Government slammed for ignoring tax payers’ voices as it defends grouse shooting interests using dubious industry data
The government’s response to a petition calling for driven grouse shooting to be banned is dismissive, poorly considered and influenced by vested commercial interests, say leading wildlife advocates Dr Mark Avery, Bill Oddie OBE and Chris Packham and animal welfare campaigners League Against Cruel Sports.
As conservationist Dr Mark Avery’s petition against driven grouse shooting reached a landmark 30,000 signatures in only a month, it appears that the government has unquestioningly accepted the figures and opinions of the UK’s shooting industry and moorland management business. The Government’s response presents the industry’s policies as its own and demonstrates a troubling bias and unwillingness to consider all the facts.
Contrary to industry claims, independent data shows that grouse moors are implicated in:
- Environmental damage: including competition with native species, pollution from moor burning
- Flooding: moor burning contributes to flooding downhill in towns and cities
- Wildlife crimes: birds of prey are routinely killed illegally to protect shooting interests
- Animal cruelty: shot grouse and animals caught in snares suffer
- Inaccurate & overstated economics: exaggerated figures, public subsidies and low wages
Shocked by the Government’s dismissive response, Dr Mark Avery said: “This is a slap in the face from Defra to the 30,000 voters who have signed my e-petition in just one month.
“Defra has ignored flood victims, water customers, the climate and the plight of threatened wildlife in siding with grouse shooters and their damaging and pointless hobby of shooting birds for fun. We need to get 100,000 signatures for this e-petition to make the minister Rory Stewart listen to the people.”
Tom Quinn, Campaigns Director for the League Against Cruel Sports said:
“The Government has swallowed the grouse shooting industry’s greenwash hook, line and sinker.
“Despite independent evidence linking grouse moorland management to environmental destruction, wildlife persecution and increased flooding, Defra is blindly parroting unscientific and unsupported data straight from that industry’s mouth.
“That makes for terrible policy making. It’s time for the Government to consider the independent evidence about driven grouse shooting.”
Naturalist and broadcaster Chris Packham said: “Let’s not get flustered or allow our intelligence to be insulted, let’s just get to 100,000 signatures.
“Killing wildlife for fun is a dying business. It’s time to finish it off”.
Cruelty to wildlife is another contentious issue conspicuously avoided by the Government and the shooting industry.
Bill Oddie OBE, wildlife campaigner and Vice President of the League Against Cruel Sports said: “Nothing will ever persuade me that killing or maiming birds and animals for fun is in any way acceptable. Neither does it deserve the name of sport.
“To condone it because it is technically legal only implies that the law needs to be changed. Game bird shooting may indeed be a money making- and money spending- business for an elite and largely wealthy group, but to most people it is simply abhorrent, cruel and symbolises a lifestyle that has no place in a civilised and caring society.”
Data collected from this year’s petition shows that the numbers of signatures calling for a ban on grouse shooting are highest in areas where there are grouse moors and in particular where lives and livelihoods have been ruined by devastating floods. But despite this, the government’s response to this year’s petition calling for a ban on grouse shooting is almost word-for-word identical to that of last year’s.
The League’s Tom Quinn continues: “It’s no coincidence that the numbers of petition signatures are highest in areas where there is a grouse moor nearby, and it’s noticeable that some of these places – like Calder Valley – also suffered from devastating floods. It is shocking that the Government are more interested in protecting vested interests than helping the thousands of people who have had their lives ruined by flooding as a consequence of grouse shooting“
“We call on everyone who wants the Government to listen to evidence, protect animal welfare and the environment and provide good value for the taxpayer to sign the petition at https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/125003.”
[registration_form]
Spot on, it’s about time we countered the grouse shooting industry propaganda and gave Rory Stewart and Defra some feedback. Above all this will hopefully enable far more of the general public to latch on to the topic and give their support.
Very well done.
The only “feedback” this @david_cameron Government and their Defra muppets understand is ‘Direct action’…. Talking only works if someone’s actually listening!
I’m in favour of a mixed approach, Idlebirder. I don’t think the fox hunting ban would have happened without the sabs, but equally it wouldn’t have happened without wide public distaste and strong Parliamentary support, including from some Tories (and i tip my hat to them), which of course has been key to keeping the ban in place. I think the petition has two main roles; on one hand to raise public awareness, on the other to raise awareness in the political class, both MPs (for example, how many Labour MP’s have even given this issue a second thought?), and institutions (Nation Parks etc.). The public are clearly moving, but for the rest we really need to secure the debate. With the current government I don’t think the petition can achieve any more than that. However direct action may well be needed to further raise the profile and to demonstrate that the situation is serious enough to warrant it. Take the National Parks, it would be pretty hard for them to maintain their post card image if grouse season becomes better known as protest season; lots of questions for them to answer in the media further raising awareness. If well focused it also brings media attention on the very worst offenders in the industry. More viscerally I personally I feel a need to say ‘so you think you can just get away with this, well think again’, and my individual voice will be louder on a grouse moor during a shoot than behind a computer.
Jim, National Parks have no power over whether grouse shooting takes place within them or not and it is essentially outside their remit to have an opinion on the subject.
Of course Paul, but that’s not quite what I meant; ‘lots of questions for them to answer in the media further raising awareness’, they may not be able to change anything but they do have to discuss what is happening in their area of responsibility (they can’t simply ignore requests for information from the press etc.).
I don’t believe I said anything about getting away with breaking the law Jimmy. I’m hardly hiding who I am now am I? Look up Benny Rothman, Jimmy. He certainly didn’t ‘get away with it’, quite the contrary, but see what that very fact achieved.
In the time since they were set up it has become obvious to most that all our National Parks protect is culture, NOT wildlife
You may want to bring yourself up to speed on Harrison v The Duke of Rutland [1893]. Obviously since the introduction of the Public Order Act 1994, if you attempt to disrupt a legitimate activity, even from the position of a public bridleway (footpath) you may be found guilty of aggravated trespass, which is a criminal offence. Believe you me….you won’t be on the grouse moor for long.
Mark, are you surprised you had a similar response to the last two? You’re asking the same questions and they’ve been answered. Keep on asking them and you will get the same answers. That’s pretty obvious. Though I don’t shoot driven grouse I fully respect and defend an individual’s right to should they wish. Free from harassment and intimidation from a small minority who now appear to think they have as much right to act outside of the law as those who do whilst persecuting raptors.
If I may give a small piece of advice – the shooting of grouse isn’t the problem, it’s carried out lawfully and for that reason there will never be any attempt to remove that right from law abiding individuals. If neither the act of shooting a game bird, nor the method used to put those birds in front of the guns can be isolated from other aspects of shooting then it’s impossible to legally separate it from other forms of shooting. If the concern is the driven aspect, then why only driven grouse? If it’s the act of shooting the bird, then why only the shooting of grouse? Fox hunting isn’t banned either, The Hunting With Dogs act 2004 restricts the methods that can be lawfully used in that pursuit. I will say though, since its introduction far more foxes fall to the lamp or thermal image scope than ever did to the hounds. If the protection of the fox population was ever the intended outcome it failed miserably.
