It’s certainly not my place to be setting out the RSPB’s position on driven grouse shooting but there have been signs, some public and some less obvious, that the RSPB is losing patience with driven grouse shooting and with Defra.
Let’s just recognise that the RSPB has come a long and slightly difficult way since the beginning of 2016. The year more or less started with the RSPB welcoming the Hen Harrier Inaction Plan after months of steadfast refusal to have anything to do with brood-meddling. It looked like the RSPB had been worn down by the combined forces of Defra and the grouse shooting industry and had, wrongly, believed that things might change if the RSPB reluctantly went along with the Inaction Plan.
Once signed up to the Inaction Plan the RSPB had to toe the line but events made that impossible as many of us suspected they would. Things didn’t get off to a good start with pole-traps being set on the open moor of a prominent grouse moor owner and disappearing harriers and a slump in English Hen Harrier pairs to just the three pairs (none on driven grouse moors).
Then there was Brexit which was a shock to us all, but particularly to the wildlife and environment NGOs, and of course Defra said ‘no thanks’ to doing anything at all on lead ammunition at this time too. So much for the traction that the RSPB thought it had with Rory Stewart who was now, in any case, gone.
At the same time, our e-petition to ban driven grouse shooting was doing better than in two previous attempts, and before any Hen Harrier chicks had fledged we were heading towards Hen Harrier Day when four events would be held at RSPB nature reserves, with RSPB senior staff present, and they would have to face crowds of unbelieving faces if they publicly praised the Hen Harrier Inaction Plan under these circumstances. Something had to give, and the RSPB, rightly, pulled out of the Inaction Plan.
Our e-petition whizzed onwards and upwards and, just a week after Hen Harrier Day, passed the 100,000 signature barrier. Now we were heading towards a Westminster Hall debate where the RSPB could wheel out the arguments for licensing, and they did, to some extent, but not in much detail and not with any real support from opposition MPs when it came down to it. In the actual debate the RSPB got a lot of unfair criticism from a whole bunch of Tory MPs and the minister herself held out no hope at all for any change in approach on any front and indeed appeared to be a Countryside Alliance mouthpiece quite untroubled by the evidence provided by the RSPB, you, me and hundreds of others.
And that, I’m sure, is why Martin Harper’s blog last week was strongly worded and why we saw a tough Investigations blog too. These things don’t happen by accident.
Let’s hope that the tougher tone lasts, and isn’t simply a result of feeling a bit miffed for a while but is the result of understanding that the RSPB will not get anywhere with this industry and with Defra by laying out the facts and being patient. Defra must feel some political pain from their current intransigent position and that must be the RSPB plan.
Therese Coffey, the grouse shooting industry and the 20 or so Conservative MPs who spoke in the Westminster Hall debate – and those three groups did seem to be of one mind on all the issues – failed to prick our balloon or burst our bubble. By ignoring the evidence of the seriousness of wildlife crime, of the inadequacy of current approaches, the evidence of wider environmental damage and the flawed nature of the economic analysis of the benefit of grouse shooting, then the minister dug herself deeper into the hole that Rory Stewart had begun.
So for the rest of us, this is definitely the time to encourage the RSPB to prove to us that it can rise to this challenge. That encouragement can take a number of forms but I agree with those who say ‘Stick with the RSPB and encourage them to take a harder line’ rather than leave in droves over this issue. And let’s remember, it is an issue and 123,000 of us have made it an issue. And it’s an issue that won’t go away. I think that the RSPB has realised that and have probably decided to dig in and make this a long battle for reform. It will be a battle and it will be quite long. But (can you guess what comes next?) we will win!
[registration_form]
Excellent blog Mark, and we will win against the privileged and the vested interests. We must never give up.
Alan Parfitt
I have always believed that we could win in all the years I have been involved in harriers. There was a false dawn in the nineties when things appeared to be getting better but that was utterly destroyed by the ” Langholm Report” and estates went back to the bad old days of total intolerance of harriers, peregrines, goshawks and shorties. As long as we are firm and keep applying the pressure in this day of multi media exposure their mainstream friends cannot protect them forever and we will certainly win. It will take time and effort with probably some of us not living to see it but it will happen.
I disagree. I have resigned my membership because the RSPB not only does nothing but argues it can’t because its constitution says so. The RSPB emailed me by return and said that as a charity it cannot do anything other than sit on the fence, which is rubbish. I pointed them to the League Against Cruel Sports as an example. I was met by a response of deafening silence. The RSPB have refused to take stand and continue to maintain they can’t or won’t. Therefore they deny their origin, their own name Protection of Birds, and by doing so continue to do nothing. I have a choice where to place my money and support, and until they amend their constitution and get of the fence it will not be with them.
Blythe – that’s not quite right. The RSPB charter means that it cannot be anti-shooting on moral grounds (and it would take a change in the charter to change that – possible but difficult) but it can oppose anything that conflicts with the society’s charitable objects which are to conserve wildlife and their habitats.
