We must congratulate Princes Charles and William for speaking out against the illegal killing which is driving the African elephant closer to extinction.
Channel 4 (and the RSPB) made the point that there is plenty of illegal destruction of wildlife here at home too. Some of it in the part of Scotland where Prince William does a spot of grouse shooting (see here). Prince William had just returned from Spain, and some wild boar hunting, before speaking passionately about people killing elephants.
Hmmm.
It’s always a bit odd when people’s actions and words don’t seem to give completely the same message. The Princes were accused of being hypocritical for speaking out against elephant poaching when they take part in grouse shooting. I think hypocritical is a bit strong – but they do seem a bit muddled on the subject don’t they? This could easily be cleared up if Prince William were, publicly, to condemn the illegal killing of wildlife here at home – perhaps mentioning Hen Harriers and Golden Eagles as examples and at the same time say that he is giving up shooting completely. No, it’s not going to happen, is it?
Why is it so difficult to imagine that the British Royal Family would condemn the illegal killing of protected UK wildlife and announce that they are no longer going to pursue fieldsports? How far away in time is that, do you think?
Our Royal Family is not the only one that has sent mixed messages on wildlife conservation and hunting – King Juan Carlos of Spain was removed as WWF-Spain’s President after an elephant-hunting trip to Africa.
And the RSPB could make its position clearer by, at the last minute, inviting its members to sign this e-petition on licensing of grouse moors (a policy position which it supports).
Tomorrow morning I’ll tell you what readers of this blog think of the idea of banning grouse shooting. For all I know, any number of kings and princes may have contributed to the poll.
[registration_form]
Reminds me of Monty Python sketch, where one of the cast, dressed as an Australian hunter proclaims “I love animals. That’s why I like to kill ’em.”
And no mention of illegal fox hunting still being carried out in many parts of the country; a continued flagrant breaking of the law under the noses of the judiciary!!
Really easy to agree completely with you Mark,best to leave it at that and not rant about subject that seems to have no solution at this time.
How can anyone persecute such beautiful birds,when on Mull last September went for a walk one evening where we were staying and a male flew really close by side of me in the small valley for some time,something never to be forgotten and the previous trip on Mull a whole family of probably 5 Ringtails were playing in the breeze.Thank goodness at least on Mull they are safe.
Mark,
Why on earth should Prince William say that he is giving up shooting or the British Royal Family announce they are no longer going to pursue fieldsports when they clearly enjoy participating in them?
What sort of Stalinist/Orwellian world is it that you crave where British citizens are cowed, coerced or bullied into renouncing or abandoning perfectly legitimate pastimes in order to appease vociferous minorities, or anyone else for that matter? Whatever next – fishing, mountaineering, winter sports, water sports, competitive sports, gambling, twitching or flat racing?
To conflate illegal elephant poaching with legal grouse shooting (or any another legitimate pursuit) is both preposterous and disingenuous – as you indeed hint at.
So let’s all join in as you suggest, and congratulate Princes’ Charles & William in speaking out against the illegal killing of a vulnerable species. And let’s celebrate the fact that the 2nd in-line-to-the-throne is now also becoming actively involved in conservation, having already served his country and fellow countrymen so well as an RAF Search-and-Rescue pilot – not a job for the faint-hearted at the best of times.
Keith – good comment but you haven’t identified my cravings at all.
Mark – wasn’t my intention to do so.
Keith – must have been the ‘you crave’ that sent me the wrong way then.
Ha ha, good point, must have typed the phrase unconsciously – delete ‘crave’ insert ‘espouse’.
BTW, spent some time last week watching a nice ringtail working the reedbeds at Loch of Mey, a mere couple of flaps from the castle of the same name. The local landowner(s) obviously looking after their interests well up there in Caithness.
A rspb blogger Naomi Rose put a good blog on rspb forum today condemning pole traps that a Gamekeeper had used.
Then goes on to say rspb want Vicarious Liability,well done.
How can they not understand the crazy position it puts them in,no real enthusiasm from them for getting their members voting when petition was open,now continually saying they want V L.
They have no shame on the subject.
Worse still a name I must not mention for fear of someone thinking I pick on them,also says exactly the same in my opinion on their blog as well.
Where were these people when the chance to support Vicarious Liability petition was open.
They have turned in this instance the rspb into a farcical organisation by now keep on about they would like V L.
