Bag record and Ring recovery Incentive Poll (Please take part if you have the time!)

[tom1cameron 1]

Hi Everyone, I dont know if this poll will work as I have never tried one before, but if it does please take a look

 

I am looking into doing some research about sustainable hunting across Europe over the next few years. As a hunter myself, making sure that there are viable populations to harvest for future generations is important to me. Also, as a nation, I think we should embrace sustainable hunting but that requires appropriate levels of trust between Government and conservation agencies and hunters.

 

This Poll will allow me to test the water about what you think about bag records and how they are collected.

 

Please take part and pass on this poll to as many non-wildfowling forum members you know that hunt wild bird species (not rear-and-release) that may like to take part.

 

Best Wishes

 

Tom

[wag 13]

most wildfowling clubs have a bag return system, which has to be filled out by each individual wildfowler at the end of every season and sent back to the bag return officer which he then fills out another return then sends it to the appropiate people for the foreshore and marshes ect , they have to have bag returns for there management plans and leases.

 

 

 

as for each individual shooter sending bag returns in to the government or any conservation groups, i think it would open up a big can of worms, lets face facts the government has not got a good track record for keeping things water tight have they ,just look at the things that they keep loosing cd with peoples personel details , also they could fall into the wrong hands like the RSPB or any animal rights groups etc .

[tom1cameron 1]

HI Wag

 

Agreed with all your comments, but unfortunately club grounds only cover a very small fraction of the number of wild birds shot and it certainly does not cover inland geese or the vast majority of inland flightponds, for example. And this structure is very bias to Norther Europe, with the fennoscadanavian countries and holland having excellent records, the UK having some marginal data and the central and southern countries having poor or no data. We all share the same wildfowl populations at different points in the season and therefore it would be ideal to know who is shooting what and when!

 

As for the data security issue, I agree there are always problems, but the data is important.

 

As for the RSPB, we should not attack their work for the sake of it. They have a role to play and we, as wildfowlers, benefit from a great deal of it.

And we have to bear in mind, that if it were to be shown that a wild quarry species was under threat, from either shooting pressure or some other influence, that it is likely organisations such as the WWT, BTO and the RSPB that will be able to highlight this before we did it some uneccessary damage.

 

I am not suggesting that we "should" give them the data to them directly (remember they allready have access to ring return information), it was just an option in the poll.

 

So, in short, I agree, but there is far too much room for improvement in the quality and quantity of bag records across Europe, especially in the southern countries, and the poll above is to get some taster of what type of incentive and structure might attract more participants from a UK standpoint.

Edited September 24, 2008 by tom1cameron

[tom1cameron 1]

Come on everyone! I promise this poll wont be able to detect who you are etc, it is just to see what is the best for of incentive to trial in a watefowl ringing experiment.

 

It will be a great help to me if I could get at least another 43 responses by the end of October!

 

Best wishes

 

Tom

[Guest john5]

another so called poll to limit what we do , such information , when it is given always turns up later to bite us on the arse , research = nosey b*****ds either wanting to "tax" or ban something ,

[tom1cameron 1]

Hi John, sorry to hear you feel that way.

 

I am actually a wildfowler, have been all my adult life, and the problem is that the lack of good quality data leads to an inappropriate use of the poor quality data that we do have. That, in part, is what led to the humber wildfowling dispute.

 

I am sure you would not disagree that it is important to make sure we are not over-exploiting wildfowl populations. From a UK point of view that is quite simple, because we do not have a big numerical impact on the hundereds of 1000' of birds that visit the UK each winter (circa 60,000 wild waterfowl shot each season in the UK). However, we share our waterfowl populations with Iceland, Russia, Sweden, Norway, Finland, France, Spain, Italy, Israel, India, North African countries.....you see where I am coming from.

 

What we dont know is how dependent are the birds that visit Britain each year and provide us with our sport, on the hunting pressure, refugia and environments in each of those other countries.

 

Most of them keep no records at all, particularly those which probably have the largest collective bag of waterfowl harvest such as many of the southern European countries.

 

And we dont know how arctic breeding waterfowl will respond to a warming arctic circle, we could guess, but that might lead to more preservation measures.

 

If I were to be as frank as you have been then I would say that you have a choice, you either care about your quarry populations or you dont give a s**t. If you do give a s**t then you dont want those populations to collapse at some point in the future for some unknown reason because when you could have collected data to make sure that as hunters we lead waterfowl conservation, as they do in the US, and done something about it; YOU didn't support that action.

 

But I am not usually that frank, so I would argue that as the number of many dabbling and diving ducks visiting the UK each winter is declining at present, it would be necessary to ask whether that decline is caused by a "real" decline in the population or a redistribution of their wintering habitats. If it is a decline across Europe the it would be appropriate to reverse that decline whereas if it is just a redistribution we need only appreciate that when we design wildfowl reserves and hunting concessions.

 

As I said above, I am interested in why hunters are against the collection of such data, so your comments are welcome. The poll above is like a pilot study and will not be published, allthough it may be shared with BASC.

Really what I want to do is extend this kind of poll to interviews with coastal and large freshwater hunters across Europe to find out how to encourage them to work more closely with wetland conservation agencies and lead waterfowl conservation....not follow it.

 

I hope I have changed your views slightly and you feel more comfortable about taking part in the poll

 

Best wishes

Edited September 24, 2008 by tom1cameron

[tom1cameron 1]

Ladies

 

There are about 10 days until any info that is in this poll is required.

I will use these results, if there are enough of them, to try and encourage BASC/CLA to hold their own online bag and ring recovery records submission programme for birds shot or observed outside "club" areas.

 

And, in the long run, to try and get industry involved to sponsor a bag records programme!

 

Again, if you shoot wild birds (not pheasant/partridge etc etc), all I want to do is know what would make you "more" comfortable in submitting an annual bag record and to whom you would rather submit it to.

 

So if you have not yet made an annonymous response and you have a spare ONE MINUTE then please have a gander!

 

Best wishes

 

Tom

[tom1cameron 1]

Last day ladies and Gentlemen, there are 13 replies so far. A few more would be helpful. I have no idea how many fowlers visit the forum but I suspect 13 is a low %. As I said, all I want to do is get BASC on board to run an online data collection of some sort for those of us who are not in a position to be members of a club or when we shoot where club records are not kept (inland flights or clubless estuaries).

 

Best wishes

 

T