Doesn’t this butt look just right for occupation?
A while ago someone tried to post a comment on this blog, and then followed up with another comment. Both are reproduced below in edited versions. I have edited the two comments to remove anything that might be libellous or offensive, and to protect the identity of the commenter. I haven’t always indicated where I have removed or changed words but in one section below I took out quite a few words and have indicated where I have inserted my own which seem, to me, to be faithful to what the commenter was saying. I haven’t changed the spelling, punctuation or grammar.
I don’t know who posted this comment, and because he (I’d guess he, wouldn’t you?) did not provide a valid email address I have not been in communication with him. Therefore, these might genuinely be the thoughts of an upland gamekeeper or they might not be. You should read the following with those caveats in mind.
I would have liked to have worked with the person who provided these comments to ascertain that they are (or are not) a genuine gamekeeper, and to craft the words to make their points even more clearly and strongly – but I can understand why the person wishes to remain anonymous. If they wish to get in touch with me then I’d be happy to discuss things with them. These edited and shortened versions of their views still make interesting reading.
Please don’t and you are probably sick of hearing this but please don’t sink us all in the same boat!
I am a grouse keeper myself and I am sick of hearing us all get a bashing because of a few people with such an influence on a whole shooting community. I remember the day when a gamekeeper was a highly respected person in the local community. Sadly those days have gone. The estate that I am employed on stresses to me that it’s not all about numbers but managing the wider conservation of moorland habitat for everything to benefit from. We have breeding goshawk, Merlin, buzzard and short eared owl that me and my team locate and then show our local BTO ringer where they have chosen as their home. Our estate is commercial and just about covers costs but this includes the government money we receive for managing the moor in good practice, not just grouse shooting. We spend most of this money on moorland management.i.e 30000 per annum is spent controlling bracken which me and my team carry out, using the money to give us more chemical to spray with, more staff to burn heather following good practice, managing smaller burns and keeping fire away from watercourses etc. believe me we are not the only ones with this attitude and a lot of us are very annoyed at YFTB saying its funded by the grouse industry when most of us can see all they are doing is making the situation much harder.
As far as I can see the grouse industry is [strongly influenced by – added by Mark in place of some other phrases] a few people, these people are responsible for the over intensification of moorland management, everything dies approach …many a genuine keeper has lost his job due to these damaging people because they didn’t agree with what they were told to do. As far as I can see there is one answer and that is get rid of them and the moorland we look after and care for will be a much better place for everyone to enjoy.
So please don’t sink us all, sink them b..tar.s!
Mark,
The comment I left is not a wind up, this is actually what most of the grousekeepers that don’t work for these influential men think however they won’t stand up for they fear of the power of those concerned, they have a funny way that they can manipulate land owners if they ever found out who said it, ending in job losses! Feel free to use any of the info provided but the reason you can’t contact me is that I wish to stay anonymous, I’m one of the above!
#HaveYouSeenHenry?
Keep in touch with Hen Harrier Day events through this website.
[registration_form]
Think we all know there are good and bad in all walks of life.
I feel sorry for anyone in any walk of life who gets tarred with the bad guys and sometimes just cannot speak up as the prospect of losing their job and home for a family must be horrifying.
If I am reading it correctly, your correspondent seems to be saying that although there are relatively few rotten landowners they have power/influence enough to manipulate the owners/managers of decent estates (such as the one this person is employed by) to such an extent that he and his colleagues fear for their jobs.
So I hope I am not reading it correctly.
You are, I’m afraid, reading it correctly and it is true – but what is worse is that the powerful landowners who are doing the right thing – and there are, as the anonymous keeper says, many of them, won’t speak out against the people who are breaking the law and painting the whole of shooting, good and bad, black.
Well, I may be being dense, but this surely must be about more than shooting/keepering.
So if we acknowledge that there are landowners ‘doing the right thing’ is it really right to ban outright an important economic underpinning of their activities?
Maybe there is an alternative approach possibly involving stronger regulation and vicarious civil liability for the consequences of wildlife crime along the lines of the ‘polluter pays’ principle.
giles – as you know, there are many alternative approaches including licensing and vicarious liability which could apply to all field sports – but have been ruled out by the Westminster Conservative government (whilst in partnership with a party formerly known as the LibDems). However, there is far more wrong with driven grouse shooting than can be dealt with by these methods, and so it ought to go – you should read my book on the subject (out on 30 July).
“there are many alternative approaches including licensing and vicarious liability which could apply to all field sports “.
Why stop at all field sports? Why not have more stringent approaches to all human activities both on the uplands and the lowlands and in the oceans.