Closing the door after the Horse has bolted comes to mind.
They seem to think simple things will solve the Hen Harrier issue,have they no idea that in these isolated places the likelihood of seeing a keeper treading on a H Hs nest on purpose is almost zero.
Cannot see the Hen Harrier faring any better unless Politicians do things that would seriously help these birds and that seems decades away.
THE RSPB SHOOTS FOXES DOES IT NOT?
….. and Mark says “I think hypocritical is a bit strong – but they do seem a bit muddled on the subject don’t they?”
Over 1 million members – and many of them here – can’t be wrong – can they?
Trimbush – for many people, there is a distinction between killing things for sport and killing things as a last resort or at least for a reason other than ‘because I like it’. It’s briefly discussed and illustrated in chapter 5 of Fighting for Birds.
What on earth is your point Trimbush? Are you suggesting that because the RSPB legally shoots a few (widespread/unthreatened) foxes to protect small, isolated remaining populations of vulnerable, native ground nesting birds, it is then hypocritical of them to criticise illegal persecution of endangered raptors by gamekeepers who do it for the sole purpose of protecting millions of introduced, alien pheasants and red-legged partridges, or to sustain the enormous and unnatural (hence often diseased) hordes of red grouse for rich idiots to blast out of the sky in their hundreds for fun?
There is no double standard there – both positions are taken in the interest of preserving the full (remaining) diversity our native wildlife populations. To suggest this is hypocrisy looks, how can I put this politely, confused. On the other hand to call for an end to wildlife crime, as Prince William has, while regularly participating in a sport that is riddled by such criminals and is on the verge of causing the extinction of hen harriers in England – that IS hypocritical.
There is no defence for raptor persecution, whatever unreconstructed morons like Alex Hogg and his followers would have you believe. If raptors are incompatible with grouse moors as their actions suggest, then it must be simple: get rid of grouse moors and join every other country which supports red/willow grouse populations but isn’t obsessed with shooting them in such enormous numbers and the concurrent need to shoot/trap/poison their natural predators.
I do have unanswered questions from RSPB Mark but they have told me that the reason why they can’t be seen to encouraging their membership to sign political petitions such as this is because it would contravene their arrangement with the lottery where they get some of their funds. The League on the other hand don’t seem to have these issues but their membership is increasing. Sign of what people want perhaps?
Rob – I’d like to see the details of that. If the RSPB can produce Birdcrime and call for VL and more regulation then it seems unlikely that they can be banned from supporting people saying the same thing elsewhere. I notice that the Wildlife Trusts called on their members to sign up to the badger anti-cull e-petition. Have they lost lottery funding?
And I fund the RSPB too – I’d like them to be a fearless campaigning organisation for the things in which they believe. I haven’t yet joined LACS. I might.
Mark, this was relayed as a direct response having asked The RSPB to encourage their members to support licensing. It came from Skydancer using twitter.
I don’t expect everyone at the RSPB or all who supports the RSPB to think like me but if your ambition is to Preserve and Conserve birds and their ecosystems, I don’t think NV will acheive what they want and need with respect to crimes against raptors if they are prevented from taking a firmer stance against the sporting industries.
Have I read wrong or are there no alternatives to this poll like ‘walked up’ Red Grouse. A reason why many can’t sign the petition like me. When you have an alternative people have a better choice. The RSPB’s ‘Skydamcer’ talk on the subject [which I went to on Wednesday night even though the police said ‘stay at home’!] gives no reason to ban the ‘driven’ Red Grouse but to work together.
Hi Mark. Please can you include the people who didn’t express a preference on Lab/Con in your graphs / comments? I certainly didn’t say, and think it might significantly alter your results. It should at least say ‘45% of those who expressed a preference…’
thanks for that blog, and for ‘standing up for nature’.
Marc.
M – I have! On this question, the first graph includes all respondents (816 out of 854 total respondents – this question was skipped by one of the smallest number of any of the questions). And then the second graph splits the vast majority of respondents (777 out of 854) who were prepared to answer the Tory/Lab question (and who answered this question – 750 of them). So you could work it out if you wanted to with a bit of guesswork – but here is the answer. Of those who answered the ‘ban grouse shooting?’ but did not reveal their preference for Lab/Con 39 of them (59%) would be in favour of banning grouse shooting and 27 not in favour (41%) – and they are all in the results in the top graph.
