The review of gamebird shooting regulation across Europe carried out for SNH is a cracking read – a real eye-opener. Decision-makers across the UK should study it carefully. What emerges from it is that gamebird shooting in the UK (in all four countries) is way adrift of the European norm in terms of standards of training, testing of basic identification skills, monitoring of impacts, existence and regulation of shooting quotas and financial contribution to the exchequer. We are at or near the bottom of the league table of acceptable shooting regulation. Not really any surprise there.
Shooters in the UK get a pretty free ride compared with shooters in other countries and that is a result of the archaic legal system in the UK which was largely determined by Victorian land owners who were the shooting community as well (see Inglorious Chapter 2)! It is clearly time for change, and it looks as if the greatest chance of change is in Scotland with England lagging miles behind. We English (and Welsh and Northern Irish) should do everything we can to help the Scots move things along as a test of what can be achieved.
Now, quite honestly, I remain sceptical about the ability of regulation to get a grip of the manifold ills of intensive land use management and wildlife crime for driven grouse shooting, but I do think that, in theory, regulation could make a difference to the sustainability and acceptability of shooting as a whole. I have no particular wish to see gamebird shooting disappear completely from the UK countryside, that has never been my aim although, if all the shooters hung up their guns and took up train-spotting as an alternative hobby then that would also be fine by me. But if UK shooting were regulated more along the lines of many other countries, including the US and Canada, there would be much less of an ‘us and them’ flavour to many debates.
It is in the interests of gamebird shooters that they begin to recognise that they are are an isolated and rather small interest group that appears to be represented by organisations and media outlets that have decided to act in the most arrogant, aggressive and unfriendly way to the 95+% of the population who do not shoot wildlife for fun. For many years it has been in the interests of all shooters that they should give ground on lead ammunition, vicarious liability, snares, the shooting of declining species etc etc and yet the shooters have dug in and lost more and more friends as time has gone on. And that includes me, for example, who, whilst never a great fan of shooting for fun was nowhere near as concerned about it as I am now after a couple of decades of trying to persuade the industry to change with little success and being insulted along the way. It has been the killer-zealots who have made me more concerned about shooting, not the eco-zealots.
So I do think that people who shoot wildlife for fun should read this report very carefully. Wildfowlers and lowland gamebird shooters wouldn’t have a great deal to lose by moving rapidly towards the European norm and, resistant to change though they might be, they would benefit from that move in terms of the relationship with much of the public.
In the uplands it is a different matter and I can’t see regulation working very well or being accepted by grouse shooters. This is, of course, a very good reason for trying it as once it has been tried and shown to fail there really is no alternative except to ban of driven grouse shooting. Lowland shooters and wildfowlers will be led to believe that all shooters are in this together and there will be talk of thin ends of wedges, but the interests of all shooters really aren’t the same and it is the upland killer-zealots who have the most to fear from stronger regulation.
In looking at regulation there are a couple of thoughts I’d like to put in your mind as you read the report.
First, the vested interests within society, and the UK parliaments, in favour of shooting are pretty strong. Do not, for one moment, believe that getting better regulation of gamebird shooting is the same as getting good regulation of gamebird shooting. In terms of regulation it is good to hope for the best but wise to expect something that falls far short of the best and sometimes approaches the ‘pretty hopeless really’. That’s not a reason not to try – but it is a reason to be cautious about what can realistically be achieved.
Second, although it will be tempting for some, the aim of regulation is not punishment of all but better behaviour of all, particularly those behaving worst at the moment. So, massive licence fees, identification tests that many birders would fail, overly bureaucratic bag reporting and/or ridiculously low quotas for huntable species are not what we should be seeking through this mechanism. It is not banning by the back door. I want to see driven grouse shooting banned and the easiest, most straightforward and honest way to do that is to ban it – not to attempt to strangle it in regulation.
[registration_form]
There is pretty strict regulation of hunting in Spain but this does not stop widespread illegal gun use and “popping a shot” at anything that moves, especially raptors, as well as the deplorable thrush slaughter, all in the name of some obsolete country tradition. Regulation might do more to control legal hunting and land management but only an ACTIVE police can deal with the illegal! The problem is, the shooters concerned like the “us and them”, it is tribal and about power. Destruction of the environment and nature has to become socially unacceptable amongst the widest public, so we have to keep battling with the politics and raise broad public concern. Regulation will raise the profile of the issue and provide some parameters, but it is only a bit of the answer.