No matter how many petitions you put up, they will fail for the same reason. If it reaches 100,000 votes and is debated in Parliament it will fail because of the same reason. You’re not targeting the criminal activity with your petitions, you’re using a scatter gun approach that you hope will, along with the law abiding individuals who shoot driven grouse, will also put an end to the actions of a small minority who carry out the abhorrent practice of raptor persecution.
Cogswell – thank you for your thoughtful comment. But you have missed quite a lot of the points.
The e-petition isn’t failing – it’s part of a campaign to get change in the uplands and is doing fantastically well, thank you very much.
Driven grouse shooting isn’t just about illegal persecution of birds of prey, it’s also about an intensive land use that increases flood risk, increases water bills, reduces aquatic biodiversity and increases greenhouse gases. If no birds of prey were killed, ever, then the management necessary to produce huge numbers of living targets for shooting would still be causing public damage and harm.
But if no birds of prey were killed, ever, by grouse moor interests, then driven grouse shooting wouldn’t be possible – according to the Langholm study (see Chapter 3 of Inglorious).
Sounds like you haven’t read Inglorious – maybe you should.
But, again, thank you for your comment.
Mark, just replying to your post below, for some unfathomable reason it doesn’t have a ‘reply’ tag.
“Driven grouse shooting isn’t just about illegal persecution of birds of prey, it’s also about an intensive land use that increases flood risk, increases water bills, reduces aquatic biodiversity and increases greenhouse gases.”
It isn’t Mark, and I think we both know that. If those were your ultimate objectives there are a hundred and one avenues open for you to petition against such unsympathetic land usage throughout the industrial and agricultural sectors that you could have 20 or 30 petitions on the go which would knock the moorland management into a cocked hat. The fact that your only concentrate on activities which involve shooting somewhere in the equation betray your true motives. The land management aspect is simply a new diversionary tactic. Come on, please afford me at least a modicum intelligence.
Can we expect a petition calling for the banning of owning a dog because a minority are used in the heinous crime of badger baiting anytime soon?
Your petition will fail to accomplish its goals (I had afforded you the ability to understand my wording – apologies if it was ambiguous) because, whether you like it or not those who shoot grouse do so lawfully. The shooting of any game bird is lawful providing it’s carried out within the terms of the general licence. The grouse population is not in any immediate danger and therefore its conservation status will not be elevated to afford it extra protection. I will also point out, I ‘could’ shoot driven grouse on an unmanaged moor if I wished. It does not employ any keepers, the heather isn’t burned and its recently had an extensive grip blocking carried out to retain groundwater run-off. Answer me this – if I did decided to shoot driven grouse on that moor (i.e. a few friends, taking it in turns to walk down to a waiting gun), why would you want me banned from it?
Cogswell – you have immediately decided that you know my motives. You don’t.
Cogswell – I don’t think I will afford you a modicum of intelligence because you haven’t had the wit to read my book on why I want to see the end of driven grouse shooting. Instead you seem to think that you know why – that’s not very bright of you. So you invent my motives and attack those. Are you giles in disguise? I think you might be!
How to ban driven grouse shooting is an interesting subject – but not, at this stage, as interesting to me as whether to ban driven grouse shooting. I have seen parliamentary draftsmen (people!) at work and they are rather more skilled than I on knowing how to achieve a policy end.
But I am glad that you are getting worried – you should be. With 31,000 signatures already banked and almost five months to go, the wind is in our sails – and it is a wind of change.
“You’re not targeting the criminal activity with your petitions, you’re using a scatter gun approach that you hope will, along with the law abiding individuals who shoot driven grouse, will also put an end to the actions of a small minority who carry out the abhorrent practice of raptor persecution.”
@cogswell – I couldn’t agree more Mark’s approach is to attack law abiding people because a small minority of their number may be involved in criminality.
His previous attempt involved trying to make people criminals even when their is no proof they have committed a crime.
A minority of car drivers commit crime associated with car driving – so do we ban car driving? No. We ban people committing crimes in cars.
I’ve suggested to Mark that estates could be made civilly liable for illegal persecution carried out by their employees – he’s not interested.
I’ve also suggested to him that if and when moor burning can be shown to be causing ecological damage it should be banned – he’s not interested.
The fact is he is not against moor burning per se. He is using it as a political means to attack people. If he was against it per se he would support it being restricted more.
They burn Exmoor and Dartmoor too but there is no driven grouse shooting on either moor as far as I am aware. So why isn’t Mark interested in restricting ALL damaging moor burning? That’s a very simple question – if such restrictions were in place it would detract from getting grouse being shot on their front side illegal.
If the joint plan increases hen harrier numbers it would also damage his campaign. That’s why he is so against it.
ANY constructive and effective measure to increase bio diversity in our uplands would detract from Mark’s campaign.
giles – you are very dull. I’ve written a book about what I think. I’ve probably written the equivalent of four or five books on this blog about what I think. And yet you seem to feel you know better than I what I think. Well, it’s all out there in the public domain so the rest of the world can make up their minds: and then decide what they think too. Over 31,000 of them have signed the e-petition to ban driven grouse shooting and we have just under 5 weeks remaining.
“then the management necessary to produce huge numbers of living targets for shooting would still be causing public damage and harm.”
So why not place restrictions on such management that would apply whether or not they are associated with a particular way of shooting grouse? When moor burning &c is damaging then surely it shouldn’t be allowed?
Benny Rothman wasn’t on the moor for long either, Cogswell, and can you remind readers of the result of that?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_trespass_of_Kinder_Scout
PS. ‘Believe you me….you won’t be on the grouse moor for long’. Who do you think is going to move me Cogswell? Major police deployment (moors are pretty big and tend to be a long way from police stations – fine in any case, it will certainly make the news)? A hundred security guards on each shoot day (again, fine with me)? Or do you think it will be a gamekeeper putting a gun in my face? Now that would an interesting situation Cogswell, and it will certainly make the news.
Jim Clarke is basically saying if he can get away with breaking the law then why shouldn’t he. Presumably that is precisely the thought that goes through the head of people who illegally kill hen harriers. They can get away with breaking the law so they do.
I repeat my question Cogswill; who are you implying will move me and by what means?
Our group agrees, and thank you for this, Mark.
An excellent press release.
Cogswell. You and your friends would be welcome to spend your days doing that because you would not be practising driven grouse shooting. Try it and find out. In reality, you.would be carrying out a form of walked-up shooting except you would have less chance of shooting birds because you would not be able to control the direction that they flush to.
