We all make mistakes but it would normally be expected that, when made, a more gracious acknowledgement of them might follow than that of the GWCT here.
It is completely untrue to suggest that an earlier draft of the letter went as follows:
Game management techniques, carried out legitimately by gamekeepers and shoot owners have been the driving force behind many techniques developed to help conserve and protect other species. Supplementary over-winter feeding, for example – no-one had realised that birds eat in the winter until we pointed it out to them. Our scientists are so sharp they’ll cut themselves one day you know. Millions of RSPB members who feed birds in their gardens got that idea from us – yes, honestly. And they are merely unfulfilled shoot managers. If only (we know they wish it) they could do a bit of driven Blue Tit shooting. It’s such a shame that the fences of suburbia make driven shooting a bit more difficult than on a 10,000 acre estate. Still, we’re all on the same side really (as we often say, with our fingers crossed behind our backs).
This country is the envy of the world for its extremely enlightened approach to conservation – no thanks to grouse moor managers who have seriously blotted our copybook by removing protected wildlife from large areas of the country. However, we must not lose focus – a big grouse bag tends to chase away the guilty feelings from criminal acts. Let’s celebrate the success of the shooting community in removing predators from the uplands of Britain to such a stunning extent that no-one can be in any doubt about it.
Well you would expect The Telegraph to report this as a negative as only rich people read the paper. The RSPB has focused on Raptor persecution because of public pressure from us the public. So basically it’s another hit to try and discredit the RSPB and us the public who are fed up with birds of prey being killed. I notice The Telegraph didn’t mention the amount of subsidies that the Game Shooting Industry receive from the tax payers money, so it’s us who are helping the economy. I’d rather pay to put it back to how it was before the so called “land management”.
I have tried burning the heather in my garden but the results have been most disappointing. The flowerpot cracked and red grouse numbers have stayed obstinately at zero.
Jonathan – you need a decent gamekeeper!
‘Plenty of people run their shoots in an impressive and legal manner, and some of them also do a fine job for wildlife conservation’ ……. says Simon Barnes in his blog post of 22/10/2014.
Yes, but I think they are pheasant shoots. I think grouse shoots are utterly dependent on illegality.
you think grouse shoots are utterly dependent on illegality. have you ever been to one?
You make a fair point Peter.
There seems to be an increasing number of sweeping generalisations being thrown about in the driven grouse shooting/hen harrier debate and I don’t think the campaign to ban driven grouse shooting is well served by them.
The rationale for banning driven grouse shooting is incredibly strong; so sweeping uninformed statements and classist bollocks (the first comment on this thread being a good example of this) only serve to undermine the case.
Driven grouse shooting does provide some conservation benefits, although these benefits are significantly outweighed by the negatives, but to deny that these benefits exist is no less as absurd as Andrew Gilruth claiming: ‘This country is the envy of the world for its extremely enlightened approach to conservation’.
I post as someone who has signed Mark’s petition and was also one of the sodden 570 and occasionally shoots.
Ernest, the problem as ever with these divisive issues is that they become increasingly polarised. You do well to speak out against what I believe you correctly characterise as bollocks when it comes from your own side of the debate. I think you may find that as the debate progresses and things become more and more fractous the bollocks will become ever more and more preponderous.
Such bollocks has the general form of
All a are b
where
a = a particular clearly defined group of people
and
b is some crime misdemeanour, unfortunate social trait or ill.
The aim of this bollocks is of course to completely eradicate a in the mistaken belief that this is necessary and justified to eradicate b.
The truth in my opinion is more complex and closer to
some a are b but then again they are often a little bit c too and then again lets not forget that you do get the odd d who is b in spite of the fact that they are generally but not always more c than a’s are.
Sorry that’s a little bit tangled perhaps I should try a venn diagram.
The answer to this complexity in my opinion is not to ban a but to ban b.
To put it as simply as possible:
where
b = The Bad Thing
and
some a’s do b
and
some c’s do b
IF a does b then a= A Criminal
IF c does b then c = A Criminal
In short define what the bad thing is and make anybody who does it a crime and enforce the law..
I do wonder how Mark will cope with the innevitably swelling bollocks associated with this issue and I am monitoring this blog with great interest. I suspect he may be going to become an internet version of one of my all time best comic book heros here : here
correction to above
“some d’s do b”
should be
“some c’s do b”
v grateful if you could edit that for me Buster.
I mean Mark!
I was on a shoot in Sussex today and saw my first Goshawk which was magnificent and a credit to the estate in question.
Jack – good to hear.
Unfortunately scientific research points to the fact that the next person to see that Goshawk with a gun in their hand will quite likely shoot it! Failing that set a trap or lay poisoned baits. I have seen Goshawk in Northamptonshire. They tend to disappear!
really? How likely is ‘quite’ – did they give a figure?
