering with its effects however the rise in popularity of wild swimming, paddle boarding and kayaking by the younger generations may a solve the problem for all concerned, and not just in Broadland.

.

OK, thanks

The clearwater 2000 project on Barton, IMO has been very successful despite being one of the busiest broads for boat traffic.

And guess what? they managed that without total fish exclusion, why they feel the need to change successful methodology is beyond me

Do you have a link to this 2000 project?
I only remember the exclusion cages I visited in the late '80's that I have mentioned in a previous thread.
.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source= ... UqH8aFKm3j

The fish exclusion areas are still in place, but much of the broad is available as an unmanipulated habitat.

[Mike J]

It seems wrong that NE can decide what is, or is not a UK bird; and ignore evidence.

NE staff are almost all highly qualified scientists and they make all their decisions based on sound science, solid evidence and evaluation of all the available facts. What is wrong with that?
If not NE then who would you appoint if you had the opportunity?

New Zealand's Department of Conservation (DOC) has a policy of total eradication of all non native species, Ive seen it in action and its proving to be an uphill struggle but it just may be achievable as the human population is (almost) fully behind it.
Nothing remotly like it will ever happen in the UK because of the numbers involved and our human population which is too diverse and influenced by social media to make it financialy impossible.

"they make all their decisions based on sound science, solid evidence and evaluation of all the available facts. "

They most certainly aren't doing that on the HGB project.....

Hi Duncan,
NE is a minor Gov. Dept. and its employees are subject to instructions from above, the closing of the Broad is just another incidence where wildlife is sacrificed on the alter of big business. It was ever so.


Hi Stew,
A previous Env. Minister restructured NE permitting many decisions to be made without reference to Regional Officers. Changing a decision made at hub level is extremely difficult but as you have experienced, achievable given unity and time both of which are limited by lack of funding from above.
(Apologise for not quoting your post)

Hi Mike,

Can you enlighten me regarding the big business quote?

I am a little confused how this links to HGB.

A century ago all boats were wind or man powered and the Broads had clear water, the objective of the HGB project.

At the forefront of the BA website is a link for boating. There is not a link for wildlife despite it being the statutory duty of the BA to protect and conserve (all) its wildlife and the very reason why NCC/EN pressed for its establishment in the first place.
.

Closing the Broad doesn't benefit the boating industry at all, in fact potentially it damages it by reducing angling tourism if our fears become reality.

This year in particular there has been clear water over much of broadland, right up until the 2nd week in July when the boat traffic increased massively so I agree abut the boat effect. We also had far less nutrient discharge as well 100 years ago.

The HGB project is being rolled out under the conservation banner and gathers support from BA based on this. In fact I would suggest that support for this project actually favours conservation over other statutory duties such as recreation, navigation and business.

The HGB project in my opinion benefits a few small businesses to a moderate level, a few "scientists" and a few egos along the way.

Thank you for confirming your belief that the HGB project favours wildlife conservation.
.

Thats slightly out of context Mike, I didn't say that my belief IN the project. BA have a perverse and often polarised view on conservation as you (appear) to know. We were discussing BA statuary duties not my personal beliefs in he project.

For the sake of any missunderstanding, let me rephrase my words..


"The HGB project is being rolled out under the conservation banner and gathers support from BA based on this. In fact I would suggest that support for this project demomstrates a desire to put conservation over other statutory duties such as recreation, navigation and business in this case."

I quite clearly don't think that it benefits conservation. I wouldn't be fighting the bloody thing if I felt that.

Any reason for trying to twist my words on this??"

Not trying or intended. I have no interest in the subject apart from supporting my fellow anglers.

From memory the clear water was initiated over 30years ago, the root cause is well known and everything that has happened since has just been tinkering with its effects however the rise in popularity of wild swimming, paddle boarding and kayaking by the younger generations may a solve the problem for all concerned, and not just in Broadland.

.

