Shooters up in arms as RSPB impose ban on wildfowling
Wildfowler John Barbour at the Crook of Baldoon nature reserve near his home in Wigtown, a traditionally popular wildfowling area. Photograph: Robert Perry
IT HAS been used for centuries by wildfowlers pursuing the country tradition of bagging a bird for the pot.
But plans by Scotland’s leading bird charity to ban shooting on land it recently acquired on the Solway Firth coast has brought it into conflict with followers of the ancient sport.
RSPB Scotland bought a large area of saltmarsh and floodplain at the Crook of Baldoon on Wigtown Bay in 2010. They are urging the local council to introduce bylaws banning shooting along 75 per cent of the coastline it owns.
But wildfowlers claim that because a £200,000 grant from Scottish Natural Heritage went towards the cost of buying and developing the land, the charity is using “public money to take away public rights”.
Donald Muir, events and training officer for the British Association for Shooting and Conservation (BASC) Scotland, said: “We are working with wildfowling clubs around Wigtown Bay to ensure that one of the best wildfowling areas continues to be available to local and visiting shooters.
“When the RSPB bought the land with a £200,000 grant from SNH, they knew that wildfowling took place on the adjacent foreshore, that this was a public right and that it was an important source of income to local hotels and bed and breakfast businesses during the winter months.”
The local council, Dumfries and Galloway, appears to be moving away from regulated wildfowling in favour of the RSPB’s “no shooting” option.
“Wildfowlers, local businesses and some councillors are furious that public funds were used to support this RSPB land purchase that is now driving restrictions on traditional wildfowling,” Muir added.
Wildfowler John Barbour said when the land, on the west side of Wigtown Bay, was privately owned, there was no problem securing a permit to shoot on it. He said: “The RSPB do some good in certain areas but they have come here with jackboots on and they have said ‘right, there is no shooting on the whole of that area’. But what about us?”
The 51-year-old, who moved with his wife to the area from London because of the quality of wildfowling, added: “They have had public money to help take away something that is a public right.”
Barbour also pointed to the long established tourism benefits of wildfowling, which takes place in the quieter winter months. “It goes back hundreds of years,” he said. “I have been coming here since 1984 and I know people who have been coming for 30 or 40 years – it is just a unique bay.
“Through the winter most of the incoming economy is from wildfowlers.”
The land at stake is a 10 metre strip of foreshore at the front of the 370 acres (150 hectares) owned by the RSPB. A full planning committee meeting of the council is due to vote on the issue in March after a sub-committee recommended support for the RSPB-backed plan for a bylaw over 75 per cent of the strip.
Wildfowlers say it is not in their interests to decimate bird numbers. Alex Hogg, chairman of the Scottish Gamekeepers Association, said: “It would be a real shame if wildfowling in the area was to stop, given its history and benefit to local businesses. It has been a way of life for many.
“The great majority of individuals who participate have a keen interest in conservation and enjoy the sport in accordance with the rules. They understand the need for balance and it is in their interests, or their sport would not survive.”
An RSPB spokesperson said the foreshore at Crook of Baldoon is a very small part of Wigtown Bay and there were already “extensive” shooting rights for wildfowlers elsewhere. The charity expected their plan would increase wildfowl numbers in the area.
The spokesperson added: “Whilst it is correct that the development of the nature reserve has been supported in part by SNH funding, we expect the significant financial investment in the proposed nature reserve at Crook of Baldoon to contribute over time to the local Galloway economy, as part of a wider network of wildlife attractions, which are already a major tourism draw to the area. The wildfowlers on Wigtown Bay have also created an area of wildlife habitat for which they received similar SNH grant aid.
“We take no issue with this use of public funding, which we accept as improving habitat conditions for local wildfowl populations, as we are also seeking to do at Crook of Baldoon.”
Email to a friend
Print this page- Alan Pattullo: Dignity, not sanctimony, is required at Parkhead
- 300 jobs at risk as Ryanair axes five Edinburgh routes
- Suzanne Pilley trial: I kissed her goodbye then never saw her again, says would-be lover
- Rangers administration: Craig Whyte’s promise to step aside and hand Rangers over to fans ‘ludicrous’
- David Cameron is playing into the SNP’s hands, says Michael Forsyth
- Scottish independence: Spectre of border controls raised by top Tory
- David Cameron is playing into the SNP’s hands, says Michael Forsyth
- Scottish independence: Alex Salmond hits back at Tory ‘Bourbons’ in battle over devo-max
- Scottish independence: Anti-Scottish jibes boost separation, Michael Gove warns Right
- Scottish independence: Let Scotland vote on independence in 19 months, says Michael Moore
Looking for...
Featured advertisers
Jobs
Search for a job
Motors
Search for a car
Property
Search for a house
Weather for Edinburgh
Thursday 23 February 2012
Today
Light rain
Temperature: 7 C to 14 C
Wind Speed: 26 mph
Wind direction: South west
Tomorrow
Sunny spells
Temperature: 5 C to 10 C
Wind Speed: 29 mph
Wind direction: West
Comments
There are 17 comments to this article
Page 1 of 2
jerrymanders
Friday, February 10, 2012 at 10:05 PM#16 The badgers are TB ridden because of the cattle!
Lachie Mhor
Monday, February 6, 2012 at 03:32 PMAnother example of a public funded charity attacking the public. Thanks to the myriad of animal welfare charities we have TB ridden badgers increasing in numbers. Foxes pollute the towns and attack chidren. It is all very well to have beliefs but when they start infringing on the rights of others it is time to stop funding their activities.
The Diplomat
Monday, February 6, 2012 at 09:54 AMSNH and RSPB Scotland - aren't they the same organisation?
