I’m getting feedback from many people about how disappointed they are with the NT position on grouse shooting on their land – the land whose purchase and management we, as NT members, have funded.
One guy told me of a conversation he had with a NT staff member where he was told that ‘the upland land owners want grouse shooting and the members want conservation’ and that the NT was trying to keep everyone happy. Well, that approach never works, and so it’s usually best to do what you really believe in and take the consequences. On the face of it, the NT is more inclined to side with grouse shooters than its members at the moment.
I find it amazing that an organisation with millions of members could possibly think that there is a difficult line to be drawn between what its members think and what other large landowners want. But that is what the NT is saying frequently through its staff on the ground to its membership this week. Astounding!
The NT’s fellow large landowners can do what they want on their land, within the law (if only that were always true), but we should expect the NT to act for the public good, not for private interests, on the land which it manages.
The Moorland Vision group of local campaigners took a very moderate approach to this issue and then were treated very shabbily by NT. That sends a very strong signal of what an organisation regards as important.
It’s almost as though the NT want us all to picket their AGM this autumn, hand out leaflets at NT properties, resign our memberships just to give them a stronger nudge towards dropping grouse shooting from their, our, land.
If the NT wants to gauge the opinion of their membership on this subject then that’s easy – ask them! I doubt whether the NT dares to do that, but bring it on.
And NT has not, so far, responded in any way to the offer of a guest blog here in which they can start to win us all back – deadline tomorrow evening so that their thoughts are available before Hen Harrier Day this weekend.
[registration_form]
Very disappointing, glad I am not a member although my other half is.
As I have written previously if they really believe that the moor should be managed for grouse shooting surely the best way to ensure it is managed as they would wish is to employ the keepers directly. Let the shooting on a day basis, insist on nontoxic shot and benefit from the sale of the birds as well. Perhaps then we will really see whether grouse shooting and raptors really are compatible, so we might all benefit.
I don’t, of course, disagree that we want NT to stop all shooting (and management for shooting) on its land. However, Mark says “we should expect the NT to act for the public good…on the land which it manages.” I’m not so sure about this. They are not a government dept and so are only answerable to their members, not “the public”. I suspect a fair proportion of their members are either pro-shooting, neither pro- nor anti-shooting, active in other so-called field sports and /or large landowners. So for them to say that they are trying to keep “everyone”, i.e. in their membership, happy is probably entirely and disingenuously true. As Mark says, this approach never works and so they need to decide which is the larger and more important section of their membership, pro or anti. It seems to me that the number generally of people anti-shooting is growing, but whether that is true within the NT membership is debateable. They will be prepared for membership losses over this – as RSPB was over shooting Ruddy Ducks – but can they weather the storm? Let’s hope not! Lobby an NT member near you!!!
Andy – no they are answerable to the Charity Commission about whether they are fulfilling their charitable objects. they can probably do that whether or not they allow shooting – but rather better if they do not I would argue.
but the members have more power than anyone else – if we use it.
Happy to hand out leaflets at Dunwich Heath in Suffolk, where incidentally they (NT) do a wonderful job preserving the heath habitat for Dartford Warblers, Nightjars and Hobbies to name just a few. I doubt many of the members who park there and enjoy a walk on the Heath or beach or take tea with their famous scones are even aware that the NT even allows shooting of any kind on it’s land, let alone the criminal activity of Driven Grouse Shooting. How dreadful of the NT to behave in this way, one would think they are in the pocket of the shooting fraternity, certainly they don’t seem to care about their members.
I have always wanted to join the NT; kids keep on suggesting they could get my wife membership of NT as Xmas present; but we have decided we will not ever join unless they show some compassion for conservation and not just shooting and big houses
I gave up my NY membership after getting the feeling that the NT thought more of it’s big houses:usually built with the ill gotten gains of slavery,land enclosure, colonialism and explotation: than it was in it’s land holdings. I don’t know for sure but I suppose many of th NT’s management went to the same sorts of schools and have similar privildeged backgrounds to many grouse shooting land owners. It would be a big ask for them to step out of huntin, fishin and shootin millieu. Not something that would be done without membership and very public pressure. So if you need leaflets handing out I can always go to Stourhead, that would be fun
I think that maybe pheasants should be next, an exotic species whose status in law changes to suit the shooters and must do damage to the land and wildlife where they are raised in huge numbers.
I appreciate Gerald that you care, but as professional historian your assertions about land holdings are false and laced with your own personal prejudices. The largest estates were for the most part inherited – accidents of birth if you will – and have little or nothing to do with the evils you describe.
Slavery I might remind you was abolished in the British Empire in 1833, the campaign was led by William Wilberforce a man who certainly had a privileged background.
To that end what is relevant here is not the background of the landowners but their actions in the present now.
“The estates were inherited”. Yes, but how were they originally possessed? Violence and sex, mostly?
Ian – yes, mostly.
I’ve been with the National Trust as a volunteer of over 5 years and a member for 1 year I’m seriously torn between leaving and giving them a chance on this one. I had to think this ‘trying to please everyone’ attitude through. There’s just not enough like minded people around to talk it through with and I just don’t know enough about the whole thing to make an educated decision so I’m left having to make an emotional and ethical one. I don’t disagree with shooting for food to eat, that in my mind is perfectly acceptable. I do disagree with it done for sport. I do disagree with birds being killed just because they eat the chicks reared for the shoots. The birds are doing what comes natural to them and it’s simply a matter of if you put food out for them you can expect them to take it rather than hunt for miles for it and quite rightly so, that makes sense to me.