That’s not true the crucial point is whether the grouse are driven by beaters towards stationary guns. If they are driven towards stationary guns then it is driven grouse shooting and apparently it’s causing global warming &c &c. So cogswell CAN walk grouse up to be shot and also burn the moor employ gamekeepers &c &c but it would be illegal for him to shoot a driven grouse or indeed drive one to be shot even if he didn’t burn any moorland – no gamekeepers were employed &c &c.
For Mark it’s grouse being driven that burns moor – for me it’s people setting light to them.
Exactly Giles.
Read it again – some individuals walking down to a waiting gun. Walked-up is walking ‘with’ a gun.
Read mine again. In your head it may be driving grouse, in reality, it would not be. Feel free to promote it as the new driven shooting model and see how far it gets.
You’re not understanding the point of the previous posts though. Define the differences between the two from a legislative perspective. The differences between the productivity of the two isn’t up for debate.
You can’t isolate the two, it’s unworkable. If a beater is carrying a gun it’s walked-up, just that not everyone is walking. It can’t be the action of ‘shooting’ a grouse as provided it’s carried out within the season then, again you can’t provide a clear legal definition between the two. Hell you could even see a grouse moor release a few pheasants on the day of a drive. As it still wouldn’t be illegal to shoot a grouse, and the fact that they aren’t reared and released it would impossible in a court of law to prove beyond all reasonable doubt that the grouse being driven aren’t a by-product of the pheasant drive.
It’s a poorly thought out petition that hasn’t stopped to consider how it would actually be defined, and given the birds are shot and aren’t protected during the grouse season should lead to to the conclusion it’s an impossible pipe dream.
Cogswell’s point is very well made. With Mark’s proposals the grouse shooting industry would have to change. What they would have to change isn’t moor burning, illegal raptor persecution (already illegal) etc etc – but the way they get the grouse into the air to be shot. The law would have to have an exact definition of how grouse can and cannot be put into the air and people wanting to put grouse into the air would have to do it by legal rather than illegal means.
The situation is exactly the same with the Hunting Act. The stag hunts are hunting and killing more deer now than before the ban.
The situation will be that mammals can be flushed as long as they are shot and grouse can be flushed and shot as long as they are not driven.
giles – you really don’t have a clue. Thank you for your comment.
Mark enlighten me then! I’m not that thick. How would you define the form of grouse shooting you want to ban?
It would probably be worded along of lines of the Hunting Act which basically says “it is illegal to hunt a wild mammal with a dog” so it would be something like “it is illegal to shoot a driven grouse”. It might perhaps also make driving a grouse to be shot illegal.
Walked up grouse shooting which would remain legal does involve flushing grouse to be shot but not driving them i.e. where grouse are driven towards stationary guns by lines of beaters.
With driven shooting the guns are stationary in butts. That would be what had to change – the shooters would have to come out of the butts and themselves walk.
You would most certainly get a LOT more walked up grouse shooting some of it possibly just ‘technically’ walked up to get loud the rules.
So basically the effect might well be to re brand the driven grouse shooting industry and the walked up grouse shooting industry.
The effect of any such rebranding on the consequences of the industry is a moot point. However it is clearly ridiculous to look at the CURRENT state and impact of walked up grouse shooting to draw any conclusions because it would be completely transformed by Mark’s proposed legislation both in terms of the numbers doing it, it’s economic value and probably how it is done.
Giles is absolutely right to compare the situation with the Hunting Act. How many hunts were engaged in ‘research and observation’ before the act? They’ve not changed hunting just HOW they hunt. The impact on animal welfare is debatable. Mark’s proposals would only change HOW people shoot grouse. Their impact on the environment is highly debatable.
Giles is also absolutely right that the most effective way to combat the damage from moor burning would be to have better regulations and better enforcement of those regulations. To change the way people shoot grouse on the presumption that that will stop them burning moors seems to be to be foolhardy.
The problem with these campaigns tends to be ‘groupthink’. Mark appears to think that because he has 30,000 supporters he does not need to engage in rational debate in a civil manner but can instead ridicule and insult people who have alternative, quite possibly more effective proposals. That is the approach of a bully.
Good heavens, that all sounds extremely risky the way you put it!
Why not peacefully watch birds instead of killing them?
In private conversation with a number of grouse shooters managers and keepers over countless years it is quite clear that apart from the burning and drainage they see as ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY to get the grouse density up to a level where it works it also requires an absence or very low population of protected predatory birds hence believe it or not Cogswell and Giles Persecution is also believed to be ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY by the majority of grouse managers and shoot participants, who are we to argue..
YES I know some do not (a small minority) hence the almost absence on grouse moors of Peregrines and Hen Harriers along with much reduced Short-Eared Owl, Buzzard and Goshawk in adjacent woodland. All moors benefit from the persecution whether they do it or not.
Wildlife law in these relatively remote areas is largely unenforceable so along with the very real environmental reasons persecution alone should mean this pointless “Sport” should be banned.
I’ve tried your version of grouse shooting many years ago, it was called “walked up” as both lines shoot
Your followers wishing to ban driven grouse shooting should see the attached, Dante’s Inferno, what eco damage has this caused?
http://raptorpolitics.org.uk/2016/04/22/help-us-ban-driven-grouse-shooting/
Thorough, comprehensive and wide-ranging. If only DEFRA could have produced something with half the clarity and credibility. Rory Stewart’s reputation should be declining rapidly as a result of the shoddy effort on which he has signed-off.
Please send this to The Scotsman. They printed a press release from GWCT ,verbatim , a couple of days ago. This would help balance their bias.
http://www.scotsman.com/news/dr-adam-smith-stacking-the-odds-for-ground-nesting-birds-1-4106382#comments-area
Interesting to see grouse shooters referred to as ‘elite’. Who awarded them their superior status? Surely through their behaviour they have shown themselves to be the dregs of society.
Ross, Skye and Lochaber – already about 47 signatures more than in last petition so far; Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch & Strathspey about 13 more signatures; Totnes must have more – I didn’t take note of last time. Lots of others nearly increasing the signatures e.g. Central Devon. Still nearly 5 months to go. Momentum really building this time.
A protest meeting about DGS on Ilkley Moor is being held outside Bradford Town Hall on Saturday April 30th. All welcome. See Stop the Shoot on Facebook.
It has been clear for the whole of this Parliament that the Defra brief has been to do nothing and not cause any political trouble – with the forest sales fiasco as exactly what Defra Ministers are expected to avoid. Rory is doing well – with considerable support from the conservation lobby who have signed up to the Hen Harrier plan and the 25 year plan for biodiversity, which means doing nothing this Parliament. The question i whether anyone will – or can – shake the do nothng position with something that actually impinges on political consciousness thecway the forests issue did.
