The general election and driven grouse shooting

If the Conservatives win, and particularly if they win an increased majority I predict:

• weakening of site protection post-Brexit (see what Conservative manifesto says) – the fact that SPAs were partly notified because of their raptor populations will become irrelevant; the chance of stopping damaging activities (like building new roads and tracks across blanket bogs, overburning of heather) on moorlands will fall even further; and there will be no recourse to legal action to bring the UK government under control
• weakening of species protection post-Brexit (see what Conservative manifesto says) – licensing of raptor control will spread from Buzzards to other species; brood meddling will be approved; raptor persecution will cease to be a police priority; and there will be no recourse to legal action to bring the UK government under control

If Labour win (yes I am discounting any other party winning this general election (although Greens and LibDem policies are similar (although see below))) then I predict:

• maintenance of existing levels of site protection, and some greater enforcement of that protection (see Labour manifesto)
• maintenance of existing levels of species protection, and some greater enforcement of that protection (see Labour manifesto)
• a review of the costs and benefits, economic and ecological, of game shooting which would help move things on, and then proposals to deal with driven grouse shooting, perhaps through licensing, in the next manifesto (not in current manifesto, but that’s what I think would happen). This would start a ball rolling that would inevitably end in the banning of driven grouse shooting.
• the reversal of privatisation of water companies (see Labour manifesto) which would bring significant upland areas into public ownership with the consequence of a) improving the habitat management to reduce flooding, b) more eyes and ears in the uplands to make wildlife crime more difficult, c) safe nesting sites for many persecuted species which would give them refuges from which to spread out, d) increased tree cover benefitting a range of species including Black Grouse*

Which would you prefer?

You get to choose tomorrow.

 

 

 

* And by the way, the idea that acquiring land is a spending commitment is a bit odd. If I spend some money in my current account on buying premium bonds have I reduced my savings? Presumably I have done it to get a higher interest rate and I have the same level of savings working harder. If the state acquires land to reduce flooding, reduce water treatment costs, reduce water bills for consumers and increase the wildlife value of our uplands then it is using our money to deliver public goods and spreading the economic benefits from shareholders to the general public.)

[registration_form]