You Reap What You Sow RSPB & Thank Mark Avery

I have re-posted this blog and removed irrelevant portions, this blog was written before the Grouse shooting debate in parliament.

So Mark Avery is on his blog saying he will share his factual briefing information when it is ready and when it is sensible, he goes on to say “I would be surprised if the Countryside Alliance, BASC, Moorland Association and GWCT shared their briefings openly so that you can see what they are saying – but maybe they will.”

Well I will share mine from the “The Great Foxhunting Falsehood”, this documents the falsehoods that led to the hunting act and notably it documents the part the RSPB played in hiding how many foxes they killed to assist the lie invented by an Ex-Bristol Professor to line his wallet that foxes control their own number. The text relevant to the RSPB is below.

RSPB – The Royal Society for the Protection of Birds

Although they never played a direct part in the falsehood they appear just as culpable in allowing the falsehood to proliferate and they appear to assist the anti-hunt bodies at every level while at the same time claiming neutrality on field sports apparently written into their charter.

Imagine the scene at the Burns inquiry evidence gathering sessions – Naturally as a charity relying on public donations and government funding their independent and impartial evidence is crucial to the inquiry.  Dr Mark Avery the conservation director for the RSPB at the time only has to tell the truth to remain impartial, he states – “at the RSPB we don’t use hunting dogs below or above ground to control foxes, we sometimes shoot up to 273 foxes a year across 26 reserves plus a range of other pests to protect ground nesting birds all paid for by donations from the public. We are indebted to farmers surrounding our reserves who use a mixture of methods including dogs and snares that help keep the number we shoot at 273 foxes”

I did say imagine,  because although that is the truth the whole fox hunting, Labour supported, falsehood surrounding foxes controlling their own number would be blown sky high for the very obvious reason of 273 killed foxes (See Appendix A). The whole scenario turned into one great big farce as RSPB members that have fallen for the falsehood force the RSPB not only to conspire with Labour and the opponents of hunting to hide the number of foxes killed from the great British Public but from their own members obviously afraid they will stop donating. Comments made such as this one give an idea of how far they were prepared to partake in the falsehood.

“I know ‘they’ kill foxes – I used to know a keeper on the Dungeness marshes who they employed strictly ‘off the books’ to kill foxes on the reserves there!”

So attempts are made to cover up the submission the RSPB made to the Committee of Inquiry into Hunting with Dogs in England and Wales (2000) by claiming it was in their charter not to oppose field sports. And so it was deliberately left off the Committee of Inquiry into Hunting with Dogs in England and Wales (2000) website, (See Appendix B) first stage evidence, in fact the RSPB do not get a mention in the final report.

Only they forgot their own neutrality when the only time their submission gets a mention is when it is referenced in two papers written by the main opposition to hunting namely the Campaign for the Protection of Hunted Animals comprising the RSPCA, IFAW and the League Against Cruel Sports. In both “Exposing the myths” and “Countdown to ban” written after the Committee of Inquiry into Hunting with Dogs in England and Wales (2000) had reported its findings.

Exposing the myths – “The RSPB protects nesting bird colonies on its reserves by shooting foxes when necessary. This organisation does not use dogs to hunt foxes. 10 – 10 RSPB submission to the Committee of Inquiry into Hunting with Dogs”

Countdown to a ban – “The RSPB protects nesting bird colonies on its reserves by shooting foxes when necessary. This organisation does not use dogs to hunt foxes. 28 – 28 RSPB submission to the Committee of Inquiry into Hunting with Dogs”

Rather ironically “Countdown to a ban” further implicates the RSPB in their support for the anti-hunting lobby when it is noted –

“In July 2000 leading organisations concerned about the countryside established Rural Futures to bring a fresh approach to rural affairs. These groups, including the RSPB, National Trust, National Federation of Women’s Institutes and National Federation of Young Farmers’ Clubs said they wanted: “…to bring new thinking to the countryside debate” and argued for this to “move away from the crude “angry farmers and fox-hunters” characterisation of the countryside.”

Conclusion – This report shows why the information provided by the once most respected charities in the land can no longer be deemed credible by the great British public. The RSPCA knowingly conspired along with other animal rights organisations as they were back then, namely IFAW and the League Against Cruel Sports to deliberately mislead the public and Politicians alike. Such was the success of the falsehood another charity the RSPB was forced to hide from its members the extent to which it had to control foxes but also hid that number from the public and a government inquiry to please a political party it obviously favours.

Appendix A

 

 

Appendix B

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Done Deal – A Bung For a Ban

“Don’t let anyone tell you this was not a quid pro quo exchange. It was. I have the clearest recollection of having lunch in the garden of my farm in Somerset and answering the telephone from the United States to be informed that IFAW officials had done a deal with Peter Mandelson and Jonathon Powell whereby IFAW would put up 1 million and the Labour Party would make a manifesto commitment on hunting. I came to the table and announced as much to my horrified guests”

Chris Grey during the many hunting debates 2003

https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200203/cmstand/f/st030128/am/30128s08.htm#end

Why have the Government suddenly decided to make grants out of the public purse to organisations that object to hunting? After all, IFAW, LACS and PAL do not need much financial help; arguably, the RSPCA does. Those organisations are pretty well off. Why are the Government risking criticism by making it possible for anti-hunting organisations to get funds from the public purse? It is very curious.

