In a breathtaking example of arrogance, Defra has merely cut and pasted their response to a previous e-petition as their response to our current e-petition calling for a ban on driven grouse shooting.
All the things that were wrong with their previous response are wrong with their current response.
We know that ministers sign off these responses and so we can be pretty certain that Rory Stewart himself has signed off this lazy nonsense.
What Defra says about the economics of grouse shooting is laughable.
It seems that Defra wishes to slap in the face those 30,000 people who have signed this e-petition in just one month. Defra isn’t listening to us; Defra seems to listen only to the grouse shooters.
Well, it’s good to know where we stand:
- If you care about the status of protected wildlife in the uplands then there is no sign that Defra is acting on your behalf.
- If you care about flooding then there is no sign that Defra is taking the role of grouse moors in increasing flood risk, and increasing your home insurance bills, seriously.
- If you care about greenhouse gas emissions then there is no sign that Defra cares about the role of grouse moor management in increasing our contribution to climate change.
- If you pay water bills then there is no sign that Defra cares about the impact of grouse moor management on water treatment costs.
- If you carry out the pointless hobby of shooting grouse for fun in the uplands then it seems as though Defra will bend over backwards to state your flawed case for you.
It’s foolish politics not to listen to the electorate, but it’s even more foolish politically to demonstrate so clearly that you aren’t even going to pretend to be listening. That tends to make people angry. We reached 30,000 signatures today, on the day that Defra slapped us in the face. 30,000 signatures gathered in one month for a ban on driven grouse shooting – how many can we get in the next five months?
Save the date for Hen Harrier Day 2016 – we need to make it the largest protest ever on behalf of this threatened bird.
Redouble your efforts to recruit people to sign our e-petition – we will show that the feeling of the people is very different from that of Rory Stewart and the grouse shooters. Mr Stewart and Defra look pretty foolish now – think how much more foolish they will look as the number of signatures mounts over the next five months.
[registration_form]
On t’other foot some support from Labour.
Shadow Secretary for Environment Kerry McCarthy;
“I certainly have concerns about the shooting industry, the persecution and environmental damage that can be associated with grouse shooting, and the use of lead shot”.
https://www.change.org/p/councillor-david-green-end-grouse-shooting-on-ilkley-moor/u/16306739
I have not had the email from DEFRA as yet but it was no more than I expected. I will not hesitate to sign another petition.
I would sign any number of petitions.
My suggestion would be that you take each stupid, incorect statement and challenge it- not by writing letters to them asking for clarification, but by using them as the basis for new individual petitions. Their position rides on a raft of anecdotes, half truths and false tradition. Lets chip them away one by one until they sink in sea of logic.
A petition on why its bad for habitats and wildlife.
A petition on why its being allowed to contribute to flooding etc.
You made a similar suggestion on the Raptor Persecution Scotland site and on reflection it’s a very good one indeed. I think we should still have the ‘central’ one that’s says driven grouse shooting is total crap needs to be totally stopped. However, other petitions even running simultaneously may deliver a bigger punch.I’m thinking that if for the Scottish Parliament we had one for banning driven grouse shooting (needs a well qualified proposer with first hand experience of the issues), there was at least another one demanding that action be taken to alleviate the damage grouse moors do to our watercourses, exacerbate flooding – at least inimical to work such as tree planting that definitely alleviates it, and of course the harm it does to recreational fishing principally salmon then that would help get the message across. The EMBER report had NOTHING positive to say about muiburm’s effect on water quality or life. Whereas salmon spent millions of years co-evolving and existing with beavers, seals, otters, dead wood in rivers and even thrived on it they never had to deal with muirburn! Since salmon fishing is up there with grouse shooting ‘iconically’ and in the reverential way it’s practitioners treat it scope for one God almighty conflict between the two, but so far sending emails to angling clubs and organisations has been essentially futile exercise. Petition might change that. Emphasis on grouse moors because of muirburn and also from a practical viewpoint near zero sacrifice in terms of protein production! We could still have a deer stalking and grouse shooting industry that do not impoverish the natural environment as current forms do, and we could have a much better recreational fishing sector that do not conflict, in fact would prosper with ecological restoration work that also allows eco tourism and other green businesses. The owners of Grouse moors are not famous for liking trees, habitat for crows and foxes! That doesn’t bode well for Natural flood control measures, but should blasting grouse for fun be more important than stopping homes and businesses be flooded?
