The shooting community lacks good losers – but they had better get better at it.
One of their current bugbears is the wave of public opinion that has carried the subject of driven grouse shooting into the Westminster parliament.
The simple fact is that only 38 petitions have been debated in this session of parliament (since September 2015). Our petition will be the 40th a week on Monday (31 October).
This is clearly not what the shooting industry would want – even though there is little chance that this government will ban driven grouse shooting – but government may, if sensible, recognise that the status quo, particularly on wildlife crime, is entirely unsatisfactory and a vote loser. Government may, if sensible, also realise that doing something is likely to help keep a lid on this subject whereas doing nothing will only lead to an increase in pressure.
Amanda Anderson was attempting to claim that a rival e-petition in favour of driven grouse shooting was doing well. The facts, as so often is the case, prove Amanda wrong. After two months and a week, that petition idles at 21,359 signatures. After two months and a week our e-petition stood at over 38,000 signatures. No wonder the Moorland Association think that grouse moors are good for wildlife – they get a bit confused by numbers. It’s also worth noting that the s0-called rival petiton has only added c3000 signatures in the last three weeks so it’s not doing very well which is probably why a cry for help is going out now in the shooting press to try to drum up some support. Fieldsports magazine, in their newsletter, sound a bit desperate when they say ‘this number needs to increase’. I’m sure it will.
But the Countryside Alliance, naturally, goes for the ‘slag ’em off’ option. Whereas the Hawk and Owl Trust regard us as eco-activists and eco-zealots, the CA’s Liam Stokes thinks this:
‘The manufactured support that led to the petition to ban driven grouse shooting being signed by 100,000 people is not reflective of the true priorities of the British public. It was achieved through the support of animal rights organisations and with the help of Mark Avery’s friend Chris Packham, who used the platform provided to him by the BBC to actively promote the petition.’
You’ll be able to see what I think of Chris Packham in November’s Birdwatch magazine (out soon) but I’d be proud to call him a mate. It’s a bit rude of Liam to attempt to consign Ian Botham to obscurity though – the head-to-head on the Today programme (with those errors about breeding waders remember) helped our petition pass the 100,000 barrier so quickly. Sir Ian ought to share a little bit of the celebrity credit.
And, of course, the BBC did not give Chris a platform to promote the e-petition.
[registration_form]
Forgive me if I should know this; it’s a genuine question.
Has the MA/GWCT /Grouse industry ever stated why they think there are no hen harriers left on grouse moors? I’m not aware that they have disputed the figures, so its not illegal persecution it must be something else. What do they assert that that might be?
I can see three logical positions for them; one, that the survey records are wrong and there are in fact loads more birds of prey than have been counted by NE, RSPB, and everyone else. The “no problem” solution. I’m not aware that they have advanced this argument, but if they have please advise. If this is their argument – that all the survey data is politically motivated and unreliable – then why aren’t they commissioning and publishing their own robust research to debunk what they claim are dodgy official figures? If they can afford YFTB they can easily afford to do some homework of their own.
Two, that the economic and social value of grouse shooting is so high that the correct response is to protect the industry by legalising what is the de facto current practice – ie to allow large scale killing of BoP (some obvious difficulties with this one, but it’s logically consistent with the emphasis they place on the importance of the industry, and the general overriding national interest defence of damaging developments and activities that governments of both parties have tended to promote). Call it the pragmatic/economy first response. Of course this does involve an admission of illegal activity now, but it wouldn’t be the first time that the law has been changed to recognise reality rather than continue to challenge it.
Three; that something else is killing all the birds of prey, in which case what might that be? The “nowt to do with me, gov’nor ” response.
Have I missed something here? Does the grouse industry have an alternative explanation? Or are they actually pushing for an extensive legalisation of culling of BoP on grouse moors?
Anyone noticed something from the industry spokespeople that I’ve missed?
jwc – BASC seemed to think that disappearing male Hen Harriers last year were scared away by the people guarding them!
GWCT and MA would presumably find it difficult to dispute since they were on the Defra group that came up with the plan to save the Hen Harrier that involves boxing them up and shipping them off the moors.
And then there is the infamous ‘If we let them in…’ quote from the Moorland Association.
But one might have thought that a bit of firmer questioning yesterday would have got to the bottom ofm their views on that. It didn’t happen.
Just finished watching the debate where Stokes and Anderson were given the soft soap treatment by all except Angela Smith (if you lived here Angela I’d vote for you!). Stokes simpering comments re the we love grouse moors petition tended to miss out the point that it has received considerably higher support and promotion from field sports organisations from the start than the BDGS petition ever did from conservation and environmental organisations with a few notable exceptions. And it’s still trailing – maybe other sections of the shootin set see DGS as an albatross around their neck. Also in its initial form where it spoke of the ‘Countryside Alienate’ and how grouse moors were vital for the protection of the ‘stone curlew’ was actively disavowed by some in the huntin, fishin, shootin set – one ex gamekeeper said it was actually a dummy petition to hurt their credibility. I thought their comments re contribution of DGS to upland grouse shooting were pathetic – where you get it there’s not much scope for much else especially serious eco tourism.
Not a very supportive industry if a 20 year old gamekeeper has had to do it all by himself as implied…
I’m sure I saw the Countryside Alliance promoting the ‘counter petition’
The point Messrs Anderson and Stokes were making specifically on the relative numbers of signatures of the two petitions, is that this is your third BanDGS petition, that your first petition registered over 6 months 22k signatures, and that the Protect DGS petition, with just 2 months on the clock, has amassed 21k signatues, with a further four months to run. (The second registered some 33k.) More generally, Stokes was making the point that in an age of Twitter, social media etc., which you have very effectively used with 140 character so called ‘facts’ on DGS, hitting 123k signatures (on the third attempt mind) is all fine and well, though whether government policy can possibly ever be made on the basis of on-line petitions is surely debate-able.