Why should PAL get public funds? The answer may be in a letter that I received from Mr. Stanley Johnson, a well-known environmentalist, a senior paid adviser to the International Fund for Animal Welfare and a former Member of the European Parliament. Before I start this section of my speech, I should make it clear that I will not accept any interventions during it. However, I will take interventions when I have finished from Committee members I have mentioned. This is what Mr. Stanley Johnson says:

”Tony Banks benefited from IFAW’s largesse for a substantial period during the 1990’s in the sense that his research assistant at the House of Commons was paid for by IFAW. ( So by the way was Elliot Morley’s . . . .) Moreover, Banks was directly involved in the negotiations which led to the gift of 1 million by the Political Animal Lobby (at that time a wholly owned subsidiary of IFAW) to the Labour Party in exchange for a manifesto commitment on hunting. Don’t let anyone tell you this was not a quid pro quo exchange. It was. I have the clearest recollection of having lunch in the garden of my farm in Somerset and answering the telephone from the United States to be informed that IFAW officials had done a deal with Peter Mandelson and Jonathon Powell whereby IFAW would put up 1 million and the Labour Party would make a manifesto commitment on hunting. I came to the table and announced as much to my horrified guests”

Those guests included several well-known public figures that I will not list here.

Mr. Gray: I do not see any point in bringing public figures into the debate. The Minister, by sniggering, obviously thinks that we should. To return to Mr. Johnson’s letter:

”Its also worth pointing out that Banks’ wife Sally has until recently served as a director of the IFAW charitable trust, and his sister, Angela Beveridge is currently the director of PAL, whose founder is listed on their website as none other than Brian Davies, founder of IFAW . . . ”

This is what is at the heart of this bizarre provision in this dreadful Bill: the Labour party gets 1 million in direct payment direct causally linked payment for a manifesto commitment on hunting. The Minister duly delivers the Bill and says: ”I will try to dress it up as a registration/tribunal system, but the truth at the heart of it is a ban on hunting. I have done what I was asked to do, PAL and IFAW. You gave me 1 million and I am now banning hunting, despite 407,000 people on the streets. Thank you for the 1 million, and I am giving you what you asked for. Moreover, I will not only give you what you want, but I will set up in the Bill that you should become a prescribed animal welfare group.” I asked the Minister repeatedly whether he would rule that out and he said that he would not.

Organisations such as IFAW and PAL may, therefore, become prescribed welfare groups. Not only does that mean that they will be able to ensure that no one becomes registered, and they will achieve their lifelong ambition, but they will get paid by the Chancellor of the Exchequer to do so. The taxpayer is subsidising the RSPCA, LACS, IFAW and PAL the very organisations that gave the Labour party a disgraceful sleazy bung of  1 million. Not only is the Minister now delivering what those organisations wanted, but through an extraordinary sleazy little clause in the heart of the Bill, he is undertaking to repay them that money. That is a disgrace and a scandal and I have written to the Prime Minister, the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards and the Committee on Standards in Public Life to ask them to look into the worrying allegations made by Mr. Johnson.

While there is some doubt about whether there is impropriety in the clause, and while the matter is being considered both by the Prime Minister’s office officials in his office are named by Mr. Johnson and by those public bodies, it would be wrong for the Minister to press for that sleazy clause to remain part of the Bill. I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to withdraw the clause, at least until those public organisations have investigated Mr. Johnson’s allegations.

Our Non Progressive Members of Parliament

This was documented in the first ever report into hunting with dogs in 1951. We are now in 2018 some 67 years have passed.

‘There are, on the other hand, some organisations which have been formed solely for the purpose of securing the prohibition of a particular sport or all field sports. In the main such organisations seek to convert public opinion to their point of view by pamphlet,  advertisements and press propaganda, and by Parliamentary action instigated by pressure on Members of Parliament which is both direct and indirect, through letters which constituents are invited to send to their representatives. Such organisations do not as a rule themselves investigate the facts of the practices to which they object, and the evidence they placed before us was for the most part based on reports appearing in the Press or other publications. A great deal of it was based on reports of particular sporting events, written in the technical terms used by those taking part and capable of being misunderstood by the uninitiated. Some of it related to particular incidents which were reported in the national Press, and in regard to some of these we were able to get first-hand evidence and to find out how the actual facts had been misunderstood or exaggerated before they appeared in print. That such incidents are reported in the national Press is an indication of the extent of public interest in these matters.’

Words Fail me!

Dear Martin Harper RSPB

In reference to your inference that the numbers of predators like foxes ‘could’ be increased by the release of game birds into the countryside I would like to draw your attention to the part peer reviewed three region study by the GWCT and used as the backbone for the Government inquiry in 2000. Interestingly Prof David Macdonald told the inquiry he saw no reason why this study could not reflect other rural areas .

Notice protection of game is top in East Anglia, also notice second is good neighbour something you disingenuously fail to acknowledge, ie  those poor unfortunate souls surrounding your reserves are probably doing the majority of the culling for you without recognition.

Well now Mr Harper it turns out in the West Norfolk study area where game shooting interests predominate, fox numbers were kept well below carrying capacity.

“We proposed that the mid-Wales and west Norfolk populations were suppressed by the high levels of culling found there, whereas fox density in the east Midlands was likely to be closer to some ‘carrying capacity’ set by the resources available”

“We concluded that fox numbers in mid-Wales and west Norfolk were suppressed due to heavy culling pressure (see Figure 6)”

That’s your theory blown out of the sky Martin Harper, so stop trying to mislead folk with inferences, we both know ‘could’ becomes a fact in the minds of the believers.