I can’t split them out for the graph because of the limitations of the graphing software supplied by surveymonkey – but the info is there.
thank you.
I have to agree with Keith, I don’t think you can say the prince should stop shooting, however I do agree that it would be nice to see someone from the royal family speaking out against the persecution of raptors in this counrty. I did see the report on Channel4 news and almost threw the remote at the TV when the scot’s gamekeeper association announced there should be cull, however what I found contradictory was the fact in Africa there are game reserves that specialse in hunting lions etc in the name of “conservation” everyone forces the attention on elephants (rightly so) but seem to ignore the less cudly and cute animals meanwhile the ban,the publicity,enforcement of the law and the decline of elephant numbers just pushes the price of ivory up and up making it even more valuable and “sought after”, a vicious circle.
However what price for publicity the prince and his dad brought to the campaign I bet some conservationist in the UK would kill (oops) for that level of support, but then again didn’t the rspb give an award to the Prince of Wales? What exactly did he do for that?
GRIZZLY – thank you. And I didn’t say that the Prince should stop shooting. I said that he was sending mixed signals by being such a keen shooter and arguing for elephants to be protected from people shooting them. i know how he and others resolve this apparent conundrum in their own minds but it won’t be very convincing to (my guess0 the vast majority of the population (and his future ‘subjects’). when grouse shooting is so consistently linked to wildlife crime then the contradiction just shouts at you.
Alex Hogg often looks a bit of a fool. All gamekeepers work for other people – Scotland has vicarious liability for wildlife crimes but England does not.
Indeed, the RSPB gave Prince Charles a medal – see pages 284-5 of Fighting for Birds
“This could easily be cleared up if Prince William were, publicly, to condemn the illegal killing of wildlife here at home – perhaps mentioning Hen Harriers and Golden Eagles as examples and at the same time say that he is giving up shooting completely. No, it’s not going to happen, is it?”
Sorry Mark it was that paragraph that made me think you would like to see the royals stop shooting…maybe it was your sub-concious interfering with your typing:O)
GRIZZLY – it could easily be cleared up if he did that. But if he doesn’t then people will always wonder. I’d rather people didn’t lend their support to a sport that appears to depend on criminal activity – and it seems a bit odd that a future monarch appears to do so.
Im pretty sure you meant Alex Hogg there Mark!..Angus Hogg is of a course a well known scottish birdwatcher…
Dave – ooops! I’ll change it, thanks!
Changed – the only foolish-looking birder is me!
Nobody (or at least nobody here) is calling for an end to all shooting, merely an end to the bizarre and destructive activity of driven shooting. The difference between driven shooting versus lion, or indeed elephant shooting in the declining number of African countries that still offer these hunts, is that these African hunting reserves are not managed to increase the number of lions and elephants available for shooting by, say, culling leopards and rhinos. Instead, in these places many animals benefit from the protection offered by large tracts of land set aside as hunting reserves in countries like Tanzania with the result that they often protect complete functioning ecosystems. The equivalent would be a grouse moor patrolled by wolves and bears, harbouring beavers and elk, golden eagles and hen harriers, with woods stalked by lynx and turfed up by wild boar. Imagine! What we get from our esteemed estate managers/game keepers are treeless, post apocalyptic, barren vistas of tortured heather haunted by gurgling grouse and, be grateful now, the occasional curlew or lapwing! Oh and they add to our flooding problems as well.
It needs to stop.
Spot on Hugh…this is a habitat/land management issue as much as a species one…they are of course completely entwined.
Lets get our uplands back into good heart..with the added bonus of ameliorating some of the worst floodwater run-off problems.
It has to be said however that a new economic regime is needed in such places..to replace the undoubted huge sums of money which are poured into managed grouse moors by deluded hunting mad often absentee millionaires…with a lot less expensive sustainable native forestry/conservation system…that will take time and investment….but we are now seeing the results of the previous idiotic unplanned Victorian idea of upland “management”.
…and while we are about it, let’s not forget the results of the previous idiotic, planned, Forestry Commission / private forestry idea of upland management/exploitation that involved huge sums of public (taxpayers) money. This revolved around incentivising the ploughing and draining of uplands and peatlands and then block planting millions upon millions of non-native conifers, thus exacerbating rapid run-off of precipitation, acidification of watercourses, lakes and lochs, displacement of significant numbers of upland birds through encroachment into their home ranges and subsequent loss of breeding habitat.