But Roderick only RSPB and HOT support the plan. And in RSPBs case that seems less than whole hearted support.
“Cogswell – you have immediately decided that you know my motives. You don’t.”
Are you going to answer my question Mark?
Cogswell – I guess I will but on this Sunday morning it isn’t top of my list. It comes lower than watching the London marathon, found some work, cutting the lawn and having a nap. Ok?
Have you read Inglorious?
Don’t worry about it Mark, the comments from your cohorts in the Blog piece underline the true intentions of the petition. I didn’t see unsympathetic land usage top of their list of complaints directed at the Government response. Surprise, surprise? The fact that you don’t actually have a reply to my question demonstrates it’s never even crossed your mind. The flippant response above demonstrates you can’t think of one either.
No I’ve not read Inglorious, I’m sure I’ll get round to reading it one day, if I stumble across a used copy I’m sure I’ll pick it up. I doubt its contents will diverge significantly from the general feeling written in your blog, the content of which is the primary driver for me actually commenting on them. Whether I’ve read your book or not is inconsequential to that process or the contents of my reply.
Cogswell – you’re in a foul mood aren’t you? Are you used to people jumping to your orders? You can wait for a while.
@Cogswell Mark LOVES to ask questions but HATES to answer them 🙂
No he’s not!
As for LACS – it’s worth noting that t is against charity law for them not to tell the truth. It’s also against the law to obtain money through deception.
So here are the figures they claim to be in the 2012 defra report on snaring:
“Defra’s 2012 report contained the results of field studies which found that on average 73% of animals caught in snares were non-target species. Foxes accounted for only 27% of the animals caught, while 33% were hares, 26% were badgers and 14% were an unspecified assortment unintended targets which may have included pet cats and dogs.”
I can’t see those figures anywhere in the report and given that there are two target species of snaring – foxes and rabbits if those figures were correct then 0% of rabbits are being caught in snares set for them. That is frankly incredible.
And LACS CEO claims on the basis of this report that 400,000 badgers are illegal snared. The report specifically says it does not give a figure for non target species – but given it says that snaring happens on 5% of the land area – it seems to me highly unlikely that half of our badgers are being snared on 5% of our land.
and here is their statment on how many snare days there are each year:
“A 2012 report by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) found that 260,000 snares are in use at any one time in England & Wales. When this figure is multiplied by number of days each snare is set per year, it amounts to 53.5 million snare days every year in England & Wales alone.”
the report does NOT give a figure of 260,000 and 260,000 * 365 isn’t 53.5 million.
LACS claims are not only false but mathematically illiterate. And these are people that tell us to respect ‘the science’. Is this is ‘the science’ that you as a LACS member support Mark?
(note if 260,000 * 365) = 53.5M then 1+1 ≈ 3.5)
so we can prove mathematically that LACS are breaking the law!
Those figures are clearly made up. If Mark supports this kind of bogus science he does himself and his cause no favours whatsoever.
“Cogswell – you’re in a foul mood aren’t you? Are you used to people jumping to your orders? You can wait for a while.”
The tardiness of your reply wasn’t my concern, Mark. I would have just hoped for a more ‘constructive’ reply, rather than something I would expect from my teenage daughter, before slamming the door on her way out.
I think my sympathies are with the young Miss Cogswell@
“you are very dull” well I have to say that is very rude and I have to say coming from someone who has written the equivalent of six books endlessly repeating what he thinks about a particular subject – it could be argued a tad hypocritical.
giles – I look forward to reading your next book.
Mark I am sorry if you find this (and me) dull but if as you say the driven grouse shooting industry depends on damaging moor burning then surely by banning driven moor burning you would also stop the driven grouse shooting industry. Moreover if moors are also damaged by moor burning for reasons other than driven grouse shooting then banning such damage would also prevent it in those cases too.
I appreciate that you would like me to read your book but I have a pile to read at the moment and I will try and get round to it.
However i also think that debate on these matters can be constructive. Don’t you think the above point is reasonable?
I can see that BOP persecution is done in an underhand and often undetectable manner but you can’t burn thousands of hectares of moorland secretly. So such regulations could easily be enforced.
Mark, Giles raises a valid point. If it’s not grouse shooting per-se you’re against, but the ecological damage caused by the burning of heather, why isn’t your petition directed at that? It will encompass a larger section of moorland management (at the risk of repeating myself, and as you’re patently aware – not all heather burning takes place on grouse moors), it will be much simpler to legislate against should the Government actually agree with your argument, and further, if the grouse moors are as dependent on that management as you insist, they will become impractical as far being able to provide sufficient numbers of birds to the guns. I can’t for the life of me think why you thought a petition targeted at individuals who play absolutely no part in any of the points you raise would be productive. Unless you’re not being entirely….transparent?
Cogswell – I’m glad that you and giles are enjoying your chat.
It’s certainly good to throw ideas about and I think these blog comments and the discussions are useful.
I also think there is a LOT to be learned from the questions that Mark cannot or will not answer. Whenever he starts hurling insults especially so.
Mark can write impressive books putting his case forward but when confronted with simple questions he crumbles.
Simon C – are you giles in disguise too?
I’m disappointing to see that anyone who offers an alternative view is treated with such contempt on your blog Mark. I was hoping for a slightly more intelligent exchange.
Never mind. Good luck with the next petition.
Cogswell – poor you, playing the victim. You come here and make up my views and misrepresent them. You might well be giles in disguise. You off then? Bye, bye!
I find Mark remarkably tolerant in letting you express yours views on his blog, well done him. Still there is a bit of a purpose there isn’t there…..keeping flying the flag cogswell, I’m sure your eloquence is swaying so many readers.
I don’t need to sway anyone Jim Clark – you’ve read the Government response I take it? It should be apparent to even the bluntest tool in the box that your present approach will not succeed. If it IS actually the ecologically damaging argument you’re most concerned with then that’s the argument you should be focusing on. It’s been pointed out by several contributors that a re-branding of driven grouse to another written form (though little else changes in practice) will not succeed in addressing a single point that Mark tries to put forward as a justifiable reason for banning driven grouse, not one!
Believe me, whether grouse shooting is banned or not makes not one jot of difference to my life. Though I can pretty much guarantee, in its current format, your petition won’t get further than the same series of Government responses it’s had so far, no matter how many times you put it up. The very fact that you need that pointing out, and the reasons why is simply astounding.
We will see Cogswill, won’t we?
One more comment on the issue of defining the law.
With these ‘political’ (i.e. targeted against groups of people) laws the general approach is to leave the offence very poor defined. The precise offence and its definition are seen as immaterial to the political battle. No doubt there would be cases where people shot a grouse and the courts would have to determine if it was ‘driven’ or not. People would have little idea what they could and could not do until after their court case. And of course whether or not they were found guilty would have nothing whatsoever to do with any involvement in raptor persecution.