…. salmon spent millions of years co-evolving and existing with beavers, seals, otters, dead wood in rivers and even thrived on it they never had to deal with muirburn!…..
That gets lots of likes.
It is possible to have grouse shooting that would not damage the environment to anywhere this degree. If only the shooters would change from driven shooting, to the old style of “walking up”, which is actually the traditional method (driven shooting was introduced from Continental Europe in the 19th Century), the impact would be different. With “walking up” far less game birds are shot, whether it’s grouse or pheasants. This means that the game birds wouldn’t need to be at anywhere near the density required for driven shooting. This means there would be nowhere near the need for the same obsessive predator killing, and moorland management, to maintain abnormally high density of game birds.
I am not justifying game shooting, but if it is to exist, it could have far less impact on biodiversity. Driven shooting is an extravagant display of wealth, as only the wealthy could employ gamekeepers, and have the lower orders out driving the game towards them, where the aim is to shoot these birds in huge numbers. It is a relic from the time when those with huge amounts of money opulently displayed their wealth. This is not a judgemental view, it is saying how it is. These vast country estates, and huge impressive stately homes, were built and designed to impress. They were massive status symbols. Again this is not judgementalism, because this is self-evidently what their purpose is. Driven shooting is a relic from the past, which has no place in the modern era.
“incorect” – classic!
This is the Defra equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears and shouting ‘La, la, la, we’re not listening!’
I wonder if the arms and legs of government are so malcoordinated/incompetent/dizzied with mood swings/conflictingly corrupted that copy & paste is the only way to stab at message consistency. Not sympathetic, just despairing.
Cicely – many thanks for your comment.
I think this response is even worse than the last one.
“With regard to predator control, we welcome the proactive approach taken by game keeping organisations to ensure a sustainable, mutually beneficial relationship between shooting and conservation”
I nearly choked on my porridge!
Execrable stuff but can’t say I’m surprised.
Meanwhile Thirsk and Wells have reached 100.
In all honesty, did we really expect anything different from Defra and the ‘truss-tless team’ of establishment apologists?
The more ‘they’ resist the more charge it adds to the campaign batteries …. ?
The only observation I would make on this blog comment Mark is that now we know that Rory signed off the response why not replace in your text the faceless ‘DEFRA’ with ‘Rory’ and then we’ve all someone to enquire as to the nonsense reply about?
Let’s have some personal responsibility for this guff!
Disappointing but illuminating and incredibly sloppy drafting. Here’s one example … ‘The raptor persecution group, led by a senior police officer, focuses on the golden eagle, goshawk, hen harrier, peregrine, red kite and white tailed eagle and is led by a senior police officer’. Careless cut and paste job by an intern I shouldn’t wonder!
But t’old Rory signed it off so clearly very happy with sub-standard dribble?
Quality standards ain’t what they used to be for sure, can’t understand an ex-etonian happy with brand slippage …. but I suppose conversely, he is consistent in the c**p he peddles …. and one assumes is fully supported by truss-tless?
Not seen it yet but when I do I will challenge each error with a question to my MP. I did n’t expect much better than last time but one does hope that people will live up to or above ones expectations. Sadly with F—–G Tories they always disappoint. May be I will have to add Rory to that list headed by Botham, Baynes, Linklater, Anderson and co at MA, G(W)CT, BASC and Countryside Areliars.
Sign of the times,so many petitions now no UK Government is likely to take any notice of most of them.
Getting to the magic 100,000 signatories is what’s needed then it has to be taken more seriously
To paraphrase:
“Supporters of driven grouse shooting have told us that it is absolutely brilliant in every conceivable way so that’s what we believe.”