The RSPB Chair, Prof Steve Ormerod, wrote this (on this blog https://markavery.info/2014/08/18/guest-blog-reply-hen-harriers-grouse-shooting-chair-rspb-council/) back in August 2014 in response to these issues:
‘We note the success of your petition and the public desire for action to save the hen harrier and the upland habitats on which it depends. However, we do not consider a call for a ban on grouse shooting to be the right step. This is not because we are constrained by our Charter or our charitable objects, but rather because we think the next rational step from self-regulation is regulation. We also think that the introduction of a licensing system is a proportionate measure in the absence of self-regulation by the shooting industry. Arguably, any legally compliant business would also benefit from such a system as it would prevent unfair competition from those that cause environmental damage as they seek to increase the shootable surplus of grouse.’
That was over two years ago and the RSPB’s approach cannot have given them much reason for hope since then. That may be why the tone has hardened – that’s a good sign.
I respect your decision to leave the RSPB (and I hope (and rather suspect) you told them why you had done so) and it certainly will have sent a signal to the RSPB. But I wouldn’t encourage others to do the same but rather to ask RSPB to take firmer steps to solve this problem and to become much more active in doing so.
If (when?) the RSPB comes to terms with the fact that driven grouse shooting necessarily and inevitably damages habitats and is incompatible with the Society’s nature conservation goals then it could come out in favour of a ban on driven grouse shooting. It’s more likely that the next few years will see the RSPB spend more time pushing the line for reform – but that will be helpful in moving things on (albeit more slowly than you and I would like).
Thank you for your comment.
Blythe and Mark, you have every right to attempt to influence the setting of the RSPB position on any issue. You pay their wages (or am I assuming again?). The RSPB can change their charter full stop!
A cynic might conclude the hardening of their position correlates to increased noise here and elsewhere threatening their funding.
As a consumer, if I don’t like the service or the product provided by a supplier, I keep my hard earned in my pocket. If they turn things around I’ll give them another go, although the confidence bubble is harder to reflate than burst!
Donald Trump was on the box this morning criticising the American military response to ISIS. He pointed to the poor job they’ve performed to date and suggested he knew more about it than the top generals! It feels like that with professional conversationists. Look at the State of Nature report as well as the inaction plan for DGS.
As a guide, when a professional body appears to be keen on you money but not your involvement in problem solving, then alarm bells should start ringing.
You yourself, Mark, make you living partly from blogging (advertising income) and book sales. When somebody like me tries to get involved and suggests, for instance, an online brainstorm ideas repository plus several contributions you appear to be less interested. I note the lack of engagement and delayed moderation of comments, eg in the “Blocked” article where I suggest you aim for government office citing an old collegue of mine whose passion for her beliefs has led her to junior shadow minister status from a relatively humble beginning in industry.
I was endebted recently to a Melissa Harrison on Miles King’s “New Nature Blog” who referred to a book on Moral Psychology entitled “The Righteous Mind – Why Good People Are Divided by Politics and Religion”. The opening chapter discusses “Dumbfoundedness” when people refuse to change their “intuitive” position on an issue but can’t explain why they believe what they say they believe. Its fascinating stuff for a professional politician and/or campaigner.
PD – thank you. Please try to post your comments in relevant places rather than any old where otherwise they may not get approved.
And I don’t feel under any obligation to answer every point made here – I do trust that’s OK?
Mark, that’s why I am suggesting an ideas repository. the blog moves along at such a piece a lot of comment gets buried.
In the meantime here’s another idea. How about the RSPB organising a mass rally to Westminster, midweek, up to one million people protesting about the state of nature and pointing to the Westminster Hall debate.
You have the arguments just not the visibility!
I meant the blog moves along at such a pace! Bloody predictive text again!!
Perhaps it’s now time for a ‘Mass Trespass’ akin to that which gave Joe Public the right to roam. 123000 activists could really spoil a day’s driven grouse shooting!!
Bill, a mass rally at Westminster would attract more publicity!
Why not do both?
Non-violent direct action will certainly hit the shooting estates in the area they care most about, the wallet. Imagine all those people going for a nice walk on every estate where wildlife is persecuted (that’ll be all of them then).
Will certainly have an impact and the RSPB could certainly mobilise their members but they just don’t have the stomach for it.
Well said. But it’s not just political pain from the RSPB that’s needed, but from a wider cross-section of NGOs and the public, so this isn’t dismissed as ‘just those annoying bird people’.
Exactly, it was a very welcome step when FoE south of the border waded in with its reports on the subsidies going to grouse moors – really good that they raised the issue of how extensive the grouse moors are, the so called economic benefits and jobs look pretty dam pathetic against that. The Wildlife Trusts and various conservation organisation such as Plantlife, Bat Conservation Trust etc make objective statements from their viewpoints as to how good grouse moors are for wildlife – if there are any benefits how could they be maintained without compromising the conservation of the much wider range of habitats and species that could exist on hundreds of thousands of acres of our uplands? Acknowledging this would be a first step in getting change – certainly good to challenge all those ‘wildlife expert’ MPs at the parliamentary hearing. I keep forgetting about WWF, they should get involved and if Greenpeace supported a campaign for change in the uplands that would be the icing on the cake. Fingers crossed FoE’s recent involvement could be catalyst for this happening – very pleasant surprise and we’ve had so many nasty ones recently.
May be that’s where we have gone wrong ‘the upland habitat in which it depends’! Like Golden Plover traveling 25 miles to find food in this ‘upland habitat in which it depends’, the Hen Harrier needs a mixed habitat and if you look at most harriers on islands like Mull they don’t need heather. Paul Irthing complaining about Langholm 1 should have actually said ‘Langholm2’ as they had the chance to change the management but instead just tried to KILL every thing else to create HEATHER. Even mob stocking to trample Black Grouse ground to make more heather for guess what – Red Grouse! Sure they were supposed to be making a viable Red Grouse shoot BUT at the expense of every other species in the uplands! The head keeper had no previous experience of upland management and had obviously read the wrong book!