@Paul V Irving If damaging moor burning, drainage &c are ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY (your caps) to driven grouse shooting and if moor burning, drainage &c are IMPOSSIBLE TO DO SECRETLY (my caps) then would it not follow that enforced legislation to prevent such damage would get rid of driven grouse shooting. If driven grouse shooting is largely responsible for BOP killing (a law which it appears is hard to enforce would it not follow that such legislation would also get rid of of a lot of BOP persecution.
I do appreciate that Mark is a Dr and has written A LOT more books than me but this is just logic.
Cogswell, Simon C and Giles, I suggest you read my comment above. Grouse managers/ moor owners, keepers and participants themselves have on many occasions in private conversations admitted that driven grouse shooting is DEPENDENT on the environmentally damaging burning and draining and the ILLEGAL control of predatory birds. That it is dependent on illegality means for that reason alone it should be gone, the environmental damage reinforces that view.
That DEFRA takes a different view is yes extremely disappointing but in the end enough politicians will understand these facts and it will indeed be gone, not next week, probably not next year or in the very near future but in the end it will be gone for good.
Paul I would dispute that shooting driven grouse is DEPENDENT on burning moors or killing birds of prey. I would say that driven grouse shooting is DEPENDENT on one thing – GROUSE. You only actually need one grouse to be able to drive it towards a gun although I would accept that that would not be much of an industry.
Moreover I don;’ think Mark believes that all that driven grouse shooting is dependent on those things either. Last year he was singing the praises of an estate in Scotland that he said was managed in a sustainable manner which practiced driven grouse shooting. The key factor I believe was that this estate had diversified so it was not solely dependant on the grouse shooting.
Now if we accept what you say at face value and agree that the driven grouse shooting in its current form is dependant on moor burning and BOP persecution there are two things at play here:
A) Moor burning which is easily detectable and legal
and
B) BOP killing which is very hard to detect and illegal.
My point is very simple
1 it’s clearly VERY HARD to stop people killing BOP because it’s hard to catch them that’s a simple and unfortunate fact.
2 it would be clearly VERY EASY to stop people burning thousands of hectares of moorland because it is impossible to do that secretly.
3 So if as you say the driven grouse shooting industry (can i use the term industry here? It does make your argument make a LOT more sense) DEPENDS on moor burning then if they were stopped from burning moors then it would no longer exist.
4 FURTHERMORE if BOP persecution is a CONSEQUENCE (my words and caps) of the grouse shooting industry then it necessarily follows from 1 2 & 3 that stopping the moor burning would also stop any BOP killing that the now defunct grouse shooting industry carries out.
Now I would have to admit my POV is slightly more nuanced I would say that some driven grouse shooting in a more diversified situation such as on estates that Mark has PRAISED in the past could occur on moorland where there was less intensive management and NO BOP killing. However in a way that is irrelevant. IF it really is impossible to drive a grouse to a gun (rather than walk it up) on a less intensively managed moor then so be it.
let me use the following notation where A=>B means ‘B depends on A’ and ! means not.
Where B is driven grouse shooting and A is moor burning
IF A=>B AND A then B
IF A=>B AND !A then !B
FURTHERMORE if I introduce the symbol -> for ‘leads to’ then and # LESS
if B is driven grouse shooting and C is BOP killing then
IF B->C then
!B -> #C
THEREFORE and I think you will agree this is on the basis of YOUR argument
!A -> #C
I am hoping that has cleared things up
A final point of course is that moor burning also occurs on land not used for driven grouse shooting. IF it is damaging then it must be damaging those moors too.
IF moor burning is damaging then Maybe one day although perhaps not this week it will be curtailed.
Giles – zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
Paul and Mark are you unable to see that he is basically agreeing with you but offering what does seem to be a more practical and achievable means of getting to the same end? I’m really not clear why you would oppose what he is saying. Mark your ZZZZZ comment is just puerile!
Jimmy – welcome and thank you for your comment. You had to be here earlier! Giles has made 321 comments on this blog, and written a guest blog. About 300 of those comments are all on the same subject, many are ridiculously long and quite a few are unintelligible. Zzzzzzzzzzzz seemed perfectly reasonable to me.
“I don’t think I will afford you a modicum of intelligence because you haven’t had the wit to read my book”
Mark I’m not sure that there is any provable relation between intelligence and reading your book – I’ve read Wittgenstein if that helps although I would concede the level of logic in his Tractatus Logico Philosophicus is of a higher standard than my efforts above.
Ah the hectoring tone of the grouse lobby barrack-room lawyers. Answer my questions now. If they are as expert at charity law as they are at determining Mark’s “motives” the LACS has nothing to fear.
For me the petition is at least as much about raising public awareness, getting a debate in Parliament has the potential to be a game changer here. But, any progress on banning such cruel “sports” is bound to happen in fits and starts. Commenters like, Cogswell, Simon C and Giles are a positive help, which is why I’m sure Mark is happy for them to post.
If they are so sure that any ban on driven grouse shooting will fail, why bother to even post here? Because they really are afraid that the more people know what goes on on a grouse moor the greater the threat to their business – I think we can assume that all or some of the three (if “they” are three) earn at least part of their income from shooting. Their aim is to undermine the campaign but irritating though they are, their posts have increased my determination to share Mark’s views with fellow birdwatchers. The grouse lobby will never be persuaded, even of the science of the environmental case, but many nature lovers will be.
JackB – welcome and thank you.
I’ve got nothing to do with the grouse lobby that’s an absurd idea
“greater the threat to their business” I’m a computer programmer – my business is writing software – none of my income comes from shooting. I don’t shoot and I don’t own a gun. I hope that helps.
Like this? http://www.gwct.org.uk/trapper/how-it-works/
Are you the same Giles that wrote a guest blog for Mark in 2012? Doesn’t mention computer programming but you sound like a countryman and the photo looks the same!
https://markavery.info/2012/05/18/guest-blog-shoot-giles-bradshaw/
I “look like a countryman” how’s that? What do “countrymen” look like? I’m white. I’ve got ginger hair.
I own a small farm on which I conduct illegal on lethal deer management and my profession is writing computer software mainly web based nowadays for manufacturing industries and also more recently car dealerships.
Here’s my github page if you doubt me https://github.com/gilesbradshaw
Giles, apologies for any misunderstanding! I said you sound like a countryman, that is not pejorative but relates to the content of your comments. The photo of you on your guest blog is the same as the one on this string of comments, was my second point. You can be a bit twitchy you know!
ah Richard apologies too – yes that is me 🙂 As for being a countryman – yes I was bought up and live in the country. I think ‘countryman’ can also have a more technical meaning to do with Hunting but maybe I am mistaken.