Jonathan, perhaps we might add
“…. and we all enjoyed a jolly good day out, spiffing experience when we tested it at their invitation”?
All part of the same attitude that allowed John Whittingdale to state that all the responses to his BBC charter renewal inquiry had been taken into account, when, in fact, 6,000 detailed responses submitted by Radio Times listeners electronically were never even opened because the password was never requested.
Once again they forget who is servant and who is master in this relationship.
Any issue like this involves trade-offs and reasoned argument alone won’t be enough. An independent high-quality economic analysis of the issues, published in a high-quality peer-reviewed journal, is needed including how much taxpayer money has had to be spent on Hen Harrier recovery projects. Otherwise its just too easy for DEFRA to counter petitions like this with the above qualitative statements albeit riddled with inaccurate figures and selective evidence thrown in.
If such a peer-reviewed analysis was available, it might be possible to point the Petitions Committee (who have to review DEFRA’s response) to it and de-bunk DEFRA’s response with some clout. Equally Nick Clegg happens to be my local MP, I could take it up with him.
A large amount of public money is spent on maintaining driven grouse shooting. The government has contrived to class it as an agricultural activity, and because of this these grouse moors receive farm subsidy payments.
I strongly agree, Mike.
Is it not possible to pull together how much public money is given to owners of grouse moors? I had heard it is £56 per hectare – correct me if I’m wrong.
Then when they spout that DGS brings whatever money to the economy (even if you believe the figures), the subsidy could be subtracted and the real net amount revealed. Figures spent on cleaning water contaminated by muirburn should be assessed. A % of the costs of flooding downstream of grouse moors might be allocated. It would be difficult to put a figure on CO2 emissions and the loss of biodiversity and land contamination with lead, but at least it would be something to put into the scales to counterbalance the figures the shooting industry put out.
Also, if the uplands were allowed to develop a more natural vegetation and wildlife increase in variety, it would attract more visitors for recreational pursuits (walking, photography, wildlife watching etc) who would also bring in income – e.g. Sea Eagles on Mull.
Sorry to blather on – real question is can we get some hard financial figures to counteract theirs?
I think the message is pretty clear. It’s not just that the current Govt doesn’t give a Sh*t, they want us to know that they do not give a Sh*t. It’s naked arrogance born of entrenched power, and it’s not the first time.
Shame, I had thought that Rory was a bit better than the rest of them, but now we know that he is not.
Yes I just got this offensive intellectually dishonest email response to the petition. Where they seem to think if they repeat terms like “sustainable”, “ecosystem services” etc, that this is a substitute for actual sustainability and ecosystem conservation.
It is actually very typical for Defra under this disgracefully dishonest government, where it panders to the landowning lobby and gives them whatever they want.
I have been trying to point out for well over 5 years now that this Cameron led Conservative Party is knowingly deceitful, and uses “doublespeak” to an absurd degree. You just know when they trumpet their supposed principles, that in reality everything is the diametric opposite of what they claim. So when they claim to be the “greenest government ever” they actually mean the government that has done the least ever to protect the environment, and environmental considerations are at the very bottom of the priority list.
It is as if they have read George Orwell’s “1984” and taken it to be a political how to do it manual. The defining feature of this government is it’s total disregard for the truth, and it’s persistent use of “doublespeak”, dishonesty and deceit, whilst it pursues a largely hidden stealth agenda on behalf of vested interests. The real agenda of this government is completely the opposite to what it claims.
I’m aware that saying this just makes my look like an ideological extremist. But the fact is I have never been a member of any political party, and actually I don’t like ideology of any sort, because it assumes to know the answer to all problems, before trying to understand the problem. To me this has always been completely the wrong way round, as the art of effective problem solving says that you first try to understand the problem, before coming up with solutions. It is possible to address most problems with a wide variety of solutions, but they do have to be consistent with the problems and the actuality.