As for the RSPB a falling membership is just what those conservative MPs want. Well done sir.
John, “As for the RSPB a falling membership is just what those conservative MPs want.”
Did you watch the Westminster Hall debate? Seems like they’re already quite happy with the (lack of) opposition at the moment.
As Albert (Einstein) once said “Doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results……..”
John on these issues I agree with you but what increased the persecution was the publication of the report widely known as the “Langholm Study” Once owners and their keepers read the precis of this as provided by the likes of Shooting Times and GWCT etc the writing was on the wall for harriers etc. Even as late as 2004 MA said if there is a conflict between hen harriers and driven grouse shooting , grouse shooting must win.
We need to be prepared for a long nasty fight but in the end they cannot win.
I agree that the RSPB seem to be in listening mode now, and therefore as many as of us who are willing should remain and influence them from within. I suspect that they do feel under pressure from some, so the members need to embolden them and let them know that it is a bigger risk if they alienate people who love birds! We can already see that some of the opposition have infiltrated the RSPB so we should not surrender control and influence to them. There may be a time when I re-consider that position, but I do not think that time is now.
As a former RSPB Council member I don’t think there is any issue over the constitution. This is about the extinction of a bird species from England and whether the cause is habitat loss, legal use of pesticides, egg collecting or illegal persecution it is within RSPB’s remit to protect the birds. That it is shooting is incidental and if the only way to save the species is to stop an activity – whether it be the use of DDT or Grouse Shooting – RSPB should be fighting for the birds. If you want conclusive proof, just bear in mind that the Countryside Alliance who are very quick to pull any lever they can have not complained to the Charity Commission – they know they’d lose.
What has happened does reveal a serious problem not just with RSPB but across the conservation sector: first, the huge weight put on the role of Government, second the apparent assumption that the Government since 2010 will be on the side of the environment in the same way the previous Labour Government was. Thus RSPB got sucked into the Hen harrier plan and all the conservation bodies have fallen for a 25 year biodiversity plan with a quite separate plan for farming, by far the biggest single issue for conservation, running in direct opposition to the interests of wildlife.
I have never understood why anyone who cares about conservation would resign from the RSPB over a single issue. I do not agree with them over everything – notably The Lodge wind turbine – but you have only to read the Annual Review and the Trustees Annual Report to see the fantastic work they are doing. They need all the help and financial support we can give them in very challenging times.
Bob, try offering support (skills, campaigning ideas, requests for legal advice to help Turtle Doves) other than financial and see how far you get.
I’m pestering Mark to setup an ideas repository, post Rowan RIP. A place for a bit of lateral thinking that does not get buried in the blog. So far he’s not too enamored but I don’t know why. Could it be “dumbfoundedness” or that the debate has to be on his terms or not at all?
PD, DIY; if you want an ‘ideas repository’ set up why not do it yourself? I’ve moved to thinking that a direct action approach is the most likely route to achieving results in the foreseeable future, at least in England. I do see a lot of people agreeing with that method, and links that can be forged with groups that already have a lot of experience at doing the sorts of things required, but I don’t see any current organisations that would be ready or willing to organise a specific campaign focused on grouse moors. With the kind of attitude exemplified in the Grouse Shooting Debate, and other options, as yet at least, not forthcoming, then the formation of such a group, and the execution of such a strategy, is, to my mind, inevitable.
Jim, I’m more of a GABI man (Get A Bloke In). Please don’t misunderstand me!!
I’m more interested to see if it’s possible to change a campaigners paradigm in order to achieve what I assume we all want – an end to wildlife crime and harmful effects of one groups actions on others.
Where Mark is concerned, I didn’t agree with a total ban and believed rudeness, mockery and sarcasm towards anybody who disagrees with him to be self-harming. The Westminster Hall debate didn’t change my mind about this PoV but I felt extremely sorry for him after fighting so hard to get the debate off the ground. As Keith Cowieson points out on the Martin Harper blog its a rough old game.
I preferred the RSPBs licensing proposals but despaired of their apparent inability to fight hard and utilise their support base (membership). Mike Whitehouse asks some pertinent questions about their being compromised on the said Martin Harper’s blog. I’m not sure he got an answer. In the meantime, as Nightjar points out on the same blog, Hen Harriers are on the brink of extinction in England.
If the “conservationists” ever get their act together they will be an irrestible force. What could possibly more important than preservation of the natural world that sustains us?
I was sort of giving you the time of day, PD. Then you mentioned anti-raptor propagandist Keith Cowieson and I thought, nah, you’re just being GOBBY. Stop trying to ride on someone’s shirt tails while at the same time demanding they change their shirt. If you want something doing differently do it yourself, and see if you can attract your own support.
Jim, not very constructive really are you. It looks like dumbfoundedness to me.
At least Jonathan comes back with a reasoned argument. Keith Cowieson just happens to have a different opinion to you. So engage in a reasoned debate, don’t just mock and denigrate.
Is it that you guys are so used to not being challenged you just can’t hack it when you are? A case of Righteous Mindedness?