Ah right so now someone who writes a blog entitled “Don’t shoot” about how he refuses on principle to shoot wildlife even though he is required to by a law enacted and supported by people who oppose wildlife killing is defined as an arch defender and member of the grouse shooting lobby! That is beyond farcical!!!!
Giles/Simon; bit of a give away that comment, no?
Very unconvinced by this argument to be honest. How can someone who is suggesting stopping moor burning as a means to end illegal raptor persecution be seen as part of the grouse shooting lobby? That just doesn’t make sense.
Sorry you are struggling with that Jimmy. Perhaps give it some more thought?
Just a lot of free time and few social contacts then Giles?
I am so upset by Giles’ comments on here that I am in tears. Mark Avery how can you actually publish his twisted and evil defence of his slaughter of herds of wild deer. Stag Hunting is bad enough but gunning whole herds is even sicker.
Can you not see that what he is condoning and admitting to is a serious crime. By publishing his defence of it you are also supporting wildlife killing for it seems no other reason than to spite decent caring people.
What steps have you taken to bring this man to justice?
And his defence of people setting light to tracts of our precious uplands in order to destroy them is unforgivable.
I cannot understand how you can give the ISIS of the British countryside space on this blog!!!!
dot – welcome and thank you for your comment. giles has made 321 comments here and written a guest blog. I may be the only person who has read all of them and I’m not sure what he’s on about (up to a point).
Why do I give him space on this blog? For the same reason that I give you space on this blog.
You can’t be very bright then!
It’s blatantly clear what he’s on about. Maybe you just cannot get yourself to address the fact that the organisation you support actively backs animal cruelty and the wholesale killing of wildlife for political reasons.
Giles’ criticism of your hypocritical pro killing pro cruelty position is spot on and you know it.
This is just offensive ignorant claptrap. I’ve never slaughtered a herd of deer I would regard that as deeply cruel. It’s Mark who is politically aligned with those who support such whole herd slaughter being legally required when deer are harmlessly flushed by a dog. And I’ve proposed restrictions on Moorland management – a subject which Mark clearly finds boring as it detracts from his campaign.
Dot why don’t you actually read what he actually says? I think you will find it is the precise opposite of what you make it out to be and therefore you should support his criminality.
Dot Giles is saying that he should NOT have to kill deer and that there SHOULD be tighter restrictions on moor burning. If you are against killing wildlife and burning moors then you AGREE with him.
simon C – you are giles in disguise aren’t you?
Giles I would be very very careful if I were you. I am quite sure Oddie Packham and many of the League will know what you get up to. I think Mark is definitely ok but be assured people do NOT like you breaking the Hunting Act. This may all seem like a bit of a laugh but they take it very seriously indeed. They cannot attack you using the law but they will not tolerate you breaking it for ever. I am quite sure they will be itching for a chance to get at you. You will be upsetting MPs as well. You have to understand the politics behind this preaching such disrespect for the aw is dangerous and being right will not keep you safe. Ultimately it is not about animal welfare or conservation – it’s about power.
Katrina – welcome and thank you for your comment.
You make them sound like the mafia!
I think the point she is making is that although Mark Bill and Chris (probably) do agree with you about not wiping out the deer on your farm they do NOT agree with you about breaking the Hunting Act. This leads to an obvious tension – they cannot use the Hunting Act against you even though you are breaking it. I feel sure Mark Bill and Chris are above board but not everyone in the animal rights movement is. Where the law breaks down other means can come into play and for that reason you should take care. There are obvious politics here. LACs talk about a ‘war’. That is not a term to be used lightly. You will never get people like Mark to say what he actually thinks about the issues you bring up because he is politically beholden to these people. None of this is about logic or science- it’s about politics and that is in general a deeply dishonest and corrupt practise.
simon C – you are giles in disguise aren’t you?
In total agreement with Mr Irving above. It is necessary to raise the environmental side issues to reinforce the object of the petition. Cogswell, Giles and others have become fixated on these and, especially, the difference between driven and ‘ walk up ‘ grouse shooting judging by the comments above. Is it any wonder they ended up discussing it between themselves. Who cares what the difference is. I have no association with any conservation body apart from my local birding society. Nor have I any sort of scientific background. I am not a conservationist or any sort of activist but I applaud Mark for raising these petitions. He has his own clearly stated reasons for being the one who raises them and the only change that I would make is to remove the word driven from the petition. I sign them because the illegal persecution of birds of prey is wrong, end of story. The killing of birds of prey is carried out by some in the interests of grouse shooting. Fact. And, as it is virtually impossible to identify the individual perpetrators, as admitted by people on both sides of the debate, surely the only answer is to remove grouse shooting completely. No grouse to be taken by predators, no reason to illegally kill predators.
Andy S – welcome and thank you for your comment.
“Who cares what the difference is” well given that the difference is where Mark want to draw the line between legality and illegality the difference is obviously extremely pertinent to any discussion about his proposal.
What Giles Bradshaw is doing is using this blog to promote animal cruelty and wildlife crime – that is inciting crime and it is itself illegal. By publishing Giles’ pro killing pro cruelty posts Mark Avery is clearly complicit in this crime. Which side are you on Mark? Are you in favour of Mr Bradshaw’s ransacking of the English Countryside or not? You have blood on your hands.
JR – thanks for your comment.I don’t think I do actually.
He’s not promoting animal cruelty at all. He is promoting people refusing to kill animals. Refusing to kill animals may under some circumstances be criminal but those circumstances do not involve animal cruelty.
simon C – you are giles in disguise aren’t you?
Mark you’ve claimed that it is ‘rare’ for people on here to agree with Giles however from what I can see the only people who express disagreement with him do so on the basis of an assumption he is saying the precise opposite of what he is actually saying – take Dots comments above.
I’d also note that you get most offended when Giles tries to make out you don’t agree with him.
Could I therefore ask you to clarify whether you agree with Giles that to have to kill herds of flushed deer would be a little nuts and also that tighter restrictions on moor burning should be bought in.
I feel the problem here isn’t disagreement but agreement.
simon C – you are giles in disguise aren’t you?
No I’m not Giles in disguise. I think you are Giles obsessed. I’m just pointing out what he is saying. I think you are being highly dishonest here Mark. A lot of what he says makes perfect sense. I know that and you know that. Your ZZZZ’s and evasive miscomprehension are beneath you.
simon C – you haven’t replied to the email I sent you. Is that a valid email address you are using?
One more question – do you HONESTLY not even understand what he is saying? I find that VERY hard to believe!!!!
What we have seen here over the last day or two strikes me as a good example of the way in which a few people with a teenage view of logic and plenty of determination can ruin any chance of worthwhile discussion, and can sometimes goad otherwise sensible individuals into making ill-considered comments.