Hilary has hit the nail on the head. Regulation only works when you have adequate policing but it also needs the higher end of law enforcement to back it up with convictions and punishment for the law breakers. How many times have we seen wildlife criminals either not get to court or let off because of lack of evidence despite them being caught bang to rights. It’s not just Grouse shooting here. Hunting on horseback is just as bad, they still go after Foxes despite it being banned. Why is this? Are the legal eagles and judges pro shooting/hunting, is it their hobbies that is under question here? Until the lawmakers and Law enforcers get their act together what chance do we have in saving birds like the Hen Harrier from extinction?
Yes. And the cops too, who mainly just like the opportunity to bash what they see as the rabble. BYOB party means “Bring Your Own Baton” to too many police officers still. The fine men and women of the legal profession ( /sarcasm) waste no opportunity to blow cases though. Even having to take someone to court for any wildlife crime that isn’t poaching related or standard cat and dog abuse is seen as a failure. Winning such a case of wildlife crime is not a career enhancing movement.
“testing of basic identification skills”
Given that Tim Bonner, CEO of the Countryside Alliance and keen field/bloodsports enthusiast can’t tell the difference between a sparrowhawk and a linnet, this would prove invaluable! Does he honestly have a clue what he’s shooting at? 🙂
The level of field ID skills amongst some shooting folk I know is lamentable. Knowledge of legal quarry species can be scant as well…..’no you are wrong. You can shoot all gulls’.
Gun safety is covered by a chat with your firearms officer when you apply for a license so I see no reason why this couldn’t be extended to cover basic ID and basic knowledge of quarry species.
The idea would only be opposed by shooters without that knowledge.
Bring it on.
The way I hear it, some shooters find it hard to tell beaters, retrievers, and even other shooters apart from grouse and pheasant never mind any other birds. They have to have a keeper standing next to them to grab their gun and shove it upwards and out of the way at times.
Shooters should be made to wear a bodycam when out shooting, and gamekeeper at all times when they are on the clock. With the camera footage available to anyone at any time for any reason. Now that one would have legs as far as getting them on the straight and narrow. It’ll never happen though, too effective.
I certainly disagree about not having huge licence fees though, we need them to get some of the subsidy money back into the public purse. Same with fines which are calculated against subsidy rates so that each offence costs more in fines than they get in subsidy. Again, that would focus minds and bank accounts. Which is also why it will never happen, too effective and expensive (for their lairdships). I’d also like to see suspensions in shooting licences which run from the start of each season. So break a rule, you cannot have shooting until the 24th instead of the 12th as an example. Again that would cost the big moor business serious money, way more than just having fewer bags would, as the first week or so of the season -and shooting on the 12th itself- commends a real premium. Hit them where they hurt for their bad behaviour. That is why punitive fines has to be in the ammo bag. The carrot has been dangled in front of them for years, it is time for some real stick.
Gamekeeper’s to wear body camera’s all the time?!…… Blimey.
Edward – blimey indeed. Of course, nothing to fear…?
None whatsoever Mark! Just seems a little draconian.
Wearing one would document all the wildlife I see, which would make it actual evidence rather than “anecdotal”.
Edward – but once you’ve passed your identification exam we’ll believe you of course – although Ian Botham has a bit of a credibility gap.
So, would you welcome licensing?
This review of hunting says that in France during 2011 the revenue raised from hunting licences amounted to 69 million euros. Much of this revenue was used to finance and train environmental police. In Spain a similar occurence allowed more Environmental police to be trained in the investigation of wildlife poisoning incidents and has led to a large increase in prosecutions.
We need a similar system here. Shooters should be charged for hunting licences and the revenue used to finance and train environmental police. If raptor persecution still exists after this then increase the price of the hunting licence and employ even more environmental police until the raptor persecution problem disappears.
Wasn’t it a certain ex-PM (who was going to see “it” all through, but ran) who stopped the shotgun licence fee increase?