A case of I’ll be the judge of whether I’ve got the time to waste or not, and Keith ‘I’m only a humble RSPB volunteer, please don’t mention the fact that I’m director of Songbird Survival’ Cowieson is far too disingenuous to waste time on. He’d also very fond of demanding people be nice to him and then not being very nice in return. I could go on but time’s a ticking.
A do find it fascinating, though, that someone who claims to be a proponent of free speech is demanding that I must speak, that I must engage. Part of that freedom is the right to withhold speech under one’s own volition.
Jim, OK times up but do you realise that when you fail to engage reasonably and resort to denigration of those whose arguments you have no answer to then the casual observer will conclude you’ve lost?
A while back Mark couldn’t respond reasonably and called me a “Twit”! When I responded reasonably he accused me of being “Snide”!!
Oh the irony of it!
Phil Davis – calling you a twit was overwhelmingly reasonable under the circumstances.
Oh well !!
I totally agree Bob W. While I do not agree with the RSPB on this particular issue, so many of their other projects are fantastic. I for one will be sticking with them for the long term. They have so much credibility on bird conservation matters and have maintained that during the last few weeks – unlike some of the MPs on display recently.
George, could I refer you to my declining species list below. I could provide the complete list with a couple of clicks if you like?
Rachel Carson’s Silent Spring will be upon us in a fraction of a (evolutionary time) second!
I have no axe to grind here but I do find myself coming back to the question of where’s Mike? When we have high profile cases that eventually filter into mainstream media, I can’t recall seeing Mike Clarke venting his anger on behalf of the organisation he leads and the membership that he has. I wonder how many people would recognise him if he did? Even on social media I don’t see the same output that I might find from those in similar positions from say, The League of Badger Trust for instance.
I think Mike Clarke, rightly, concentrates on running the RSPB. He and Martin Harper are a very effective double act and Martin’s important blogs are usually linked from the RSPB home page. I like a CEO who gets things done – just read the Annual Review and the Trustees Report.
Rob, couldn’t agree more!
I know I’m getting on most people’s nerves on this blog and getting right up Mark’s nose (again). But those who are concerned about the state of nature have to understand we are at war here and losing. Accordingly we need leaders, generals, winners not fund raisers!
Crazy idea. What’s Barack Obama doing next Feb?
I published the following list of declining species in Marks “Debate Rules” article:
Willow Tit -92%
Tree Sparrow -92%
Grey Partridge -91%
Turtle Dove -91%
Corn Bunting -90%
Lesser Redpoll -88%
Spotted Flycatcher -87%
Woodcock -83%
Starling -78%
Yellow Wagtail -75%
Tree Pipit -75%
Lesser Spotted Woodpecker -70%
Marsh Tit -68%
House Sparrow -66%
Cuckoo -61%
Curlew -60%
The numbers came from the “Breeding Bird Survey” and published in the Gloucestershire Atlas. I know because I put the fact boxes together with Gordon Kirk (Glos BTO Representative) the joint author of the book.
We can all spot the trends. Do these guys have to become extinct in the UK before we really take the gloves off?
Ask Keith Cowieson about it, PD, apparently Sparrowhawks are eating them all.
I very much doubt that (SparrowHawks are eaing them all).
But the numbers are declining (no?) and the people who sell themselves as protecting birds and nature are therefore, logically, failing (no?) despite their undoubted best efforts (as they see them).
Is it not the case that when you are not delivering you should review the approach taken and iron out the obsticles to success. My business was delivering 100% computer systems availability. If we had a prob, we didn’t just sit back and congratulate ourselves on the good things we’d done in putting the system together. We addressed our failings and fixed ’em.
Fair enough, dealing with humans (who also share the predisposal to Righteous Mindedness) is a whole quantum leap more difficult than your average computer but you have to try (if you want to avoid nature becoming so degraded it threatens our children’s very survival) – don’t you? I know I’m trying (please don’t!).
Sir Nicholas, Geoffrey and friends aint gonna change. You have to think laterally. I’ve tried to get a brainstorm going here, where there is a ready made audience (time is ticking away) and made several contributions. Good idea (no?).
Here’s another: try reading about Thomas Fowell Buxton and how he put an end to slavery then modify your approach accordingly. I’ve already suggested Mark fight from within – stand for parliament. He’d be uniquely qualified as minister for the environment (to paraphrase Obama – no?)
& if I remember correctly the Badger Trust have just four paid employees (not all FT either).
The RSPB will keep being dismissed until they appear to be the less radical, safer option that the Government and the Grouse Shooting Industry/Hobby feels compelled to turn too. So a tough stance from the RSPB would be welcome, but it isn’t going to be listened to until it’s contrasted with a far more radical approach (that the RSPB as an organisation would never be party to); direct action, the ‘Bad (well, rather fluffy really, but one can’t help speculating on the Daily Mail coverage!) Cops’ making their appearance. Whether many of us would agree that RSPB could ever offer a compromise that would satisfactorily solve all the environmental problems that driven grouse shooting is causing is, however, a debate in itself.
Let us all keep together, stay strong and we will win. 123,000 signed the petition so let’s keep voting to get the total to 250,000; It can be done.
RSPB member. R Turner. Barnsley.
Richard, 4,149,765 signatures did not get achieve the desired “EU Referendum Rules triggering a 2nd EU Referendum”.