Mark – did you read the news about scientists saying we are now IN a mass extinction event. At bottom we all have the same interests
giles – at bottom we do not all have the same interests, though yours and mine clearly overlap quite a bit.
‘Why stop at fields ports?’ you ask – the question should be, ‘Why exempt the fieldsport industry in England from legislation that is in place in Scotland and applies to many other businesses? What makes fieldsports untouchable in this regard?’.
I wouldn’t argue for field sports to be exempt from anything. If you read my comments I want more stringent laws both against animal cruelty and for ecological protection that apply to everything.
It’s very important that laws make sense and that they apply to everything equally. Also its very important that they target the ‘evil’ that they are intended to prevent.
Sorry to harp on about it but the Hunting Act is a classic example. It’s politically intended to attack one particular field sport but actually it bans other things which are not field sports. It’s meant to target cruelty but it contains no test of cruelty so it ends up banning things that are not cruel and allowing things which are. In fact it bans things that are not cruel unless you also do things that are.
So we end up with the situation where the police and the LACS conspire NOT to enforce the law in certain circumstances because it is so blatantly stupid. And politically the LACS toggle between calling for the law to be bought back before parliament Joe Duckworth: http://www.league.org.uk/news-and-opinion/blogs/2014/march/bring-on-a-full-vote-of-the-hunting-act and saying to do so would be a ‘mistake’.
Bad laws are a cancer and they breed dishonesty amongst those who support and enforce them.
giles – would you support a full repeal of the Hunting Act? As this seems to be a possibility.
on repeal :
I think the law needs changing – whether that ends up being repeal and replacement with a new law – reform of the existing law or repeal and reform of other existing law.
I don’t support just outright repeal on its own.
Fundamentally I believe that UK law should be changed so that if any activity can be shown to be causing cruelty to any sentient being then it should be a crime.
Sorry to do two posts but one thing which is I believe being muted is the possibility of removing all exempt activities from the Protection of Wild Mammals Act. What that would effectively do is make all deliberate cruelty to all mammals illegal. The animal welfare act already bans all activities to ‘domestic’ or captive animals if they can be shown to be cruel.
I’d actually like to go further than the PWMA and make all deliberate cruelty to any sentient being illegal. But I consider it to be a step on that road.
I know this all might seem a little utopian and is more of an ‘animal rights’ issue than a conservation one but I’d be really interested to know if you would support all cruelty being make illegal.
If not then which forms of deliberate cruelty would you like to remain legal?
I agree with you on this, Giles.
Deliberate cruelty inflicted on any sentient being should be illegal.
It might be utopian, but it is surely ethical – and should we not all strive for that?
” vicarious civil liability for the consequences of wildlife crime along the lines of the ‘polluter pays’ principle”
this is a waste of time, it is no deterrent to companies such as United Utilities who own most of the estates in Bowland were the Harriers have disappeared, the fines are loose change to them and their shareholders.
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/aug/03/water-companies-polluting-rivers-beaches
Merlin – that is an odd comment, if you don’t mind me saying so. United Utilities have been the good guys for years as far as Hen Harriers are concerned. As I understand it, the nests at Bowland from which male Hen Harriers have ‘disappeared’ have been on UU land, where the company has allowed and encouraged access and monitoring to protect these birds. They have been protected at the nest but the males have ‘disappeared’ when foraging away from the nest.
As far as the polluter pays principle is concerned, I think we are better off with it than without it.
The results of the EMBER study published last year show that the intensive management of upland areas for driven grouse shooting reduces aquatic biodiversity and increases water treatment needs (and therefore costs)(amongst other things). The polluter pays principle should apply to upland grouse shooting – but instead we subsidise it from the public purse.
“The polluter pays principle should apply to upland grouse shooting “. of course it should.
Let’s put the argument about whether to ban or not to ban driven grouse shooting to one side for the moment.
Surely there is a broader issue here. If we accept your argument that serious damage is being done to SSSIs then surely it follows that the level of legal protection given to such areas, or it’s enforcement is woefully inadequate?
And does that apply more generally? What about the lowlands? What about marine areas?
Its not about how many “good guys” and ” bad guys” there are on managed grouse moors…its gone well beyond that…this is a system that runs on the large scale killing of predators, the release of large amounts of carbon through burning and the continuing erosion of the soil and exacerbation of flooding……but on a political level its about power, who holds the power to make real change in the countryside…the widespread criminality shows the contempt that so many grouse moor owners and managers have for the rest of society.
So, a majority of good guys are having their reputations dragged through the mud by a small minority of bad guys but are too scared to speak out about it. What kind of hold do these people have. I often refer to them as the Moorland Mafia, mostly for my own amusement but many a true word said in jest?