This amazingly aggressive article has been published in the Angling Times. It describes a violent attack by an unknown person on someone culling cormorants under licence. Let us hope that the police catch the person involved. The RSPB certainly does not condone or encourage such behaviour.
But the author of this article, Mr Partner, uses it as an opportunity to attack birdwatchers, attack birdwatching as a pastime and misrepresent the RSPB's policies and outlook on life. The million and sixty thousand RSPB members can all feel maligned by Mr Partner's article.
Let me put on the record that the RSPB did oppose the extension of licences to kill more cormorants - but government saw fit to go ahead and that's that.
The Minister who approved the increase in licences, now a Cabinet Minister, Mr Ben Bradshaw, was quoted as saying that he was once harassed in the street by a cormorant - a very fishy story!
But since then we have worked closely with fishermen and their representative bodies on subjects such as the Water Framework Directive, cleaner rivers and the Severn Barrage. I am sure that there are many fishermen who will be highly embarassed by Mr Partner's ill-informed and provocative article.
We won't let Mr Partner's words deflect us from working with responsible fishermen on a wide range of environmental issues. And we hope that this article doesn't signal the start of a new round of anti-cormorant, anti-bird, anti-birdwatcher, anti-conservationist articles in the angling papers.
A love of the natural world demonstrates that a person is a cultured inhabitant of planet Earth.
Jamesm never fail to be impressed by comment as above you have made,hope that nightjar believes your stance about raptors as surely people like myself have longed to hear from someone like you and am sure you are reluctant to take much credit feel sure pleading case from one of their own does more good than thousands of anti shooters shouting off that you are not human.Think you and I both know this has the opposite desired affect and hardens the attitude of the condemned.
Think you coming onto blogs like this may in the long term do a lot of good but you obviously know it may be a while sadly before people believe you.
Yes Nightjar, it's only human to fail to see others' points of view, and I'm sure I'm as guilty as anyone.
One of the factors here is that landowners are still getting used to the idea that the (predominantly urban) public tells them how to run their own patch. It wasn't so long ago that a farmer or smallholder did more or less as he/she liked; now they're swamped with regulations driven by that urban majority, many of which appear unnecessary or even counterproductive, and which stomp on the independent spirit that's been characteristic of Britain's rural population. It's not surprising some of them kick against it.
I've been impressed with how far shooters and landowners have moved on raptors in a relatively short time. The vast majority accept that killing raptors would be madness, even if they personally think there's a case for a degree of control. I think it rankles when, rather than receive praise for moving with the times, they continue to be maligned as a group.
There are still a few dinosaurs who view birds of prey as just another type of vermin. And there are still a few landowners who think they can do what the hell they like on their land in pursuit of profit. The majority of shooters and keepers I meet consider such people to be a liability.
Jamesm - I agree that current media approaches are frequently less than helpful - but everyone uses them - what about those Countryside Alliance stickers claiming that 51% of people are in favour of hunting !
Having said that, as politicians keep finding out - and never seem to learn - the voters aren't quite as stupid as so many lobby groups think. We all whether birders, shooters of foresters have deeply held beleifs - and, frequently, a campaigners inability to see that others might not actually see it our way - and the really big thing everyone in the countryside has top get their head round is that this is now an overwhelmingly urban country, and that doesn't just include birders - it includes most paying guests on shoots as well. As I think is the case with farmers the majority of urban people are amazingly respectful of the skills of rural professionals - we sometimes need to ask ourselves whether we return the compliment - far too many rural people are too ready to take the attitude that we know best, they are ignorant - and there is no clearer area than illegal persecution of raptors, which really does risk urban goodwill.
Well jamesm I feel sure you toffs(what a awful word,I am just joking by using it)are probably better educated than him,what a sick own goal.It is so pathetic that hope you ignore it.By the way that 99% is very impressive because sometimes my views considered extreme,perhaps if you and I so close to agreeing we should both be worried.
Interesting comments, Nightjar. Democracy is a fine ideal, but public opinion can be a dangerous thing - we've seen some truly awful decisions made in response to public outcry, as well as some shameless manipulation of public opinion.
I notice more and more that campaigning organisations will conduct an opinion poll, then announce the results as if "73% of people are opposed to xyz" were some sort of scientific argument - when it could just mean that 73% of people don't have the full facts at their disposal!