OK, thanks

The clearwater 2000 project on Barton, IMO has been very successful despite being one of the busiest broads for boat traffic.

And guess what? they managed that without total fish exclusion, why they feel the need to change successful methodology is beyond me

Do you have a link to this 2000 project?
I only remember the exclusion cages I visited in the late '80's that I have mentioned in a previous thread.
.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source= ... UqH8aFKm3j

The fish exclusion areas are still in place, but much of the broad is available as an unmanipulated habitat.

Sorry was I editing as you replied.

Sorted, I have been forwarded what I required.

.

[JohnCopeman]

Mark Avery and co don't like pheasants. Not the ones reared to be shot at any rate.

Mark probably doesn't like sheep either Dave.....not those reared to be sold as lamb anyway...

[davelumb]

Mark Avery and co don't like pheasants. Not the ones reared to be shot at any rate.

Mark probably doesn't like sheep either Dave.....not those reared to be sold as lamb anyway...

Or those 'sheep wrecking' the uplands either.

[greencard1]

Surely there is evidence though Dave that all those sheep hooves compact the soil and prevent rainfall from sinking in.
That and deforestation of uplands makes lowland flooding more likely doesn't it?

[piker al]

If I’m wildfowling on the solway and a cormorants flys by I decide if it lives or dies,

[davelumb]

Surely there is evidence though Dave that all those sheep hooves compact the soil and prevent rainfall from sinking in.
That and deforestation of uplands makes lowland flooding more likely doesn't it?

Sheep and afforestation no doubt play a part but I can't help they are an easy scapegoat. Like everything the picture is complicated. The trees were chopped down hundreds of years ago and sheep stocks aren't as high on the uplands as they were historically. Yet all of a sudden they're causing flooding? Maybe it's increased rainfall that's the problem?

[JohnCopeman]

On the 12th....as always....in the rags they had a pop at Grouse shooting....the standard Toffs coming up north from down south blasting everything blah blah blah...planting Heather on the moors so nothing else grows

[greencard1]

Surely there is evidence though Dave that all those sheep hooves compact the soil and prevent rainfall from sinking in.
That and deforestation of uplands makes lowland flooding more likely doesn't it?

Sheep and afforestation no doubt play a part but I can't help they are an easy scapegoat. Like everything the picture is complicated. The trees were chopped down hundreds of years ago and sheep stocks aren't as high on the uplands as they were historically. Yet all of a sudden they're causing flooding? Maybe it's increased rainfall that's the problem?

Fair point Dave.

Al, if you are on the Solway and a cormorant flies past, it is most likely going to be a native carbo coastal cormorant. It's the Chinese ones we don't want.

John, I listened to Farming Today on the morning of the 12th, and the first 'guest' they had on was a representative of Derbyshire Wildlife Trust talking about the evils of shooting.
The programme gave him more time than their pro-shooting guest. Sign of the times.

[piker al]

Surely there is evidence though Dave that all those sheep hooves compact the soil and prevent rainfall from sinking in.
That and deforestation of uplands makes lowland flooding more likely doesn't it?

Sheep and afforestation no doubt play a part but I can't help they are an easy scapegoat. Like everything the picture is complicated. The trees were chopped down hundreds of years ago and sheep stocks aren't as high on the uplands as they were historically. Yet all of a sudden they're causing flooding? Maybe it's increased rainfall that's the problem?

Fair point Dave.

Al, if you are on the Solway and a cormorant flies past, it is most likely going to be a native carbo coastal cormorant. It's the Chinese ones we don't want.

John, I listened to Farming Today on the morning of the 12th, and the first 'guest' they had on was a representative of Derbyshire Wildlife Trust talking about the evils of shooting.
The programme gave him more time than their pro-shooting guest. Sign of the times.

Don’t want any tbh pal, when my Dad was younger you got paid by the top beak for shooting them, far less cormorants and a lot more salmon