In my misguided youth I even wanted to become a gamekeeper, primarily to spend my time outside (this was back in the 1970s). I was taken in by the deceit that gamekeeping had become enlightened and it was only a few old gamekeepers from the bad old days that still killed protected birds of prey. Unfortunately as I learned more, by talking to and being trusted by the shooting crowd, I got to learn how they really saw things. They regard anyone not of their persuasion as a naive “bunny hugger”, this is the derogatory term they use. They feel justified in telling them deceitful lies about their attitude to get them off their back, because they misguidedly think that only they understand the countryside.
Not everyone who goes shooting is like this, but certainly the hardcore, and those behind the management of shoots are all in the know. The enlightened PR fluff they use to describe their enlightened management is entirely for public consumption, and it is not how they actually see things or carry out the management of shoots.
The trap that many conservation bodies, whether governmental or NGO have fallen into, is in dealing with shooting, and indeed landowners in general, is to take what they say at face value. When how they claim to see things, and be doing things is just meaningless deceit to allow them to carry on as normal. The way these people speak, when they think you are one of them, is entirely different to how they speak when they think they are talking to “bunny huggers”, and by this derogatory term, they mean most of the public.
What this really needs is a big journalistic, TV exposé. Where for some time an undercover reporter works in a penetrates the shooting industry as one of them. So they can blow the lid off how they really speak about these things and see this. As I say, currently conservationists are trapped in taking what they claim at face value. They know many shooting estates are very private, and it is very difficult to prove what actually goes on. The deceit needs to be exposed. We need to get this all out in the open, so we can have honest dialogue about this, and what really happens, not the fantasy version for public consumption.
The veneer of ‘conservation’ they try to put on huntin, fishin, shootin is appallingly thin, it’s transparent in fact. The official reps are bad enough, I can’t see Tim Baynes on telly without thinking I’m watching a comedy sketch without a punch line, and as for Alex Hogg? Then look at what rank and file field sports supporters are saying on forums, fb pages and all too often on the RSPB Scotland fb page – generally incoherent, nasty, ludicrously misinformed or deliberately misinterpretating what the conservation organisations are doing, and outright lies. If your blood pressure can bear it, look at Charlie Jakoby’s loathesome Fieldsports Channel sometime – a parade of social inadequates who aren’t a good advert for huntin n shootin, but inadvertently are for conservation – you don’t want to be like them and you’re not if you genuinely give a fig about wildlife.
Yes! A Donal MacIntyre figure, prepared to infiltrate the gamekeeping profession, would make great television and throw the message out to the viewers that dgs (not even worth using capital letters for that abbreviation) is a very private way of wrecking our natural heritage.
Definitely, how did 5 male hen harriers ‘disappear’ last year without there being co-ordinated effort between different parties, then ludicrous press attack on RSPB that it couldn’t look after its birds. Even the undercover footage we already have is bloody damning of masked figures shooting at goshawk nests, keepers beating birds to death with a stick etc. Another idea for a programme is one person from the conservation sector and other from field sports touring estates and nature reserves together – each having a chance to present/divide their case and criticise the others if they feel that’s warranted. 50/50 opportunity for both to state their case and debunk the opposition. Could go to a traditional deer stalking estate, and compare it with Glenfeshie. Look at Glen Tanar and compare it with less progressive grouse moor. And of course visiting eco tourism initiatives to see how they provide an alternative economic model for rural Britain – the protagonists would see the same things at the same time to promote or pull apart. Bit of a throwing down the gauntlet for both sides, but I think we would be keener to take the challenge? Imagine Bert Burnett, Andy Richardson or Robin Page teamed with (or against?) Roy Dennis, Chris Packham or our own Dr Avery. Think it would be a good way of getting a lot of polarised viewpoints about a range of issues across to the public, could be genuinely effective, but entertaining way of going way beyond and deeper than the snippets we get on Countryfile (suspect it could be bloody hilarious at times). Just a suggestion, but we definitely need more time spent on rural issues, and done properly, on the telly.