I don’t know if it’s all shoots or some but killing birds and mammals for your sport, your money, your fun, your networking or your ‘kudos’ is simply distasteful, destructive, arrogant beyond belief, you have no right to.
I love the National Trust, I have the best memories of taking the odd day’s leave from work to go on wildlife training courses at Fountains Abbey then helping to take visitors around on a weekend and sharing stories about the flowers, deer, the bats and flowers, anything that’s part of the estate, it’s been the best experience. Not that I’m an expert, I remember little information but have a lot of enthusiasm! I’ve always appreciated the NT isn’t there to conserve wildlife, it’s areas and buildings really as that’s what brings in the money for them to grow but….. when it comes down to it, thinking about it, if they had a ‘workable’ model that they can showcase to other landowners that doesn’t mean those landowners will take it up, these are people so set in their arrogant ways, they don’t want to lose anything because every bird is money. There will be compromise in that model.
I think the NT could have said more on the subject, I think they could have said no to shoots which they think would be the easy thing to do but I think that would have been difficult but heroic. They could have turned the publicity from it in to something exciting and raised a lot of support. I do fear they are only trying their best but that’s the best from a weak minded team that have failed to understand that the land they care for comes with sitting tenants called wildlife which was there before the Trust and have more right to it. The Trust want to please people that are killing birds and mammals in terrible inhumane ways for business at the very least, they shouldn’t be killed at all, by any method. That’s how I see it.
Gutted beyond belief, it’s a crap feeling.
Shelley – thank you for what I think is your first comment here, but an incredibly powerful one.
I hope NT staff read all the comments here, and I’m sure they will, but what you have written ought to have hit home very hard. thank you.
Write/email/tweet all concerns to Andy Beer, NT Regional Director, Midlands Region.
Not a conservation expert or ecologist. Linked-In says his last post in NT was NT Head of Visitor Experience, so he might be more aware of the importance of the weight of public opinions.
Perhaps there is a financial side to this too? Anyone able to get the application pack to see what more is stated about this grouse moor ‘management opportunity’?
https://www.nationaltrust.org.uk/features/grouse-moor-management-opportunity
‘It’s almost as though the NT want us all to picket their AGM this autumn, hand out leaflets at NT properties, resign our memberships just to give them a stronger nudge towards dropping grouse shooting from their, our, land.’
If that is what is required then so be it I guess. That and some well organised legal protest and disruption of the shooting days at the Hope Woodlands and Park Hall Estates.
Rather than people unsubscribing to membership should we be encouraging the people that say they want to leave the NT because of this to stick with them and write to them to voice their opinion/concerns and then make a decision after the Trust has replied? Maybe they’ll listen more when they have work to do in replying to individual members? I don’t know but that might be better? What do you think?
I would completely agree. Membership does not equal endorsement and I don’t see how making the NT poorer is likely to improve matters, especially if people do not tell the NT why they are leaving.
What is surely more important is for members to voice their concerns loudly to those who are running the NT.
when their president is prince Charles, who they claim does not influence their policy? and they allow illegal hunting with hounds on their land, or turn a blind eye to it I am not surprised they allow driven shots.
When I worked for the NT in the 1990s the hot topic was hunting deer with hounds in the SW. The Trust sat painfully on the fence for a long time, commissioning specialist reports into the level of suffering of the deer, economic benefit to the area of the hunting etc. Eventually however it was unrelenting pressure from members at AGM after AGM that made a difference. I would recommend NT members to use that pressure to raise the issue at an AGM, rather than resign their membership. It might not work the first time, but in the end enough head of steam can be created within the membership to make a difference to policy.
Ask the NT to pledge to refund members annual fees pro rata if the don’t want to support an organisation that encourages killing for sport. If they publicly came out and offered refunds for the reminder of the members paid year they’d really see people flooding away. It would cost them a fortune.
I would rejoin (lapsed many years ago, for no particular reason) if they ensured HHs were safe on their land and not persecuted. Direct employment of gamekeepers may not be practical. An ethical President might be a start, he threatened to leave the country because of foxhunting, maybe banning driven grouse shooting might do the trick. Their website has soundbites like ‘Find out why nature is in trouble’ and the DG”s ‘Our 21st century ambition is to meet the needs of an environment under pressure. We want to continue to maintain the highest standards of care for everything we look after, while working IN A WAY THAT FEELS RELEVANT AND NECESSARY TO PEOPLE AND THEIR DAY-TO-DAY LIVES’ does not truly reflect what can go on, on some of their land.
Existing members have the power to change from within, rather than leave. Perhaps a referendum?
A favourable result and I pledge to rejoin!
I am not renewing my membership until the national trust bans all shooting of birds. I find it appalling that the trust can support the rearing of birds just so that some phillistine can kill & maim wildlife . It’s time we set an example .
I am not renewing my membership until the national trust bans all shooting of birds. I find it appalling that the trust can support the rearing of birds just so that some phillistine can kill & maim wildlife . It’s time we set an example .
I am not renewing my membership until the national trust bans all shooting of birds. I find it appalling that the trust can support the rearing of birds just so that some phillistine can kill & maim wildlife . It’s time we set an example .this is not a duplicate comment
V.R.Todd – well it is actually!