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.

Parents
  • 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!

Comment
  • 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!

Children
No Data