Good luck with your 250k and a “House” that savaged Mark’s last attempt and which was not wholly unexpected.
Fluffy, as Jim Clarke says, is not going to do the biz!
Fluffy, as in non-violent PD. I wouldn’t recommend some kind of Children’s Crusade against people armed with shotguns.
Jim, violence (along with sarcasm, name calling, mockery and abuse) is the last resort of the inadequate and I’d never advocate it also.
Learning the lessons of a failed petition, eliminating the “own goals”, utilising the talent pool represented by 123k signers, seeking alternative approaches and solutions, highlighting the failures of conservation groups rather than burying the collective head in the sand and concentrating solely on the undoubted successes, seems to me to be the way ahead.
I might be wrong but if nobody explains why I’m wrong how am I going to know?
As Martin Harper could tell you himself (or just read a few of the comments I’ve made on some of his blog posts) I’ve hardly been shy when it comes to criticising his (or the broader RSPB upper management’s) strategic thinking. I do appreciate, however, that there are limitations on the kinds of things the RSPB as an organisation can do while attempting to achieve its broader goals. Those restrictions do not, of course, apply to it’s members as individuals, who may, or may not, want to support other organisations that are not constrained in the same way as the RSPB.
Jim, I thank you for your talking to me and would refer back to my response to your DIY comment above.
And so on, PD.
We need a direct action organisation, like the Hunt Sabs and those fighting against the badger cull, dedicated to disrupting the people carrying out the illegal activities and making sure that their “legal” barbarities are closely monitored.
The question is “Are there enough people close enough to those remote locations who can take the fight to the criminals?”
Simon, you may have seen the 360 deg camera technology in action on Planet Earth II last night. Some thought it all fantasy but apparently not.
I live in hope somebody out there has picked up on the suggestion documented in other blog entries (we know they’re reading this stuff) and acted upon it?
Then there are other ideas that Mark has yet to give an airing to.
They’re all measuring sticks for action rather than inaction!
Its coming, Simon. Bear with.
By the way, while certain grouse shooting locations are rather remote, many or not. The Peak District is a good example of extremely convenient access with the potential for a massive public response. Parts of Scotland present some of the most remote areas, and with the lowest pool of potential activists (simply because of low population densities), but it’s just possible that the Scottish Government’s ongoing consultation might result in significant progress being made there without recourse to direct action.
PD : Yes that might attract some publicity…but I feel sure if thousands descended on various grouse moors on a shooting day to protest against raptor persecution the disruption would be felt in the pockets of the sellers of grouse shooting precisely where it hurts most!!
Bill, I think a Westminster rally would attract a great deal of publicity and correspondingly provide more visibility to those otherwise not engaged.
There again, why not do both?
And it’s the kind of thing that RSPB, if it had the will, could do. Though I think it would be a good thing if it happens, personally, I have reservations about just how effective it would be. Having been one of the 1-3 million people on the Stop the Iraq War March in February 2003, my anticipation is that, regardless of the numbers that a Ban Grouse Shooting March could attract, it would not effect a Government set against the participants wishes, and i’m skeptical about how much publicity would be achieved. Don’t misunderstand me, I think protests taking place remote from the locations that the actions they are protesting about are nonetheless worthwhile, I merely caution against over optimistic expectations for them.
Jim, the beauty of brainstorming is ideas lead to other ideas and in some situations you can end up with a mushroom cloud of the things. Once gathered the ideas are debated, prioritised and an action plan produced.
The one thing you should not do is reject an idea at the gathering stage and indeed no idea should be mocked (not that you are doing) because that inhibits idea generation.
Before t’internet I used to run global email and “just in time trading” solutions at a technical level. When things went wrong, especially in the early days, the pressure would be enormous and probs were diagnosed and fixed often using brainstorming techniques with considerable success. It’s simply not possible for one man to shoulder the load DIY style!
Finally grasped what you mean, PD, how silly of me; kick into the long grass.
Great blog. I just wish you wouldn’t keep posting that photo of the “Countryside Alliance mouthpiece” – it gives me the creeps.
If you live in the Bradford Council area or ever visit Ilkley and walk on Ilkley Moor, please submit your comments to the Council Consultation on the management of the said moor ( find online on Council website). They are considering whether to continue with the shooting lease and the so-called “management” for driven grouse shooting. The draft Report seems biased to continue with the shoot to my eyes. It’s the only Council which lets publicly owned land for driven grouse shooting (a syndicate run by Edward Bromet, ex-chief of Moorland Association)
Thanks
Some links and contacts, ND;
Draft management plan;
https://bradford.moderngov.co.uk/documents/s11701/Ilkley%20Moor%20Management%20Plan%20Final%20Consultation%20Draft.pdf
Emails to;
mailto:[email protected]
Sample submission here;
https://stoptheshoot.com/take-action/sample-submission/
I really wonder about the defence of Martin Harper.
All he really does either by accident or more likely by design is put what I consider a very soft blog on the RSPB community site which does not gain much publicity on the right hand side of their site with very few comments and more likely not many more readers.
Has he ever stood up at Hen Harrier days and voiced strong dislikes of what is happening,if he has I must have missed it.
Of course most comments on his blog are not critical,he will not allow it.