I forgot to mention. What really disgusted me about this email was the way they justified slaughtering huge numbers of Mountain Hares, to maintain the grouse density necessary for driven grouse shooting. This email was not merely a travesty, it was an obscene piece of sophistry. Put it this way, if the public ever saw the huge piles of rotting Moutain Hare carcases after their slaughter of them, there would be a public outcry. What the whole dishonesty of that email, and the whole grouse shooting industry relies on, is hiding what is actually going on from the public.
I particularly liked this bit:
“A report by the UK shooting community (Public & Corporate Economic Consultants report 2014: The Value of Shooting) concludes that the overall environmental and economic impact of game bird shooting is positive”
Good to see DEFRA getting unbiased opinions!
Or, with some minor edits:
Defra is working with key interested parties to ensure the sustainable management of our inner cities, balancing environmental and economic benefits, which includes the role of sustainable drug dealing.
When carried out according to the law, drug use is a legitimate activity and in addition to its significant economic contribution, providing jobs and investment in some of our most deprived areas, it can offer important benefits for wildlife and habitat conservation. Crack dens support a greater diversity of invertebrates and bacteria than domestic properties not managed for pharmaceutical recreation. That can’t be bad! The Government’s radical position is that people should be free to undertake any lawful activities. However, all those involved are encouraged to follow best practice.
A report by the UK heroin shooting community (Public & Corporate Economic Consultants report 2014: The Value of “Shooting”) concludes that the overall economic impact of heroin shooting is positive, and industry has estimated that £250 million per year is spent on management activities substantially benefiting someone somewhere. So there. If you can’t trust a drug dealer, who can you trust? For heroin in particular, according to the MoorDope Association, gangs on estates in England and Wales spend £52.5 million each year on managing 175 street corners. The industry also supports 1,520 full time equivalent jobs and is worth £67.7 million in England and Wales.
Heroin shooting takes place in many areas, which are important for delivering a range of valuable “financial services”, including recreational opportunities. The Government is committed to helping create a more sustainable future for the English drug dealers, including by protecting poppylands through measures such as the Poppyland Code.
With regard to customer control, we welcome the proactive approach taken by drug dealing organisations to ensure a sustainable, mutually beneficial relationship between addicts and dealers. Control of dealers by elements such as police and customs officials on estates has a role to play in the recovery of rare or declining narcotics.
The Illegal Drugs Act makes the sale and use of some drugs illegal; despite this and much to our surprise, incidents of illegal drug use continue, so we have identified this as a national drug crime priority. And if that somehow isn’t enough on its own (we think it will be) each drug crime priority also has a delivery group to consider what action should be taken, and develop a plan to prevent crime, gather intelligence on offences and enforce against it. Prepare to be amazed by the results of all this careful consideration and plan development! The ecstasy group, led by a close-to-retirement police officer, focuses on the golden eagle, goshawk, hen harrier, peregrine, red kite and white tailed eagle.
The National Drug Crime Unit, which is part-funded by the cartels, monitors and gathers intelligence on illegal activities affecting drug use and assists police forces when required.
So you see, there’s no problem.
PS Please stop bothering us with these silly petitions. Our interns are very busy making tea and posting this reply delayed today’s tea break by fifteen minutes.
PPS Please vote for us though.
Having run a village shop in a Grouse Shooting area the comments they make about benefit to rural economies are tripe. We had no business from the shooting industry, they relied on Tesco deliveries to the various estate offices and lodgings. This economic benefit is limited to gamekeepers wages and precious little else. Is there anything in that statement that stands up to scrutiny?
John – welcome and thank you!
These are the questions based on bits of the DEFRA response that I have just sent to my MP as an individual raptor enthusiast..
Defra is working with key interested parties to ensure the sustainable management of uplands, balancing environmental and economic benefits, which includes the role of sustainable grouse shooting.
Given that “Langholm 2” is being closed early, according to the shooting lobby because the target grouse density cannot be reached. The Buccleuch agent Mark Oddy has said that the moor cannot run as a successful grouse shoot without the lethal control of birds of prey. How is any grouse moor sustainable within the law?