In terms of ‘ameliorating some of the worst floodwater run-off problems’ land managers would do well to follow the excellent and inspiring example set by Welsh farmers of the Pontbren Project, see pages 20-27 here – http://tinyurl.com/nba2pcy
The ideal situation would be if Prince William (and his brother) continued with their interest in shooting, but condemed illegal persecution, and only shot on estates with healthy raptor populations. The idea that the royals should stop shooting all together would both highly unlikely and not helpful. We should be aiming for a healthy shooting industry with healthy raptor populations.
Phil – I’d be happy with that. Name one in the north of England?
I don’t think anyone can Mark, there are some worse than others but put hand on heart to swear a particular estate plays no part in it, cannot be in all honesty done. That is the crux of the problem it is so widespread and ingrained that all estates “benefit” from persecution of harriers, peregrines, short eared owls and the rest such that no law abiding shooter should go near them or currently defend them. If the rest of the shooting industry condemned the persecution and spoke out against it rather than excused it or promoted unworkable compromises we might just have got to the home straight. As they don’t it is hard to have any sympathy for the “sport” of any of them.
In any plans by NE or DEFRA to tackle such problems they need to include quite severe and meaningful sanctions if such plans fail but will they? Currently I rather doubt it.
If Charles and Sons want something useful to shoot why not Grey Squirrels? or Ring Necked Parakeets? I would be more than happy to provide all transport, tea and cake
Oh dear, Mark. Has your position hardened to the extent that you are now suggesting that all forms of game shooting – however sustainable and beneficial in conservation terms their management – are somehow tainted by persecution and should be banned? Or is it only Princes that you think should give up legitimate fieldsports? (Like Grizzly Bear, that really is the only construction I can put on your original comments, though I see you’ve qualified them somewhat since).
And as for Prince Harry, you just couldn’t resist it, could you… Despite unequivocal denials and the absence of any forensic evidence, let alone a prosecution or conviction, you rarely miss an opportunity to revisit this alleged incident. Isn’t he as entitled as the rest of us to the precious right to be presumed innocent, without having to put up with your gratuitous insinuations?
Lazywell – my position is firm but still rather soft as far as game shooting is concerned. which would you nominate as the form of shooting which is most beneficial and sustainable in conservation terms? I’d be interested to know as i find it quite a difficult question.
Driven grouse shooting – can’t be can it?
Driven pheasant shooting with rear and release? – I son’t think so.
Driven partridge shooting with reared RLPs? – can’t be!
Walked up pheasants/ They are still non-native birds, after all.
Wildfowling? – pity about all that lead shot in wildfowl available in supermarkets and game dealers (but getting there).
Grey partridges a la South Downs with no pheasants or RLPs released as in Dick Potts’s Partridge book? – yep, that seems like a contender. Not very widespread though is it?
Walked-up Red Grouse shooting? A strong contender. How widespread is that, then?
Which would you nominate?
And as for Prince Harry – shhhhh! Don’t mention Prince Harry!
PS Have you signed John Armitage’s e-petition yet? It has passed 9200 signatures but yours would be most prized. And if you could recruit some of your friends that would be much appreciated too. Thank you in advance.
As for Prince Harry, no need not to mention him, the linked article says it all. The PoW’s staff voluntarily and expeditiously contacted the Norfolk police to assist in the investigation, PH and his friend were interviewed in person and confirmed they had no knowledge of the alleged incident. End of non-story.
And let’s face it, this is a man who has put his life on the line, twice, for his country (unlike virtually all of his detractors or those who wish to smear him I would venture)……a highly trained and disciplined Army Air Corps Apache pilot who is used to employing weapons under the most challenging of conditions ie in support of UN Security Council-mandated resolutions and forces, operating against ruthless, murderous, insurgents who hide amongst the civilian population, (in clear violation of the Geneva Convention and international Laws of Armed Conflict).
The Rules of Engagement pertaining to the use of force by professional military personnel in such operations revolve around satisfying the stringent criteria of Necessity, Distinction, Proportionality and Humanity before firing of any weapons – even in self or extended self-defence.
He has more experience of the imperative to identify targets, correctly and accurately, and of the dire consequences of getting it wrong, than the vast majority of his fellow citizens, let alone any armchair pundits……
snore…….