It is from memory (& I’m sure someone will correct me if I’m wrong) around 25% of the actual cost to the Police to administer it. Real time costs and some so that there is demonstrable public benefit from privilege to bear arms?
I found it interesting that in Norway one can get up to 3 years imprisonment for contravention of their Nature Diversity Act . In Spain contraventions against the law of Natural Heritage and Biodiversity can produce fines of up to 2 million euros depending on the severity of the offence. We are failing here !
So you would like the same hunting laws and norms as Spain? Okay.
Timovan Bonkervitch thinks linnets are red kites.
Even with photographic evidence!
Mark, personally I see no need for licensing. It would be red tape for red tapes sake.
As far as my identification skills go no worries on that front! 5 types of raptor on the Estate. 3 types of owl. 2 varieties of woodpecker. Woodcock, lapwing, I could go on….
[citation needed]
Really?!
Ya, rly.
Just to clarify, citation for red tape or wildlife on the Estate?
Edward, it clearly would not be red tape for red tape’s sake. There is an issue with wildlife crime carried out under the auspices of shooting estate management and licensing would be intended to provide a mechanism to address this by filtering out the criminal elements and improving gamekeeping standards overall. Those with something to fear from this are those who cannot and will not refrain from shooting, poisoning, trapping birds of prey but estates that operate legally should ultimately benefit from driving illegality from the industry. Of course there is an alternative route to licensing which is a ban. What will not be acceptable to those of us who are fed up with Hen Harriers, Goshawks, Peregrines, Short-eared Owls etc being surreptitiously eliminated from the countryside is a continuation of the status quo.
So you’re implying every shooting estate, large & small, highlands & lowlands are breaking the law?
Edward – maybe you could give us a list of those that are and those that aren’t?
Mark, same question back to you!
Certainly not aware of any issues locally. Raptors galore round here.
Edward – where’s that then?
“So you’re implying every shooting estate…are breaking the law?”
For what it is worth, no I am not. I daresay there are some law-abiding shoots, possibly even quite a few. The problem is that there are far too many that, so to speak, stick two fingers up at the law and as a result we have legally protected species that face extinction from large areas of the countryside in which they should naturally occur.
The law abiding part of the shooting community – however large it may be – lacks either the will or the ability (or both) to get rid of its own rotten apples but instead either condemns wildlife crime in the most mealy-mouthed, half-hearted way possible or obfuscates and seeks to play down the scale of the problem (for example by making comments such as yours above).
I can I only speak from experience, round here there’s many shoots and many Raptors. In my area the only issue with wildlife crime is hare coursing. As far as rural crime & wildlife crime go I feel for the police. Under funded and under manned. Only 5 officers in Cambridgeshire RCAT team! Big area for 5 people!
Edward, I am sure that you, as a practitioner in your field, operate to at least very good standards and that wildlife is generally thriving where you work. I am really happy to hear this. Good on you.
However many of the people who claim to represent UK shooters are doing UK shooters a big dis-service. They are misrepresenting YOU by defending or denying wildlife crime.
It seems obvious to me that some people need to polarise opinion here into a “them and us” situation. Say for example, 20 % of gamekeepers on grouse moors relied on wildlife crime to get the game bird densities they need to sell tickets to their shoots. Standing alone as 20 % of the total number of gamekeepers would leave them feeling quite vulnerable. especially if honest gamekeepers might resent their bigger bags of grouse and see them as cheats.
A way round this might be to spread the lie that those concerned for populations of predatory birds were hell bent on a total ban on game bird shooting. This is called a strawman argument. I am sure you have heard many examples of this.
The function of such arguments is to polarise the debate, split the middle ground in two and capture half the middle ground as support for their own position.
It seems to work quite well.
Does anyone really believe the problem is with identification of what is being shot? Don’t underestimate the the knowledge and skills of those who persecute wildlife. If you want to protect your game birds from natural hunters you must have a certain level of knowledge in Raptor behaviour. How else can they attract them in to shoot or poison them.
An all out ban on Grouse shooting would not stop it happening, just like the ban on fox hunting, it still goes on. If you are going to ban or regulate something you have to install the right level of policing backed up by the courts.