From Birdcrime 2013
In the Peak District National
Park, goshawks have been
inextricably linked to the Upper
Derwent Valley, where they first
successfully bred in 1966. In
the late 1970s, the Peak District
population constituted a third
of the known British breeding
population. By 1998, the area of
moors to the west of Sheffield,
stretching into the Derwent Valley,
held 15 breeding territories.
However, from 2001 the
population began to crash, initially
from the area near Sheffield and
then, from 2006, in the Derwent
Valley. In 2013, there was only
one territory left in this entire area.
Away from the grouse moors, in
the south of the Peak District, this
species is still doing well, with
13 known breeding pairs.
In 1979 we knew at least 21 occupied Goshawk nesting territories on or adjacent to Red Grouse moors in SW Yorkshire/Peak District. In that year 19 failed for various reasons such as nest destruction, human caused desertion, egg collectors, falconers removing young and adult birds mysteriously disappearing from occupied nests? 35 years on and very little has changed !!!
Well Giles,considering the percentage of tagged harriers that disappear and the fact that peregrines would be extinct if they only bred on grouse moors I think it speaks for itself.lets not quibble about figures. Quite obviously lots of gamekeepers want to eradicate raptors from our landscape and they are getting away with it everyday! Nobody has the real figures on persecution as the vast majority of incidents are unreported and undetected.How do you get a figure on that unless these people chose to admit to their crimes?
Thank you for your comment Daniel – you could very well – to an extent be right. Guess what I want action. to change the situation too.
However I have however put forward a pretty clear way by which grouse moor owners and indeed any one else could be held vicariously liable for protected species persecution and indeed other forms of ecological destruction.
Such an approach would in my view make a massive difference.
It’s perfectly clear that Mark has nothing to say about such a proposal and in my opinion his silence is motivated by the narrowest and most cynical of political motives,
I want to find ways forward that ally human interests and those of the natural world. We really REALLY need to do this in all sorts of ways on this planet because it is the only one we have got. Neither us nor nature are going anywhere soon. and we do need to live together better.
Daniel-here’s a figure for you. Roughly 99% of our hen harriers are missing.
Does anybody know what countries are jealous of our “extremely enlightened approaches to conservation”?
Over the last 50 years, 60% of over 3000 species surveyed in the UK have declined, with 31% falling significantly. We also have degraded, simplified ecosystems with the absence of keystone species like the wolf and the beaver and conservation organisations who can prevent natural processes from taking place.
Malta?
“species like the wolf “. are you seriously suggesting that large canines can actually have a beneficial effect on the ecosystem? That’s a little controversial!!!! (Although I agree 100%)
Are you actually suggesting that a keystone species wouldn’t have a beneficial effect on their ecosystem??!!! No controversy about the ecology here – very clearly wolves benefit the ecosystems where they remain and would benefit any ecosystem they were returned to. The only controversy is the social one, i.e. will farmers/gamekeepers etc. accept them?
To say that shooting and farmers are now benefiting wild bird populations by providing supplementary feeding as an indirect benefit of feeding game birds is quite bizarre given that the reason for the decline of most farmland birds is agribusiness.
No. But denying that supplementary feeding during the winter months and gap period, when carried out responsibly, benefits certain farmland birds is more than a little bizarre.
“given that the reason for the decline of most farmland birds is agribusiness”
That’s not quite right, there are also many intensively managed family owned farming enterprises that have had and continue to have a deleterious impact on farmland birds. All to produce the ‘cheap’ food demanded by the consumer. How easy to do you think it is for a farmer to cease intensive conventional farming and switch to extensive organics? The answer is not very due to low consumer demand. Whilst 2013 saw a slight increase in organic sales growth (+2.8%), this was the first time since 2008 that organic sales had not declined from the previous year.
2012: -1.5% from the previous year.
2011: -3.7%
2010: -5.9%
2009: -12.9%
2008: +1.7%
As you can see, when things get tough, many consumers stop putting organic products in their trolley. Against this background it’s hardly surprising that the number of organic producers in the UK has fallen in the last year by 6.3%.
In 1963, as nation we spent 24% of our income on food and drink, this dropped to around 8.6% in 2008, currently it’s around the 10% mark. Blame farmers and ‘agri-business’ if you wish, but most people in this country would be better looking a bit closer to home and the consumer choices that they make.
I’m guessing that the supplementary feeding would continue if there was no shooting then?
I also didn’t mention Organic. There are myriad options between agribusiness and organic. Simply leaving winter stubbles or creating beetle banks. Neither are organic.
Re supplementary feeding – it would on those farms signed up to the supplementary feeding option through ES, but those farms are a bit thin on the ground as this option was introduced quite late into the last ERDP program.