The Government’s position is that people should be free to undertake any lawful activities. However, all those involved are encouraged to follow best practice.
Given that grouse estates are still maintaining “grips” for drainage in blanket bog, regularly burning blanket bog, regularly burning on steep slopes and to water courses. That burning rotations have significantly reduced in the last 20 years on most if not all moors with the subsequent decline in plant biodiversity and overall age structure of the heather with far less mature heather.
What evidence is there that best practice or burning plans are followed and how is this policed?
If best practice or burning plans are not being followed what are the consequences for the estate(s) concerned?
If there are sanctions when, where and how often are they currently being applied?
A report by the UK shooting community (Public & Corporate Economic Consultants report 2014: The Value of Shooting) concludes that the overall environmental and economic impact of game bird shooting is positive, and industry has estimated that £250 million per year is spent on management activities substantially benefiting conservation.
Given that this was a report prepared for the shooting industry has Government verified or audited the figures and if not why not, particularly as they have been challenged elsewhere?
For grouse shooting in particular, according to the Moorland Association, estates in England and Wales spend £52.5 million each year on managing 175 grouse moors. The industry also supports 1,520 full time equivalent jobs and is worth £67.7 million in England and Wales.
Given that these are the MA’s own figures how can we be sure they are accurate, true and “unspun”, do owners really spend £300,000 and employ 8 people on every moor per annum?
Does the £67.7 million take into account all of the public money given through grants/agricultural subsidies to manage moors with SSSI/SPA status?
How much public money is given to grouse moor managers in total and how much is this per hectare?
Grouse shooting takes place in upland areas, which are important for delivering a range of valuable “ecosystem services”, including food and fibre, water regulation, carbon storage, biodiversity, and recreational opportunities for health and well being.
Given that grouse are shot with lead how safe are they as food?
The EMBER report showed that in the case of water quality grouse management through burning had a detrimental effect costing consumers considerable monies through water bills for the removal of particulates and colour from the water supply. That for water regulation to be at its most efficient all drainage should cease why is this not enforced?
Increased and changes in the drainage regime for example on the Walshaw moor estate are blamed by many for the increased frequency of flooding in Calderdale. Yet those changes, initiated without consent, against both public and wildlife interest were eventually allowed by DEFRA/ NE on a SSSI why?
For carbon storage to work the peat/sphagnum ( which forms the peat)needs to be wet, dry and drained peat surfaces oxidise and become massive net carbon dioxide producers so why do we allow drainage and any burning of peat based blanket bog?
Science has shown that biodiversity of uplands is decreased by the drainage and burning associated with grouse moor management. One only has to examine plant distribution atlases from the late C19th or early C20th centuries and compare to now to see a decline in plant diversity. The EMBER report also showed that biodiversity was poorer in water courses that drained burnt upland compared to those that did not. So why claim that grouse moor management aids biodiversity when it clearly appears not to, where is the DEFRA evidence?
Control of grouse predators such as foxes and stoats on shooting estates has a role to play in the recovery of rare or declining species, particularly ground nesting birds.
Which rare or declining species?
Where is the peer reviewed evidence that these birds cannot maintain population in the face of natural predation levels without this predator control?
Mountain hares and other tick carrying species such as deer are controlled to reduce disease mortality in infected red grouse chicks.
Given that the life cycle of ticks makes the efficacy of this unlikely and there are scientific papers supporting that view, what is the evidence in support of the DEFRA view?
There are moors, primarily in Scotland, where native deer have been fenced out and Mountain Hares virtually eliminated in defiance of the request for restraint by SNH are you suggesting this is acceptable?
Where in England or Wales have deer and Mountain Hare control been thought to be necessary?
Each wildlife crime priority has a delivery group to consider what action should be taken, and develop a plan to prevent crime, gather intelligence on offences and enforce against it. The raptor persecution group, led by a senior police officer, focuses on the golden eagle, goshawk, hen harrier, peregrine, red kite and white tailed eagle.
What has this wildlife priority group achieved?
Why are GWCT, NGO, MA and BASC there when well over 70% of the criminals convicted of crimes against these species are from within their industry?