Ironically in the past there definitely was no enthusiasm on the community website for the Hen Harrier whereas Hen Harrier days seem to have made the fight more favourable to members,but my bet is the RSPB would claim the credit.
To be fair, Dennis, I’ve sent very direct criticism of Martin to him which has been posted on his blog. I suspect your earlier comment about lack of readers may be more accurate.
Jim, you’re very vocal here and on Martin Harper’s blog but I can’t find a submission from you on the Petitions website. Have I missed it?
Hi Richard. No, I didn’t send in an individual submission – Sheffield Bird Study Group and both of the Peak District Raptor Study Groups (to whom I regularly supply data, particularly SBSG and South Peak RSG) have access to a much greater level of detail about the local situation (not least because these groups have the members holding the Schedule 1 licenses), and over a longer a period then I do so I didn’t want to risk accidentally contradicting them.
PS. It’s one of two things I’m not sure I made the right move on during the petition process. Realistically I think I could have only added volume (rather than additional detail) in terms of an extra submission, but an extra voice is no bad thing. The inevitability of giving a less thorough, and less accurate, account tipped my decision. The other thing was not going door to door with flyers. My reasoning was that my home constituency was doing really well anyway, and that limited funds were best spent elsewhere. It would, however, have felt good to have done it, and I’m sure it would have boosted numbers.
Just a small point of correction – Martin did stand up and speak at Hen Harrier Day this year, at the event at Saltholme.
I believe there is a strong case to be made for the RSPB taking the gloves off in its dealings with the representatives of grouse shooting, since the years of pursuing a more conciliatory approach have failed to produce a change for the better. It is perfectly fair to exhort the organisation to take a tougher approach but, having read through the comments above I feel that some of the criticism is rather intemperate and unfair.
Contrary to the suggestion of all least one commenter above, the RSPB does not do nothing, but for years has been an important actor in the fight to end the persecution of raptors on grouse moors. The courage and diligence of its investigators has played a massive role in bringing to light the evidence of persecution – a mysterious decline in raptor numbers can perhaps be explained away as due to unknown causes but bodies of poisoned and shot birds, pole traps recovered from the moors and similar evidence cannot be shrugged off so easily. The organisation has also, of course, played a key part in putting pressure on government to make a change – most recently at the evidence session to the petitions committee where I felt that Jeff Knott provided excellent support to Mark and the two complemented each other effectively.
Secondly it is suggested by PD that the RSPB is guilty of “Doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results……..” but clearly that is also not true. During the course of the year, for example, it has (rightly) withdrawn from Defra’s “action plan” (a step which places considerable pressure on Defra since the involvement of such a major organisation is critical to the perceived political credibility of the plan) and, as Mark’s post points out, it has hardened its tone in statements on RSPB blogs.
The RSPB has been criticized by many for not supporting Mark’s campaign and it is true that it did not ask its members to sign his petition – but then it would have been odd for it to ask people to sign a petition demanding a ban on DGS when its own policy (rightly or wrongly) is for the introduction of licensing. It has, however, supported the campaign by hosting several hen harrier day events on its reserves at which it has also provided speakers.
In short the RSPB is an important ally in the fight to protect birds of prey from unscrupulous game managers and whilst it is perfectly fair to lobby it (and lobby hard) to adopt a tougher stance, it makes no sense to me when people suggest giving up membership of it, especially given that – as Bob W points out – this is only one of many issues where the RSPB is heavily involved in protecting wildlife and doing valuable and important work. PD may come back and point out that many birds continue to decline nevertheless but I would suggest that the position would be very much worse without the work done by the RSPB. The continuing decline of species around the world is sadly evidence of the sisyphean nature of the task of trying to stem the inexorable forces that threaten wildlife wherever it occurs.
Finally, I would suggest that by its very nature the RSPB is never going to be able to be as outspoken or as nimble as someone like Mark. Mark is beholden to no members, shareholders, board of trustees or Charities Commission and so he can say whatever he feels and is free to turn on a sixpence as far as adopting and changing tactics is concerned, whereas the RSPB has to be careful to carry all of its supporters and stakeholders with it and carefully justify the resources it expends. On the other hand the RSPB is able to do many things that Mark cannot do such as invest in research, purchase and manage nature reserves, maintain substantial investigation teams, access ministers, etc etc. In my view we need both the ‘guerilla’ campaigning of people like Mark and Jim Clarke and the more stately approach of the RSPB.
Hi Jonathan, at last somebody who’ll engage and challenge the criticisms of Mark and the RSPB.
You obviously make some very good positive points and I am in total agreement about the need to “take the gloves off”. I also fully realise that the RSPB is vital to the prospects of our wildlife which would indeed be in a far worse state without them. Indeed some of the declining species in my list would no doubt have been long gone without there sterling efforts. My criticism is that they don’t punch their weight on certain issues including DGS if we are to continue with the boxing metaphor. Put simply is it good enough to simply act as the finger in the dyke?
Specifically I think they could make far more use of the talent pool that support them financially. Of course I can only speak from my personal experiences where I felt let down by their lack of support for my initiatives. I first became aware of this at a game fair at Blenheim where I approached Mark, the then Director of Conservation, and offered my services, free of charge, in response to their call to “get involved”. Mark took my details and exclaimed “the society needs people like you”. That was the last I heard of it!