I’ve seen it many times on other blogs. Serious climate change websites and blogs have been wrecked by such people. The solution adopted by some of the most successful CC blogs has been to impose an absolute block on the offenders.
I know Mark will be reluctant to do such a thing, but it might be worth considering if it persists.
Agree 100%. There is nothing ‘logical’ about promoting environmental destruction, animal cruelty and murder! These things are wrong in all circumstances. A healthy debate on driven grouse shooting cannot and must not include people promoting the murder of these beautiful birds and the animals that prey on them. Mark must block these people and should not publish invalid views on here.
I completely agree AlanTwo, it is incredibly tiresome, although in this instance it appears to be just the one rather unwell person posting under three or four different names. I suspect it won’t be long until ‘Alfonso’ makes a reappearance.
Mark’s patience is admirable.
I’ve not seen anybody actually argue against what Giles is saying that there should be better legislation on moor burning. All you can do is attack him personally!
Earnest Moss – trying to argue against someone’s point by portraying them as ‘ill’, (I assume you mean mentally ill) is disgusting. Why don’t you get back to the 18th century where that kind of attitude belongs?
I see no evidence Giles is mentally ill – however mentally ill people are the victims of exactly this kind of prejudice and deserve to have their voices heard as much as anybody else.
You’re comments make you come over as a nasty vindictive little bully.
Has no one thought that we could ban grouse shooting AND implement better regulations on land management.
If he would like his ideas debated then he should consistently apply the following concepts;
A) brevity – make your point clearly and succinctly otherwise people will ignore you
b) courtesy – if you are rude people will tend to be rude back or (see above)
c) relevance – if you have form for going off topic -dogs/deer/dogs/deer/dogs/deer……(well, see point A again)
d) humility – probably best not to make one’s self out as being the UBERMIND. If you happen to be such an individual it really shouldn’t need pointing out but rather simply allow one’s genius to become self evident through (see point A again)
e) honesty – best to say what you mean, not try to use tricks, false identities to back you etc. Otherwise (see point A, again)
I always do my best to be polite and I don’t think I make myself out to be intelligent (except perhaps for the rather pretentious wittgenstein reference :P) As for false identities – no Alan isn’t me pretending to be him! I can’t see how I or he could prove that though. Maybe you are pretending to be me Jimmy or I you – who knows or even cares?
And Mark’s (alleged) support for gunning down herds of flushed deer is highly relevant given his opposition to gunning down driven grouse. the two positions at least on the face of it don’t seem especially compatible!
giles – but I have never said that I am in favour of gunning down herds of deer – or have I? I have said that you tend to make up my views.
Mark my assumption is that as you oppose wildlife crime you oppose people breaking wildlife law. Breaking wildlife law is exactly what wildlife crime is is it not? Maybe my logic is a little ‘teenage’ and the real situation is a tad more nuanced.
Comments on this post are now closed. But you just got this one in Giles. Have a nice rest.
Alan (or should that be Giles or Simon C or Katrina, Dot or even Alfonso?),
I’m not arguing either for or against Giles’s point, I was commenting that this thread appears to have become dominated by one person (Giles) posting under several different names. I could be completely wrong of course, after all the fact that all these new commentators just pop up out of nowhere to support Giles’s arguments could just be a complete coincidence.
But if my instincts are correct, do you think that is rational behaviour? I think most people would come to the conclusion that it isn’t.
As I said on my previous post: ‘Mark’s patience is commendable’. That hardly suggests I’m calling for Giles to be silenced.
And please don’t ever presume to know my attitudes towards mental health. My family has been blighted by mental health issues in a way that you probably couldn’t ever begin to imagine.
Well I am happy to report good health – that’s a body protector in the photo not some kind of restraining device
Comments on this post are now closed. But you just got this one in Giles. Have a nice rest.
“Has no one thought that we could ban grouse shooting AND implement better regulations on land management.”
Hmm… have you actually read Mark’s petition?
Yes I have and it doesn’t mention the possibility f imposing tighter controls on land management. From what I understand the point Giles is making is that bad land management is not necessarily associated just with a particular form of grouse shooting and that therefore there is an argument to place tighter controls on it irrespective of whether it is done to support driving grouse to guns.
To me that seems rather reasonable and all I see is people attacking him rather than what he says.
I’ve not seen anyone make any sensible case against the content of his statements – have you?
Earnest’s implication he is ill is just the lowest of such personal attacks.
Alan – try reading this https://www.amazon.co.uk/Inglorious-Conflict-Uplands-Mark-Avery/dp/1472917413?ie=UTF8&*Version*=1&*entries*=0
‘Bad land management is not necessarily associated with just a particular form of grouse shooting’ – no, it isn’t. But it is necessarily associated with that particular form of grouse shooting (as are a bunch of other things) – and that is much more important.
Mark I haven;t got time to read an entire book right now! Does that mean you agree with Giles that all damaging land management should be restricted whether or not it is associated with grouse shooting?
Alan – in the sense that I believe that all nastiness and all lies and all wars should end, yes, of course. But that’s hardly a neat subject for one person to campaign on, is it?
Make some time Alan. It’s always best to be informed when expressing a strong opinion isn’t it?
” But that’s hardly a neat subject for one person to campaign on, is it?” I’m not sure that technical regulations on moor burning and world peace could be having an equivalent breadth in terms of political goals and I am not sure anyone was asking you to campaign on issues surrounding moor burning and ecological damage from land management practices.
There was a time though when this was not just a single issue blog and such wider ecological and environmental issues were pertinent topics of discussion.
I am probably just mistily reminiscing though.
Alan I’m a member of a small online discussion group – some of the members of which have posted on here on occasion partly prompted by me. We have both ‘antis’ and ‘pros’ on here. Having persuaded several ‘antis’ that actually gunning down wild mammals was not the only sensible option when flushed by dogs they agreed to write to Mark’s colleague Tom Quinn at LACS asking him whether they agreed. They got a promise from LACS that Tom would respond within a week.
Needless to say he didn’t – despite a few further requests.
Now why would LACS not be able to state their view on chasing herds of deer out of woods and then shooting them all?
I’d say that’s pretty obvious – if they said they thought that was cruel then they would be agreeing with a ‘pro’ – so obviously they cannot do that. They know the arguments I make and they know that I sometimes get stories in the press etc. They also know that the exemptions in the law I criticise are the sole reason a form of hunting that they despise carries on…
In my opinion there is a similar reason why Mark cannot actually bring himself to say if he would or would not support tighter restrictions on moor burning. Nor would he very say if he would support people who take dogs on foot into woodland and flush out wild deer having the right not to kill them.
The simpler the questions and the more obvious the answers are the less likely you are to get a response. It is really very simple.