Justin S O – welcome to this blog. Yes I understand that point but it is of course a foolish one. If it weren’t for my petition then there is no way that the other, poorly performing one, would have reached even its current low level. Evidence for that comes a bit further down this post where it is mentioned that fieldsports interests are trying to catch up on numbers because they don’t want it to look like they have a low level of support. Maybe they will catch up – but they aren’t doing at all well so far. I guess you’ve signed though?
Justin S O
Let’s conclude they achieve their 100k then real conservation can speak again in Westminster, the more publicity this issue gets and the more criminality linked to DGS is exposed the better?
Justin. Does it matter how many attempts you make. This was an issue virtually no one had heard of in 2014. It is all part of education and democracy, good things wouldn’t you agree.
Read Inglorious and you will see that Andrew Gilruth (spin doctor of at least 2 grouse lobbies) started a counter petition to Mark’s first which reached half of Mark’s and you surely don’t believe the counter petition running now was not supported by every pro-DGS organisation under the sun.
I do think the ‘pro’ grouse shooting petition has been very lucky indeed. They have been granted a debate in Parliament without achieving the required 100,000 signatures, purely by hanging onto the coat-tails of the ‘ban’ petition.
To say ‘celebrities’ supporting the ‘ban’ should not voice their opinions, when obvious ‘pro’ supporting ‘celebrities’ are doing just that is a comment only fit for the infant school playground.
Justin. Just curious but would you be writing the same comment if the grouse lobby petitions had out-numbered Mark’s by say 10 to 1 or even 2 to 1?
Is anyone suggesting ‘government policy can possibly ever be made on the basis of on-line petitions’. Not sure if you were joking when you add ‘is surely debate-able’.
Are you suggestion that the government petitions, debate and therefore democracy are a waste of time? That appears to be the claim of the MA/CA spin doctor machine going by whats-his-name’s snide aside on the government tv. He doesn’t appear to have a very high regard for the intelligence of MPs (which could be right judging by the hearing) but also of us the public (which many of us are determined to prove wrong).
If it was an actual ‘point’ as you say, wouldn’t it be in their written submission? It appeared to me to be something that was so ridiculous it couldn’t be used as an actual ‘point’ so had to be spun in somewhere a bit like a cunning barrister slipping something to the jury as an aside before the judge or opposing barrister can object. Inadmissible evidence. Actually virtually all his and Anderson’s answers were more of the same, anecdotes without evidence
Luckily it just makes them look like idiots. I am surprised you can’t see that.
But as Mark mentions they appear to be bad losers and i think he means that it would be a very safe bet that they would say the opposite if they were more popular. That’s spin for you. We have science.
And, of course, the BBC did not give Chris a platform to promote the e-petition.
Mark, where did this notion come from? It must be based on something – but I missed it.
Tom – just habit I think.
The BBC through the countryfile programme gave a programme or part of it over to the benefits of game keepers with absolutely no mention of the illegality of some game keepers. At no time during Springwatch this year were the illegal killing of hen harriers or the petition to Ban driven grouse shooting mentioned. The countryfile programme also had a piece on the benefits of wildlife on a grouse moor though from what I remember they only showed a red grouse. They also had a piece on mountain hares where they had difficulty in filming them but no mention of the huge numbers killed on grouse moors.
Joan, to be fair to the Beeb, they can’t go around making unsubstantiated claims of illegality against individuals or as a group as a whole. If you have irrefutable evidence maybe you should act on it? It would go a long way to resolving this issue!
Yes they can when all the science proves it to be the case in the general sense. What unsubstantiated claims did Joan make?
Anand, might be worth rereading Joan and my exchange or alternatively seek the advice of a solicitor or CAB in case you were ever tempted to make allegations without substantive evidence.
Do you want to give us an example of where Chris in his employment on contract within the BBC mentioned anything supporting a ban on driven grouse shooting? It’s the BBC that uses Chris because of his abilities including the integrity that gives him a great deal of public respect without and outside of his BBC work and also means he would not abuse his position in the first place. If those same qualities give him a great deal of credence with the general public, well that’s democracy. If the proponents of driven grouse shooting cannot provide an equivalent spokesperson instead of the paid and disingenuous representatives it inflicted upon us at the parliamentary hearing then it needs to reflect upon that, because it says do much to the rest of us.
I don’t even understand why we are supposed to buy into the meme that he can’t give his views on air. Andrew Neil does it every time he opens his mouth.
[I have to admit to not watching news for several years for this very reason but when i did every news anchor or reporter was expressing views no matter how subliminally. From what i read it has only gotten worse.]
Buying into this false ‘balance’ is why we have brexit and the worst level climate denial (or is it the second) in the world.
PD. Since no ‘unsubstantiated claims’ have been made i can only infer what you mean from Joan’s comment.
She made two claims ‘no mention of the illegality of some game keepers’ and ‘no mention of the huge numbers [of Mountain Hares] killed on grouse moors.’
These aren’t unsubstantiated, the first is in the RSPB crime reports and the second is boasted about by the grouse lobby with photographic evidence in the public domain. The second isn’t illegal.
The RSPB make claims all the times about the criminal activity of grouse moors in general so the BBC could if it weren’t so biased.