Dear Mr Pursglove
I am writing to you, again, on the subject of driven grouse shooting. You’ll recall that my e-petition to ban driven grouse shooting received 123,077 signatures last year. There was a ‘rival’ e-petition which has recently closed and I’d just like to update you on the relative strength of both petitions, nationally and in our Corby constituency, before asking you about one related matter, if I may.
The rival petition received a rather feeble 25,322 signatures despite being promoted by shooting enthusiasts and shooting magazines. The signatures for banning driven grouse shooting were therefore very nearly five times as numerous.
This has surprised many decision-makers (and it surprised me a bit) given that we are always told how popular grouse shooting is. It appears that it is not that popular.
Only a dozen of the 650 UK Westminster constituencies had more signatures in support of grouse shooting than those who signed for a ban of driven grouse shooting – quite a clear result. You can see the full list of results for all 650 constituencies on my website.
In Corby, 244 of your constituents signed in favour of a ban whereas only 88 signed supporting grouse shooting. I’d be grateful if you could keep these figures in mind if ever you hear talk about the popularity of grouse shooting.
Last, I would just like to draw your attention to the manifesto published by the Conservative Animal Welfare Foundation with support from Sir Roger Gale MP, Sir David Amess MP and Henry Smith MP.
I don’t think that nature conservation issues are very high up your own list of priorities, and I understand that no MP can possibly keep abreast of all issues, but I wanted to tell you that the existence of this Conservative group pleased me, a member (though a rather disenchanted one) of the Labour Party. It appears to many of us that the Conservative Party gives unwise uncritical support to shooting as a pastime despite some of the serious issues it raises. There is a danger that your party will establish itself as the ‘Nasty to Animals Party’ even if Mrs May might help you all shed the ‘Nasty Party’ tag. If you see Roger Gale, David Amess or Henry Smith in the palace of Westminster than please pass on the thanks of one of your constituents to them.
Yours sincerely
Dr Mark Avery
[registration_form]
Thanks for all the info Mark, I’ve let Philip Davies know my feelings on this.
I was very pleased (and a bit relieved) by the contents of this letter, Mark, for several reasons.
Firstly, although 120,000 was a terrific start, in the current political climate I think it will need maybe 10 times that number of people on your side to really make an impact. I think such a number might be possible if:
1. You could inform and motivate the huge memberships of the RSPB and wildlife trusts to question the ethics and ethos of shooting, and/or
2. You could tap into the vast resource of people who are not well informed about HH, but who are revolted by all forms of animal cruelty and would be outraged if they knew some of the things the hunters and shooters get up to.
Secondly, I’m delighted that you acknowledge that there are Tory voters and politicians who also care about animal welfare and are concerned about hunting and shooting. Not only are they useful potential allies, but it would stop the wildlife killers playing the ‘class warfare’ card.
I think you/we need to make friends wherever we can find them!
My letter to your MP:
Dear Mr Pursglove,
Your constituent, Dr Mark Avery, has published on his website his most recent letter to you regarding his petition to ban driven grouse shooting.
When you consider the contents of his letter, I would respectfully invite you to have regard to the fact, which Dr Avery curiously omitted to mention, that both his own petition and what he refers to as the “rival” petition were debated in Parliament on 31 October 2016.
The reference in Hansard is as follows: hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2016-10-31/debates/06472E95-10EC-49A0-BF93-84CAD2BE4191/DrivenGrouseShooting
You will note that the vast majority of your colleagues who participated in the debate spoke in support of driven grouse shooting, and highlighted the many conservation and economic benefits that result from this activity.
You will further see a number of positive references to the work of the Game & Wildlife Conservation Trust, a research and education charity with which I have long been involved. I am pleased to attach a fact sheet on the subject of grouse shooting and moorland management prepared by the Trust, which I trust you will find of interest. http://www.gwct.org.uk/media/682046/Driven-grouse-shooting-fact-sheet.pdf
Yours sincerely,
Lazywell – jolly good. My MP will be delighted to hear from you but he has had correspondence on the matter of the debate already.
Just because a few of your mates emerged to defend their vested interests and those of their chums you cannot, in this century, expect the decision-making process to take much notice of it. The evidence for driven grouse shooting being underpinned by, and dependent on, wildlife crime is very strong – although ignored by your mates including the minister (who has a responsibility to do something about it). And the evidence for wider environmental damage is strong too. Driven grouse shooting is doomed and the petition and debate will only have hastened its demise – as you probably know in your head and maybe in your heart too.
And rather than springing into action now, perhaps you and the rather few supporters of driven grouse shooting should have been more active in showing the support, if there is any, from the populace at large. The score is 123,000 v 25,000 at the moment and presumably will remain so for quite some time unless you’d like a rematch? I’d be up for it. Would you and your mates?