I drove to North Wales on Wednesday and drove back on Thursday, and then I drove to Essex on Friday to talk to the Essex Birdwatching Society and then on to Hertfordshire on Friday night where on Saturday I was on an authors’ panel at a Badger Trust conference. So in four days I met three groups of people who would be expected to be sympathetic to the cause of banning driven grouse shooting – and they were.
I was surprised at how many people were really well clued up on the facts of the campaign and how many of them had followed the debate last week live or had caught up with it one way or another. The people I met were energised by the fact that we had got this subject to parliament and even more energised by the behaviour of some MPs in the debate. For many, it was a real eye-opener.
Some have said that the debate was a bad advert for democracy but I wouldn’t really agree with that. We, 123,077 of us, got this subject into parliament and into a debate – that is the power of the people in a democratic society. The fact that some MPs behaved badly, and/or talked nonsense, is a reflection on the quality of some MPs rather than on the petitions process. And yes, I will come back to the behaviour of Steve Double and Charles Walker and others after a little while.
But it is very obvious that those who have supported the campaign to ban driven grouse shooting, alongside many who wish to see it considerably reformed, are still looking to make progress and have not slunk away and do not have their tails between their legs.
In some ways the rudeness and intransigence of the grouse shooting industry, and in some cases the MPs who support them, has fired up those who wish to see change in the uplands. I know of four groupings of people and organisations who are having their own separate discussions about how to make further progress on this issue. Things may go quiet for a while (or they may not!) but don’t imagine that nothing is happening.
And thank you to all of you who have sent me messages on your thoughts for what next – I read them all and they make me feel proud to be involved with you all.
[registration_form]
I’m in catchup mode again.
Having just read Martin Harper’s blog entry on the subject and found nothing on the BTO website I’ll reiterate the need to first sort out your major conservation groups! Stop funding them until they start delivering what’s written on the tin!!
I’ve also just caught up with the latest episode of “The Missing” in which Baptiste states “if many people help in holding up the sky, you won’t feel so tired”. Where are the million voices for nature?
Re the BTO, PD, yes at times, I’ve thought ‘why don’t they say something?’ about a number of subjects. But then I have to remind myself that is not what they are here for. If they ‘sided’ with any cause, the opposition to that case would no longer trust what their research and records stated. As they are totally impartial, in all cases, but just give the facts that years of robust scientific research and recording show, then their results can be taken as showing the true situation re numbers, populations etc. Even governments trust what they say, and that counts for a lot!
Mairi, I agree that it’s not as clear cut with the BTO. My case with them is the type of “stuff” they research. I used to get their research mags and found myself wondering about some of projects, hence my comment to Mark re sexing Skylarks.
I asked them for help regarding tagging Turtle Doves on behalf of the Ornithological society I was part of. They passed me onto the RSPB who didn’t respond! So I pressed and eventually got some patronising claptrap that basically said no can do. The RSPB later asked me (and a million others) for money to fund tagging Turtle Doves!! I still have the emails.
Not great is it when they turn away people who are (or were) motivated to lend a hand? In my opinion that is where it all goes wrong and we get the “State of Nature” reports we get.
We get enraged when MPs don’t listen. What is the difference?
Regarding information on the BTO website, PD, please see the summary of what is known about Hen Harrier populations.
Regarding Turtle Dove tagging, my colleagues will have referred you to RSPB because they are the organisation with direct experience of tagging that species. No single NGO has the resources to research (and ultimately, seek to address) the causes of decline for all migrant bird populations that are falling. Naturally, there is a combination of sharing experise, and of specialising: BTO are working on Cuckoos and Swifts, for example, whilst Turtle Dove happens to be one of the species RSPB are focussing on.
Hi Nick, I know you to be a top man and my criticisms are not aimed at the individual but at the organisational level.
You point to an interesting piece of research but I was looking for references to the parliamentary debate. I do take Mairi’s point about the delicate position the BTO have to maintain.
Re Turtle Doves, I contacted the BTO in response to an invitation to submit project ideas which the BTO were apparently prepared to invest money and expertise. I was, at the time desperately trying to get my local group to expand their horizons and actually do something with the not insignificant accumulated funds they had languishing in a current account.
Previously I’d spent 4 years of my life developing mapping software for the Gloucestershire and Arran Atlases. I was very committed to doing something, anything within my power to help reverse the declining fortunes of many species. I’m afraid the attitudes of my local group and the frustrations of trying to engage with the RSPB particularly, killed that off!
I understand you need to defend the BTO but having witnessed the difficulties experienced by Mark, where do we go from here in protecting our precious wildlife in your opinion? I for one would very much appreciate your personal view but realise it may be difficult.
We do need also something just to keep the issue in the public eye while the behind the scenes stuff is assembled. Even if it is just tweeting about the issue while countryfile is on and hashtagging in #countryfile and #raptorpersecution. Just to keep things tunring over and avoid losing momentum.
If the RSPB polled their membership, they’d know what we all think (although I suspect they already do know…)
So until they start representing their membership, it’s time to stop giving them money.
That’s a real shame, as it means that conservation will lose out.
But the RSPB decided already that conservation will lose out when they bottled it. They wrung their hands, sat on the fence and bent over to the establishment.
Ben, I agree. Sometimes you have to take a step backwards to move forward.
In my opinion it is far worse than that.
I think Mark,Chris and other well known fighters plus all followers will find it extremely hard to get anywhere until the RSPB stop this nonsense of “Neutral Stance On Shooting”.How can they possibly be neutral,of course all shooting of live birds and animals is cruel surely they do not have to go to university without understanding that.
My guess is that the formation of the RSPB was caused by shooting Great Crested Grebes,it could be said almost a similar situation to nowadays the Hen Harrier.
All we seem to get is the biggest load of waffle ever printed on blogs about things such as the campaigns they have been involved in.He doesn’t mention the fact that their input in those campaigns amounted to very little input and would certainly have been successful had he done nothing.
The point is until that silly Neutral Stance goes all those on the other side and those very pro MPs for shooting will privately be talking amongst themselves saying we cannot be doing wrong as RSPB is not against shooting.
Dennis, do you note the BTO are putting up some kind of defence above but not a word from the RSPB! Wouldn’t you just love to have a full and frank debate with them?
Wouldn’t it be nice if RSPB had a vote of its members if it should change its stance of Neutral on shooting.All the members I have heard think it is really bad.
RSPB is seriously letting our Hen Harriers down.
Of course should the tide turn they will take over and claim it was their success.