I think we need to be careful not to tar all shoots with the same brush, particularly the non-commercial small farm shoots were only low numbers of birds are released and some of the management includes well thought out game cover crops and sensible and hygienic supplementary feeding. Shoots where almost all of the birds which get shot get eaten rather then buried!
“There are myriad of options between agribusiness and organic”
Really? I dont believe this to be true. Whilst some producers are able to exploit niche markets and sell through farm shops / boxes schemes etc, there are still precious little mainstream marketing opportunities for conventional farmers that produce added-value nature friendly produce. ‘Fair to Nature’ / ‘Conservation Grade’ being notable exception. LEAF Marque? Mmmn, it’s really nothing more than a box-ticking exercise.
Do you recall the ‘White and Wild’ milk brand circa 2002? Milk producers who signed up agreed to set-aside 10% of their farm for wildlife habitat under the guidance of whole farm plans produced by FWAG. The milk sold at a 5p/litre premium (which is nothing is it?). The producers were paid an extra 3p/litre and 2p/litre went to the Wildlife Trusts who audited the validity of the plans and the quality of habitat management. It was initially sold through Sainsburys, who invested a lot in the marketing campaign. In short the whole brand flopped – consumers didn’t want to know. The extra 5p a litre was considered too expensive! To quantify this the average milk annual liquid milk consumption in the uk is approx. 80 litres so an extra 5p per litre would have therefore cost the average consumer £4/year! Infuriating isn’t it?
I’ve not been involved in farm and agri environment schemes for a while so I admit some of what I am about to say may no longer be correct. However, in the past at least, farmers were PAID by the government to take options that were environmentally sensitive and provided benefits to birds – not just supplementary feeding to offset the fact that their other activities removed most of the food that they would have otherwise had, but proper habitat management options. No need to look for niche markets.
Anyway, I think you completely missed the point of my first post. The shooting industry using this as an example of how they are conservation minded is just very sad. The fact that there is a need to supplementary feed makes it doubly sad.
Earnest: most of the science looking at the wildlife benefits of organic to date suggest that results as good or better can be achieved by conventional farmers if they adopted appropriate agri-environment prescriptions.
Entry Level Stewardship, for example, includes just about all that is needed to recover farmland bird populations. It includes payments for creating ‘skylark plots’, which enhance skylark density and nesting success is conventional cereal fields. It includes lower-input cereals and stubble left into the following spring to help seed-eaters through the lean, late winter/early spring period. It includes payments for the GWCT-designed Conservation Headlands and Beetle Banks.
The problem is that farmers aren’t yet adopting these options. Although a lot of farmers are now in ELS, too few of them include within their agreements the full mix of options needed to help farmland birds throughout the year.
The trouble is, in my experience, that its not always clear to very busy farmers which are the best options, and so they go for the simplest (like sound hedgerow management), but miss the critical – like retaining winter stubble. When given quality, free advice (as Devon farmers with cirl buntings are, for example), farmers tend to be happy to adopt good options. No real need to go organic.
Agree. Before GWCT make any more unresearched sweeping statements about the benefits of feeding game, let’s have a thorough study on the effects those non native chickens are having on natural winter food resources. How many pheasants also raid wild bird mix plots paid for by tax payers to support wild birds, leaving less resources for real priority species?
GWCT’s combination of its recent non sound science led views on hen harriers and lead and having Andrew Gilruth as their Director of Communications seems like a big double whammy own goal for their scientific credibility even if it keeps their major donors happy. Dick Potts and Nicholas Aebischer must be squirming
Yeah, it’s nice to see Mark Avery undermine the many legitimate scientists working at the GWCT.
Emily – you work there too don’t you? Maybe it would be more honest to have mentioned that.
Andrew Gilruth undermined the GWCT’s position by jumping to criticise the RSPB and getting it badly wrong. This was then compounded by making the necessary correction in such an ungenerous manner. Nothing to do with scientists – just the Comms and Membership guy going off at half cock.
I have never hidden that, I am currently doing an industrial placement year there. I do not get a wage, but a stipend, which is a lot more than other conservation placements offered. I also had an interview with RSPB for their placement.
“Our scientists are so sharp they’ll cut themselves one day you know.” How is that to be taken? I understand that your piece is satire, but there is research being undertaken by the GWCT that will be under peer-review. The science done here may or may not support some of the views of our members.
I couldn’t agree more Gongfarmer there are a whole host of questions about non-native pheasants and red legs that ought to be asked and researched. It has always seemed odd that to re-introduce a native we conservationists rightly have to jump through a whole series of hoops BEFORE it is allowed and yet 40 million non natives are released for shooting every year——– it might be utter madness.
I think I’m right in saying that the Dutch have just banned such releases.
As to Andrew Gilruth, he seems to need a serious dose of reality, the organisation he works for seems intent on plumbing the depths.