Everybody wants a debate – bring it on

Mark 9 Comments

NotsoGlorious-2[3]In a fair piece of reporting, the Daily Telegraph covered the arrival of our e-petition at over 100,000 signatures. That was yesterday wasn’t it – seems ages ago now!

Nice photo of Henry too!  He’ll be unbearable!

Ian Gregory of YFTB, who has done so much to help get us to the 100,000 signature threshold, says that he ‘…would welcome a debate because there is is such a strong ecological case for grouse moors.’.  Yeh – right.

Next the Countryside Alliance and RSPB will be joining together to promote our e-petition to their memberships just to get a debate on the subject. It’s nice to have brought everyone together so effectively.

That e-petition, which delivers a debate that the grouse shooting industry apparently wants, is still available for all to sign. And now stands at 105,529 signatures.

 

[registration_form]

9 Replies to “Everybody wants a debate – bring it on”

  1. But why would anyone give any credence whatsoever to YFTB? They don’t want to debate anything, they just want to discredit the RSPB. That’s their mission.

    1. I re-read the YFAB website again last night; i’d forgotten just how staggering inept it was. Seriously, (very rich) people are actually paying money for this;

      http://www.youforgotthebirds.com/

      I’m not sure what my favorite bit is; the Red Squirrel described as a bird? Or the mind-bendingly surreal donkey sanctuary themed piece entitled ‘RSPB: Not Good For
      Dinner Parties’;

      http://www.youforgotthebirds.com/monday

      Well, let’s not say they didn’t warn us; the logo’s at the top various pages read:

      YFTB: giving normality a miss
      YFTB: Hen Harrier Hypocrisy
      YFTB: Giving Nature a Bullet

  2. Now now Mark, let’s take the gentleman at his word?

    After all I for one and I’m sure there are others who would love to see their independently peer reviewed ‘evidence’?

    Ecological case, you can imagine the fag-packet with BTO Report scribbled on it and other such erroneous nonsense offered?

    What I would love to see them provide is the socio-economic case in favour particularly, which offers explanation in terms of moorland management for grouse shooting impact on drinking water quality, exacerbation of flooding etc.? That is to say a full and complete cost benefit analysis of the impact of their ‘sport’. One might reasonably expect an appendix to provide the details of the public subsidies they get? This will assist the discussion in Parliament in due course about public benefit from public spend?

    The CA have assisted greatly as have YFTB, MA et. al. by fielding dodgy spin?

    15:00 – 105,967!

  3. Derbyshire Dales joins the 400 Club! So, looking at a minimum of 4 local constituencies finishing over 400 signatures, and at least one over 500;

    High Peak – 477
    Derbyshire Dales – 401
    Sheffield Central – 364
    Sheffield Hallam – 349

    Worth noting that the top two are rural, Central is urban, and Hallam is mixed. Also worth noting the dire litany of raptor persecution (well documented, including in the courts) on local grouse moors particularly (but far from exclusively) in High Peak.

  4. I take it that Ian Gregory has taken up your invite to a debate at the Birdfair then?

    1. Let ’em field ‘Sir@ again, oh what fun ….

      AA might offer placatory dribble as she hands out toxic lead burgers, we must get that photograph of her & AG sharing one;)

      I really should stop blogging and get on with some serious correspondence but you just couldn’t make it up … assume many will have seen ‘windfarms ‘ blamed for more missing GEs?

  5. What we need to find out, is just how much of the £3 BILLION / year subsidy, actually goes to shooting estates ?? If we can find that information ? then I believe that the whole country will be behind this petition.

    Why are we, the tax payer, subsidising wealthy landowners, to pursue an environmentally damaging elitist hobby?

    Please do sign the Scottish petition to licence game bird shooting. I agree that it ios not what we want, but it is more pressure, and will have the Scottish government debate the issue.

    https://www.parliament.scot/GettingInvolved/Petitions/PE01615

      1. Thanks for that, and for the link. I find myself deeply suspicious, that £17.3 million is all they get ?( which will rise to £32.3 million, with the increase from £30 to £56 in 2015 ) I wonder if that figure included ‘Rural development grants’, which can be huge. Also with the practice of using a flock of sheep as ‘tick mops’, will that then add ‘agricultural grant money’ ? Then one has to look at Forestry grants, again a huge sum of tax payers money, paid to plant trees, no bad thing, but who takes the eventual harvesting profit ?

        Then you have the claim that grouse moors spend £100 million ” of their own money”, ‘maintaining and improving’, Who’s money ? is this verifiable ?

        A lot of research still to be done.

Comments are closed.