Then of course you get responses like Ernest Moss’s which I would agree are utterly despicable.
“yes, of course” great so Mark agrees with me that where moor burning is damaging and legal tighter restrictions should be placed on it.
How about gunning down fleeing herds of deer flushed by dogs Mark is that something you feel that the law should require?
If he would like his ideas debated then he should consistently apply the following concepts;
A) brevity – make your point clearly and succinctly otherwise people will ignore you
b) courtesy – if you are rude people will tend to be rude back or (see above)
c) relevance – if you have form for going off topic -dogs/deer/dogs/deer/dogs/deer……(well, see point A again)
d) humility – probably best not to make one’s self out as being the UBERMIND. If you happen to be such an individual it really shouldn’t need pointing out but rather simply allow one’s genius to become self evident through (see point A again)
e) honesty – best to say what you mean, not try to use tricks, false identities to back you etc. Otherwise (see point A, again)
For a fun activity, see which elements fit which of your posts Giles (oh yes, I can see what i’m doing here Giles, charmingly meta, no?). Simon having a day off?
perhaps I could politely suggest you don’t repeat yourself?
giles – that was polite, but a bit rich coming from you?
‘Oh yes, I can see what i’m doing here Giles, charmingly meta, no?’ I also refer you to point D. Lesson over.
I did get the meta and the meta meta.
Everybody, please don’t feed the trolls. It only encourages them.
Or, as a wry CC commentator from the US put it (supposedly quoting advice from his farming grandfather): ‘Never try to teach your pig to dance. Pigs don’t dance. They don’t want to learn how to dance or anything else. It wastes your time, it’s dangerous and it drives everybody mad.’
I’m sure grouse shooters don’t want Mark’s ‘ban’ however what is crucial to them is that their sport can continue in a modified form. For this reason the continuation of intensive land management practises and predator control – including illegal BOP killing is crucial. That is the real battle behind all this. What they dread most of all is their achilles heal being attacked and this is intensive land management which cannot be concealed. How best to preserve these practises? Simple – use online web sites and forums to whip weak minded people up into a frenzy by arguing FOR intensive land practises to be better regulated.
When the Hunting Act came in it was vital to the hunting fraternity that the law was framed so that it allowed hunting to continue so how to get anti hunters such as RSPCA and LACS to actually defend the right to hunt. Simple – use online web sites and forums to whip weak minded people into a frenzy by attacking the very aspects of the law which you want to support – the very clauses that allow hunting – especially stag hunting to continue.
The funny thing is you can even tell people exactly what you are doing and why. LACS/RSPCA were actually made to go into court and DEFEND the exemption which not only enables stag hunts to chase and kill deer but REQUIRES them to kill the deer.
So when you read LACS wittering on about a stag hunt flushing and chasing deer with dogs to kill them remember that is precisely what they are manipulated into supporting.
And when you read about the next Bowland Betty and see the pall of smoke hanging over our uplands and hear the shots ringing out as dead and wounded grouse thud against the ground – remember that was what you were manipulated into supporting the continuation of. And don’t forget you were actually told what was being done at the time.
Reverse psychology coupled with weak leadership and the madness of crowds especially online ones is a very powerful combination.
Hunting continued after certain technical changes to how animals are hunted. Grouse shooting will continue after certain technical changes to how they are shot.
Oppose grouse shooting – stop moor burning.
Oppose stag hunting – ban deer being chased and then legally having to be shot dead.
Based on the Hunting Act 2004:
PART 1
OFFENCES
1 Grouse shooting
A person commits an offence if he shoots grouse, unless his shooting is exempt.
2 Exempt shooting
(1) Shooting is exempt if it is within a class specified in Schedule 1.
(2) The Secretary of State may by order amend Schedule 1 so as to vary a class of exempt shooting.
3 Shooting: assistance
(1) A person commits an offence if he knowingly permits land which belongs to him to be entered or used in the course of the commission of an offence under section 1.
(2) A person commits an offence if he knowingly facilitates the commission of an offence under section 1.
4 Shooting: defence
It is a defence for a person charged with an offence under section 1 in respect of shooting to show that he reasonably believed that the shooting was exempt.
SCHEDULES
SCHEDULE 1
EXEMPT SHOOTING
Walked up grouse shooting
1 (1) Shooting grouse, is exempt hunting if the conditions in this paragraph are satisfied.
(2) The first condition is
(a)… [this is where you can specify the differences between walked up and driven grouse shooting]
(2) The second condition is
(a)…
(b)…
Caspar – you’ve got the job!
So grouse shoots will be able to continue the practices which this campaign is meant to be about and just have to comply with a technical restriction on how the grouse are put into the air to be shot.
Grouse shoots can simply convert to a far more intensive form of walked up grouse shooting.
And you are modelling the law on the Hunting Act which has the LACS head of investigations blogging about how he is standing watching the staghounds hunt and kill deer in accordance with the law he drafted which specifically contains a section allowing them to.
What a farce.
I have to say the reverse psychology of the hunting act does rathe seem to be at play. They were told of all the problems with the law and that just stiffened their resolve to keep them in. They knew the law was an ass and they knew people would be able to openly flout it because it was ridiculous.
This whole campaign will (or will not) end up in one thing – and that is the document that Casper has started to draft. It’s time you filled in the blanks Mark. Then we can see and debate exactly what impact the changes would have and the grouse industry can prepare to make the necessary changes.
Can you fill in the blanks in Casper’s draft Mark?
EXEMPT SHOOTING
Walked up grouse shooting
1 (1) Shooting grouse, is exempt hunting if the conditions in this paragraph are satisfied.
(2) The first condition is
(a)... [this is where you can specify the differences between walked up and driven grouse shooting]
(2) The second condition is
(a)...
(b)...
Seeing as you are a fan of philosophy, Giles, allow me an Old Skool digression. As a model (if fictional) of Socratic (pronounce So Crates al la Bill and Ted if you prefer) Method I don’t think one could find finer than Columbo. So..
(Columbo) ‘just one more thing’
(you) ‘Yes detective?’
(Columbo) ‘You said, and I quote “Maybe you are pretending to be me Jimmy or I you – who knows or even cares?”
(you) ‘And? I don’t really see the relevance’
(Columbo) ‘But Dr Avery merely suspected you and Simon C might be one and the same, no one else mentioned Jimmy’
I think there was traditionally then a confession, some pleasantries, perhaps a quip, and then the closing credits.
My God you have proved by a process of pure deductive reason that you are in fact me pretending to be you!
Hang on isn’t there a flaw here. If you were me pretending to be you how can we be sure that you are not pretending to be me pretending to be you pretending to have proved that you are me pretending to be you?
Comments on this blog post are now closed: 140 comments, 30 from Giles – he needs a rest.