Many of you will have received a letter like this one which I got via my MP.
It looks like Defra is retreating on several areas thanks to Firm Briefing. There is no claim about how well Defra has done in funding the NWCU. No mention of the scale of financial benefit of driven grouse shooting which is now just ‘significant’ (as if it were!). There isn’t much defense of driven grouse shooting – but there is further to go.
I wrote to my MP asking for clarification of these issues from Defra on Tuesday but I will post the letter I send, in case you’d like to use it to get back to your MP too, this evening. That will give you the weekend to email or write to your MP if you wish, and will give the grouse shooting industry some work to do over the weekend…
Firm Briefing!
[registration_form]
What on earth does she mean “food and fibre”? Grouse shooing’s contribution to wholemeal bread or Kellogg’s All Bran?! (other breakfast cereals are available).
Heroic of the minister to gently “encourage” all those involved to “follow best practice”; “I say chaps, if would be awfully good of you if you could just not bring a beautiful bird of prey to the edge of extinction as a breeding species in England…”
Also how dare the government claim it’s “their position” that people should be free to undertake lawful activities – it’s something a bit more important than one government for five years on 27% of those eligible to vote or whatever it was; it’s called common law, it wasn’t invented by Conservative Central Office and whatever civil servant happened to have been fast tracked to work in this or that policy unit … honestly, the bare faced cheek of these people!
Shame the petition has closed, if it was still open this risible reply would probably be worth another 1,000 signatures…
Apologies for the rant, Dr M Avery of something something something Northants, keep up the great work! Firm Briefing!!
“food and fibre”
Wonk-speak for meat and wool
Since I politely debunked my MP’s first standard letter 2 weeks ago I’ve heard not a peep from him beyond acknowledgement of receipt of my second email. Not impressed.
I offered/requested to meeting him to save us both future correspondence – I wonder if I should/can try to book a place at a constituency surgery.
Any thoughts?
Much like ‘sustainable development’ before it I fear the term ‘ecosystem services’ is set to be used as a justification for all sorts of things in the future. I’ve seen the term being used to claim grouse moors are great places for the environment (possibly via the Moorland Association?). I continue to believe, as I have for years, that ecosystem services is a term environmentalists should back away from before they end up in a really sticky debate over the term. That said, it is worth noting that this reply doesn’t actually say grouse shooting delivers any ecosystem services, only that uplands do.
Semantics aside, I’m glad Mark views this reply as an improvement. Personally I still think it shows a pretty appalling failure by DEFRA to recognise the issues at play here, but perhaps that shouldn’t surprise me.
Strange letter.
It refers to grouse shooting, rather than driven grouse shooting.
And it states that grouse shooting takes place in upland areas (who knew?), and then goes on to extol the benefits, not of grouse shooting, but of the upland areas themselves.
I think what has to be emphasised is that it is driven grouse shooting, with all the excesses that it entails, that is being questioned, rather than the notion of grouse shooting itself. That cuts the feet from a lot of the romantic, ‘it’s an integral part of our heritage’ arguments that are likely to be deployed by the shooting industry.
I replied to my Conservative MP using a variation of your Firm briefing as she had sent me the standard Central Office bilge but had left out the part about fighting wildlife crime, interesting for an MP working to increase sentences for those convicted of dangerous driving. Since then nary a peep. Maybe conference season is more important? Can’t say as I see a DEFRA retreat in that reply you have received, more a case of them keeping their powder dry.
Seems quite divetsionary. Rather than acknowledging that there the petition asks for a review of legal status the minister sticks to ‘people can do any legitimate activity they like’ approach.
We know that minister, we are asking for a review of the legitimacy and if the claimed benefits.
Lots of unsubstantiated clains regarding ecenomic and ecological benefits as always.
The continually repeated line that the ‘government’s position is that people should be free to undertake lawful activities should they wish to do so” is particularly irritating. It completely avoids the question of whether something that is currently lawful should be made unlawful because the harm it does outweighs any benefits. It is NOT the government’s position that anything that is currently lawful should always remain so – witness its efforts to make ‘legal highs’ illegal.
I’d say Coffey’s response is also disrespectful in that, aside form a throwaway comment about participants being encouraged (!) to follow best practice, it utterly fails to even acknowledge that grouse shooting has a case to answer for persistent wildlife crime, widespread damage to peat deposits and associated fauna and flora, polluting water supplies and exacerbating flood risks in the valleys.
I still have not had a reply from my MP – apart from the standard acknowledgment. Still nothing unusual about that. The previous incumbent of the seat was excellent and always replied with an excellent letter fairly quickly. I am disappointed if this is the response I can expect.