Paul – the ‘only’ problem? Certainly not. ‘A’ problem? Certainly. An indication of the lack of understanding of the impacts and need for regulation? Certainly.
Unlike fox hunting, grouse shooting is an industry. A very profitable industry which has a very high throughput and requires an industrial scale of infrastructure to sustain it. While I’m certain some idiots would carry on trying to shoot for pleasure, it is the scale of the industry that causes problems and a ban would stop that dead.
I am sorry to say that in England at least, with the current Government we have at Westminster I feel we are almost wasting our time trying to seek better control on shooters and the shooting industry. This Government is riddled with vested interest in this area and is unlikely to listen or do anything to afford better protection to our wildlife.
We therefore need to direct our campaigning towards Scotland where I think the Scottish Government is much more sympathetic and at least willing to listen to reasoned argument.
As an extra point, has one shop broused recently,for example in WH Smith’s and Son and looked at at their magazine section. It is quite scary.to see the very large number of magazines on the shelves there all dealing with shooting and guns,but to find a single wildlife magazine such as Birdwatching, for example, one has to look really hard. A sad comment on the mentality of our society and one which the Westminster Government shows not a incling to change.
Magazines – quite right, Alan.
I have complained in several WHS branches about gun magazines being placed low at kids’ eye level – of course, it’s the merchandisers’ requirements, they maintain.
The wildlife mags are often on the top shelf.
Marian – it’s that strong competition between magazines that fuels some of the stridency in the shooting community. Who wants to produce the sensible magazine?
Alan – thanks. You should be looking for Birdwatch anyway!
I agree we are facing an unpropitious political background here – but the evidence of wildlife crime and environmental damage will only grow and the case for reform, indeed the case for a ban on driven grouse shooting, will only grow.
“I am sorry to say that in England at least, with the current Government we have at Westminster I feel we are almost wasting our time trying to seek better control on shooters and the shooting industry.”
The key word in that sentence is “almost”. The Westminster government does indeed show no inclination to change and it is no doubt dispiriting to keep on getting rebuffed by the succession of complacent place-men and women at Defra but that is not to say that the pressure has no effect or that change will not happen eventually. The pressure should be maintained in England as well as in Scotland and in time the steady flow of protest will erode that resistance to change.
I doubt it. Bird watchers vs Shooters. Two very small minority groups that general public thinks are both pretty weird.
Yes, there is so little appeal that every year the BBC does not run between 3 or 4 prime time seasonal specials centred around seasonal bird movements. Although if there was then I suppose they would be a play on the word Birdwatch. Perhaps, like “Springwatch” or something similar.
Yeah, I think wildlife and birds are much more beloved than shooters. Even on the softball occasional ten minute segments on Countryfile where they talk about anything but shooting the BBC still receives a flood of complaints about promoting bloodsports. Yeah, the public doesn’t have strong views on wildlife vs bloodsports. Sure.
Most people just are not that bothered. Perhaps some interest in what happens on public land but not on private.
Mark, Cambridgeshire.
Edward – not far from me then. We could…no, maybe not.
Yeah, you wouldn’t be interested in all the wildlife on the estate.
Probably for the best, I’m sure you’d fall in love with me!
No Driven grouse shooting round you then!!
That’s correct, but there are “grouse butts” in Six Mile Bottom on the the edge of Cambridgeshire where one can shoot driven grouse (clays).
Much more civilized and far less crime-ridden than the real grouse moors.
Cracking pub too!….
I’ve not shot at the Clay ground, the main Estate yes!
The lowlands. I worry about them – overrun by pheasants (eating my vegetables, flying into my windows, causing me to brake suddenly on the roads) and – why are there almost no Montagu’s harriers? Where did they go? I remember a One Show-tagged Montagu’s “disappearing” in Norfolk in 2014. My suspicions are that shooting interests persecute them (and hen harriers when they can get them – who can forget the Sandringham hen harriers?) in the lowlands just as much as they persecute raptors in the uplands – just less obtrusively because no-one expects to see Montagu’s harriers. Just my suspicion. But they are truly beautiful birds. Especially the juveniles!
We get visiting harriers here! Take a drive down a14 or m1 & you’ll see buzzards & kites every 20 mins!