My reference to Einstein was aimed at Mark rather than the RSPB and his apparent refusal to engage with a range of ideas to seek alternative approaches to solving the problem of, specifically, Hen Harrier persecution, presumably preferring to stick with the tried but failed approach.
Mark and me ought to be mates, we appear to share similar political leanings, a love of birds and nature in general and most importantly Rugby! I started out very much in support of his “Standing up for Nature”, I made the mistake of criticising something he wrote early on. Mark Twain once said “to a man with a hammer, everything looks like a nail”! The response I got was a bit of a shock but as read more I realised this was the treatment dished to anybody who “stepped out of line” so to speak. Not the kind of thin skinned sensitivity suitable for the role he’d set himself. This was demonstrated at the Select Committee session when rebuked by the chair. I just don’t see how it helps his cause.
Whilst on the subject, the backbiting between good people in the conservation world is palpable. I’ve heard it said the RSPB and BTO do not see eye to eye. Not sure if that’s still the case. I once witnessed a guy rip into Mark at the Bird Fair, something to do with a development on the Breckland if memory serves. Keith Cowieson and Philip Merricks get the treatment and Richard Ebbs and Keith won’t be exchanging xmas cards! How does this help?
Back to the RSPB Mike Whitehouse asked a series of pertinent questions of Martin Harper on his blog including:
The RSPB are major landowners and as such receive massive government funding and subsidies, (from ordinary taxpayers). Are you compromised?
If I were a red grouse I would think that the last person to shoot me would be the Patron of the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds. Are you compromised?
I’d have liked to see a response and I’m fairly certain Mike would have also!! Mark often refuses to answer questions also. Do they not realise it looks like weakness and their real opponents will be gobbling it up. Did I say “will be”, did you see Sir Nicholas et al at Westminster Hall?
Finally, you’ve made a fair defence of Mark and the RSPB, but I don’t detect a plan to turn the fortunes of our wildlife around. Any thoughts on that would be very much appreciated.
PD (whoever you may be as KC might ask!!) Have you read Jonathan’s submission to the Petition Committee? I think it one of the best. Thoroughly thought out and researched, logically and precisely presented. Compare and contrast with Keith Cowieson’s submission. Two very diffrrent viewpoints. Did you present a case to the Committee? I couldn’t find one with your initials.
ps I’m not really asking for your identity!
Phil Davis is the name. Bird mapper extraordinaire. You like to expose people don’t you? I use PD for fear of Mark banning me again. But to be fair to him he does believe in free speech – just won’t engage with those that don’t quite see it his (or your) way!
I don’t necessarily side with Keith Cowieson, I just object to the lack of reasonable engagement with him (and others) in pursuit of our common goal of turning around the declining numbers. What’s your grand idea?
Ps, I didn’t provide a submission because I don’t support a ban. I prefer win-win wherever possible. A ban smacks of authoritarianism, class warfare and was exploited as such.
I hope the RSPB will pursue its cause with more vigour. A lot more vigour. Did it support Richard Armitage’s original petition calling for licensing of gamekeepers?
PD – that’ll be John Armitage. And, as you may remember, speaking for myself, this blog championed that e-petition very strongly whereas RSPB did not at all.
My idea? Call out the filibuster and move along and do something more productive.
Mark, yes apologies to John Armitage! He was petitioning for licensing gamekeepers. I supported you in supporting him. The RSPB can’t therefore hide behind the idea that they did not support the petition principle at that time. So why didn’t they do it – seems very odd, A case of just not invented here at that time maybe?
Jonathan, I think that’s a really well balanced and accurate response. My personally criticisms of RSPB recently have been;
1) that they didn’t support the Vicarious Liability Petition when they had the chance
2) for a while Martin Harper seemed to be going a bit Newspeak in his blog posts
3) that they really aren’t pushing the leadership’s choice, licensing, anywhere near hard enough, so it’s a bit of an irrelevant exercise whatever you think about that approach
4) that they aren’t making enough effort to inform the membership about raptor persecution. It’s hardly the only issue they should be concerned about but it is a really big one
5) that they won’t consult the membership as to what they want the organisation to do about driven grouse shooting
I hope that they are fair criticisms of things that the RSPB should be able to do within its remit. If anyone has spotted anything else I’ve said about them and forgotten I did, do correct me!
Hi Jim
I certainly don’t think the RSPB (or any other organisation for that matter) is above criticism and the criticisms you list here seem broadly fair to me. I wrote my comment, though, because I felt that some (not all by any means) people have rather gone overboard in their criticism of the organisation which in my opinion has done and continues to do a huge amount of good for wildlife (including raptors) and remains a vital member of the conservation community – especially at a time when the statutory nature conservation bodies (but especially EN) are terribly enfeebled by a government with little sympathy for nature. I don’t think mass resignations of RSPB membership, as advocated by some people, will help anybody other than the very people responsible for the raptor persecution that we want to see ended. So, yes, by all means criticize the RSPB and encourage it to change its approach on the DGS issue but let’s do so as friends and allies who remember they are fighting towards the same objective.
Finally, just to be clear, although I referred to you by name in my comment it was in the context of someone advocating and pursuing an alternative approach to conservation to the RSPB’s more corporate approach and my view that both alternatives are valid and can make an important contribution to protecting wildlife in this country and that each has its limitations and therefore benefits by being complemented by the other. I was certainly not singling you out as the target of my criticisms.