Mark Bishop
Friday, February 3, 2012 at 09:16 PM@5. Rights. People are always bleating about rights. It isn't a god given right to blast away at birds. If you want to shoot, what on earth is wrong with target or clay shooting? You get to feel manly, compete against your mates and have your fun. My dad used to shoot pheasants 60 years ago to feed the family and the amount of times I either nearly broke my teeth or swallowed a lead pellet are too many to mention. People don't have to shoot to feed anybody these days, you can buy as much food as you need at the supermarket. The nonsense about the RSPB using public money is rubbish. It is a charity and receives charitable donations. The RSPB do a wonderful job in protecting birds and quite rightly too. I am sure no one would want the country to end up like Manila in the Phillipines where they have killed and eaten all the birds, we spotted a couple of pigeons and three sparrows in what was once a fabulous birding area.
Frobnitz
Tuesday, January 31, 2012 at 12:17 PMI have no problems with responsible hunting for food. I have serious problems with hunting for fun (e.g. foxes) and to a lesser extent with corporate hunting (grouse shoots) - the chances of injuring quarry rather than cleanly killing are higher. Unfortunately it becomes very hard to construct a set of rules to allow one type, but not the others - as has been seen with the ban on hunting with dogs that is bypassed every single hunting weekend, and so blanket bans tend to be the only way forward.
Hector the Lessor
Saturday, January 28, 2012 at 08:32 AMWell I have always felt that ducks or migratory birds had as much entitlement to the land involved as the shooters. I reckon the idea of shooting them for the pot went by the board years ago. The idea that a shotgun, and all the gear was a cheaper way to feed the family rather than go down to the local supermarket and buy a roast chook is flawed. Even on the private estates, some shooters from countries unamed also shoot protected birds , sparrows, starlings and gamekeepers. I cannot imagine they would eat them. Fisherman have already got over this natural human blood lust and return prime fish back to the sea. Great idea but must admit quite difficult to persuade a duck to rejoin its flock when full of lead pellets.
carrottop
Wednesday, January 25, 2012 at 10:50 AMI dont suppose the quality of wildfowling in London is that good but then everyone knows that anyway. Yet another case of Scotland being the playground for the overpopulated, built up area to the south of us.
nabodican
Tuesday, January 24, 2012 at 06:51 PMAs someone who lives in Wigtownshire I wonder just what the RSPB are playing at, in this case they are trying to stop wildfowling yet at the same time they are supporting hundreds of turbines all over the south west in the certain knowledge that many more birds will be killed by turbine blades who's tips are travelling at nearly 200mph.
Daye Tucker
Monday, January 23, 2012 at 03:08 PMIf this is part of the RSPB's Futurescape Project which they got millions of pounds in public money for from the EU, then this could be the precursor of more bans on goose shooting around our coasts. It really is time to stand up to the power being exercised by RSPB, who are undemocratically eroding rights. With a reputed balance of £90,000,000, the land grab will continue.
Peripatetic Pensioner
Sunday, January 22, 2012 at 11:35 PMp.s., Is that gun being held in an heroic pose not a bit past it, does the poser not appreciate the dangers of exposed hammers, or is he just a traditionalist?
Peripatetic Pensioner
Sunday, January 22, 2012 at 11:27 PM#14. Thank goodness someone is using a bit of applied thinking, or what used to be referred to as common sense. Personally I would ban all " corporate" shooting except on private land when the landowner should be held responsible for everything that happens on their land and, in the same vein, on public land funded and maintained by public money, let the owners i.e. the public, have the final say and responsibility for what happens there. After all, we do live in a democracy. (allegedly)
jerrymanders
Sunday, January 22, 2012 at 10:50 PM#5 "What most anti shooting people do not understand is that if it wasn't for shooting vast areas would become useless and the very animals they want to preserve would die out". I would seriously doubt that line of thought - check out all the reserves that are thriving with bird and animal life, yet no shooting. Vast areas are "cultivated" for game birds - just go onto Google Earth and pan across grouse moors; they're as wild as agricultural land, a patch work of "managed" heather, no trees, and bull-dozed tracks! In the article above I do believe it's wrong for the RSPB to take away the wildfowlers' rights but they haven't yet, or have I misread it? "They are urging the local council to introduce bylaws banning shooting along 75 per cent of the coastline it owns".
Dragonlord
Sunday, January 22, 2012 at 08:28 PM3# What you say is true but there is also evedence of " townies" moving to the counrtyside and trying to change 100's of years of tradition ect. The RSPB do good work but they are trying to remove rights that have been in place for many years. IF they have used public money to buy this land then they have no right to impose their no shooting ban. What most anti shooting people do not understand is that if it wasn't for shooting vast areas would become useless and the very animals they want to preserve would die out. Land management is not about looking after feilds of wheat and rural life is about a much wider scope and shooting takes it's part.
newspaceman
Sunday, January 22, 2012 at 06:45 PMThe shooters should head for Edinburgh, St. Andrew Square and the occupy camp. Some of the protestors have allegedly been wildfowling themselves, behind trees and suchlike.
THX1138
Sunday, January 22, 2012 at 10:37 AM#2 I assume you have evidence that they are townies, or is that just a convenient prejudice because you don't have a reasoned argument? I've lived in the countryside all my life, and one constant in all the places I've lived is townies coming out at weekends to shoot and hunt - I take it you would object to their involvement in the argument, too? The trouble with most of the hunting and shooting brigade is that they assume that they are the only ones in the countryside who live in it, understand it or have a stake in it. Wrong on all three counts.
Page 1 of 2
Your view
Please sign in to be able to comment on this story.