Despite instances of poisoning and killing of birds of prey, populations of many species, such as the peregrine, red kite and buzzard have increased.
Yes in the broad sense but does this apply to grouse moors?
Red Kite; The Yorkshire and Durham populations have not grown as expected and have been frequent victims of poisoning associated with grouse moors. There are no successfully nesting populations in grouse moor areas, why?
Goshawk; Populations throughout the Pennine grouse moor areas have been eliminated in the last 20 years or are restricted to a few large extremely areas of forest, why?
Hen Harrier; English uplands could and should hold 300+ pairs, approximately forty years ago they held between 40 and 60 pairs yet now they are nearly extinct, why?
Peregrine has not nested successfully on a grouse moor in the Nidderdale AONB since 1994, on grouse moors in the Yorkshire Dales NP since 1998, are absent as breeders from the Durham and south Northumberland grouse moors. All in contrast to the species fortunes in other habitats. The recent catastrophic decline on the Forest of Bowland grouse moors has coincided with a keepering regime change on one large estate. How is all this possible?
Short Eared Owl has gone from a frequent breeder to rare in all these areas in the last 20 years, why?
What is the DEFRA explanation for all of this if it is not widespread persecution on grouse moors and why is DEFRA not addressing this failure of the law?
Given these facts why does DEFRA continue to support driven grouse shooting yet not support vicarious liability for game managers/owners, the only group of employers not held legally responsible for employees actions ?
How is stricter control of grouse shooting not justified?
Why given the previous failure of Natural England’s Hen Harrier Recovery Plan and Operation Artemis are there no sanctions against transgression or failure in the current Hen Harrier plan?
How much have these previous schemes cost?
Why has the radio tagging and satellite tagging last fix data not been made public or at least discussed in the stake holder group, it could aid an understanding towards Hen Harrier recovery what is there to hide?
How will failure be determined in the current plan?
What will happen if the current plan fails?
Where will the birds come from for the proposed southern introduction programme and how does this help birds on grouse moors in the north?
Why were the representatives of the amateur raptor groups (NERF) excluded from the discussions, because they represent the raptor workers who gather the monitoring data in these areas?
Paul – great stuff!
You’ve said it all Paul.
I believe that those same questions will still be being asked in many years to come.
It seems to me that basically the whole system of government and shooting organisations are in cahoots and until there’s a change of government (non-Conservative) then very little is going to change.
It’s great that there’s so much more information on the whole shooting/raptor subject being made public, the more knowledge the better. Good on Mark Avery and others who are prepared to put their heads above the parapet and show the public that the very private goings on within the shooting industry are having a detrimental impact on our natural heritage.
I work as a mole catcher on agricultural land and I see many bad farming practices, environmental rules being ignored, pollution of water courses, etc., and I see no enforcement from the ruling bodies (DEFRA, Environment Agency) even when those bodies have been informed of some of the really bad practices. And yet our National Park Authority (Yorkshire Dales in my case) will come down like a ton of bricks on a householder installing the wrong type of double glazing then choose to ignore a situation where a farmer is tipping farm waste into a shake hole or burning plastic silage wrap instead of disposing of those materials in the correct manner.
There is something very wrong going on within our ruling bodies.
I think you are right Andy that DEFRA and the shooting industry are in cahoots but having been in ” the game” for over 30 years we have to keep them on the spot. As I understand it my MP ( Andrew Jones) is honour bound to ask DEFRA for answers to the questions on my behalf and they to answer them. I know the answers to some, but not all of them but it will make a few in DEFRA think, no bad thing.
In the past I have worked for both RSPB (mainly on Hen Harriers) and YDNP and still do most of my birding in the Nidderdale AONB. One thing we need to remember is that national park status and AONBs are essentially planning restrictions with no power in the grouse moor debate. Yes Les that is shockingly true.
Beautifully said!! The last I heard more pairs of peregrine (27 pairs) nested in the City of London than in all of England’s grouse moors. Really shocking.