Jonathan, I find myself in agreement with you also. Its amazing what happens when a reasonable approach is taken. People do shift their paradigms.
Let the conservation community (all one million(?) of them) come together, stop the bickering and intellectual one upmanship and present a united front in an effort to start turning things around – reasonably.
Phil Davis – well you are obviously leading the way with your comments here.
Oh Well Part 2 !!
Hi Jonathan. I’m in complete agreement with you – though I did make a point of saying I was on the verge of transferring all my loyalty and donations solely to the RSPB Investigations Team, Martin Harper’s more recent comments have been reassuring (even if I don’t fully agree with him). I certainly didn’t feel singled out, sorry if it appeared like I thought I was being. Rather, as I’ve made various criticisms of the RSPB on various fora and at various times, I was just putting them all down in one place ‘for the record’.
Jim, I find myself “violently” agreeing with you!
Thank you Jonathan, that is sn excellent summing up of this particular thread and I’m sure it resonates with many of the readers of Mark’s blog
Jonathan, maybe you, as a voice of reason, take over from Mark?
He’s taken a pounding from his oppenents, both real and imagined and is unable to adapt as his “put downs” above show.
If a muppet like me can run rings around him, how’s he ever going to better the likes of Sir Nicholas?
Phil Davis – you are certainly going in circles replying to Richard and calling him Jonathan
Not to worry Mark, both you and Jonathan have my full support! Richard.
Wow – Zip Zap Kapow. Hen Harriers of the UK sleep easy tonight !!
How about providing some reasoned suggestions for Hen Harrier protection given the overwhelming failure of the petition in its failed form. What modifications to the approach would you make Jo.. Richard?
And just to be perfectly clear on the matter, I think Mark has done an excellent job in raising the profile of the driven grouse shooting problem far above its previous position in the national consciousness. There is clearly a long way to go still but I am confident that he will continue to play a leading role in the fight.
I think it is quite misleading to refer to the petition as an overwhelming failure. It would have been nice if the debate had been somewhat less one-sided but it was the start of something not the end. Many of those who signed the petition will have been people who until recently were unaware of the extent or even the existence of the problems on the moors and the same is true of the many MPs who have been lobbied on the subject (whether or not they showed up at the debate). A great deal of factual information has been placed permanently on the parliamentary records regarding the harm done by driven grouse shooting. All of this helps build the pressure that will eventually lead to change. I see it as like the erosive power of a small trickle of water – it doesn’t look much but over time it can move mountains.
No-one is pretending that it is job done – the pressure needs to be maintained and increased – but let’s not denigrate what has been achieved so far.
Ah the benefits of a Cambridge education !
Come on man – that all you got?
Some more fantasies (ideas) for combating wildlife crime:
1 – Deception
2 – Deterence
3 – Covert intelligence gathering
4 – Working on the inside
Ref the latter, a former work colleague of mine was always very political majoring on women’s rights. She is now shadow minister for Mental Health and Social Care having previously been a shadow deputy leader of the house and pps to Harriet Harman, the cabinet office and others. Barbara Keeley MP.
A few years ago I suggested to Mark that he stand for parliament. Imagine if he worked his way up to be the top man in DEFRA? Barbara was a computer professional when I worked with her. I think she’s amazing!i
Mark/Richard Ebbs, any thoughts. I’ll be happy to expand on the above if necessary!
Peter Davis – I reckon somebody else thought of those once upon a time, probably.
So, I take it you’re not interested in progressing your cause within the heart of power? Do these and other ideas provoke any new thinking? What emerged from your driving and thinking time?
Phil Davis – you must be a close friend of Giles. He makes up my views too.
Mark, good this isnt it, good for the advertising anyway.
What do you think of establishing a top predator, such as a Golden Eagle or Eagle Owl on a Grouse Moor and demonstrating how natural processes could control HH numbers?
Probably the best demonstration of ‘give them enough rope’ we have seen in, well ever.
Jim, quite! The Eagle Owl thing was first suggested by – guess who!!
Always glad to circle a square, PD.
Just back from an RSPB volunteers meeting. Local reserve showing excellent breeding wader success this year. Drumming Snipe up from 5 to 54 in ten years, over 80 Redshank nesting. Lapwing numbers slightly down on Reserve but new evidence of spread to adjacent farmland. Fledging rate for Lapwing well up, probably due to distraction feeding of Red kites. Bittern bred successfully for the first time, two nests, Marsh harrier successful for second year, two Hen harriers taking advantage of 50,000 starling roost in the reedbeds. Good management RSPB, well done.
Any Ostriches?
Clay basin, a bit hard for head burying! But I did forget to mention the Common cranes which nested for the second year running, they’ve got long necks!
Thanks to the WWT? Now they are worth funding!
Phil Davis – errrr, hardly ‘thanks to WWT’.
After the debate on DGS I was seriously considering ceasing my membership of the RSPB. Reading this latest list of comments has persuaded me not to do this. One comment I strongly disagree with here though, the petition was not a dismal failure, it was a resounding success – the debate was a failure, mainly due to a lack of support from opposition MPs. As an individual my views won’t carry much weight, though I will engage with those who carry more influence than I. Let’s continue with reasoned debate here and look to go forward with new ideas. Mark has done a great job in putting the wind up the shooting fraternity. Lets keep the pressure on.