This appeared on Twitter a little while ago.
The offer is still open to the National Trust to do a better job of explaining why they want to persist with grouse shooting on their land (for they don’t have to). Copy deadline tomorrow evening so that it could appear before Hen Harrier Day and well ahead of the Inglorious12th.
I assume that the NT will not argue that they must allow shooting in order to comply with their charitable objects, so it is a choice. They should be prepared to justify how they made that choice.
And they might like to consider what options they would suggest there are for members who disagree with that choice.
[registration_form]
Hi Mark – thanks for keeping us up to date on developments here. Could I ask a question? We keep hearing about the distinction between driven grouse shoots and `walk up` grouse shoots – as if one is OK and the other not. As I understand it, the difference is really just one of `intensity` of management – largely because it’s not currently possible to charge as much for the latter. Are there any other differences in land management practices between the two? Why might the NT be happier with walk up shoots than driven shoots?
Lynn – yes it’s about intensity of management – burning of heather, predator control, dosing of Red Grouse with medicines. But it’s also about the number of Red Grouse killed. A walk across the moors with friends, dogs and a gun, shooting at what you flush, is a very different activity from waiting for hundreds of grouse to be driven past you so that you can blast away at them. Many will disapprove of both – I do myself – but I’d only go as far as wanting to see a national ban on the more intensive form of grouse shooting which is the most ecologically damaging.
On the other hand, grouse shooting of any sort isn’t necessary for conservation management, so I’d like to see a conservation organisation, the NT, dropping shooting altogether from their land wherever they can – and they can here.
Can you elaborate on when you say “grouse shooting of any sort isn’t necessary for conservation management”. I’m trying to learn to be able to make an informed judgement …Short of going on a conservation study course are there any “easy-read to the layman/crystal English” resources you can point me at e.g. articles, blog posts, research that explain about conservation management , with/without grouse shooting and alternative methods ?
Paul – welcome to this blog.
Well, there’s a pretty good book (by me!) on the whole subject of the good and bad things about driven grouse shooting – Inglorious: conflict in the uplands – available from all good bookshops.
But more generally, when the RSPB, Wildlife Trusts or even the state nature conservation organisations buy a piece of upland for nature conservation purposes they don’t say ‘What we must do here is introduce intensive grouse shooting otherwise the place won’t meet its potential’ – the very idea is ridiculous! That’s what I meant.
Similarly, when one visits the uplands of Scandinavia or North America where similar species live together as they do here (grouse, raptors, waders, waterfowl etc), nobody is torching the vegetation (as happens to heather on grouse moors), killing the top predators (as happens on grouse moors with a mixture of legal and illegal methods and targets), killing lagomorphs in an attempt to reduce grouse diseases, or dosing the grouse with medicines for the same reason. And nobody would think that they should. Intensive grouse moor management is for intensive grouse shooting – so that some can shoot wildlife for fun and pay others large amounts of money for the dubious privilege of doing it.
i hope that helps.
Thank you Mark. Yes it helps with my education … and of course raises more questions. And to avoid cluttering your blog post can you indulge me in just one more …. was the land in this instance being intensively grouse managed prior to National Trust ownership and therefore are they obliged to keep it the same after? If the National Trust have to abide by rules as a term and condition of the “in lieu of tax” transfer of ownership then they can do nothing other than sit on the fence. Even if they acquired the land out of their own funds there still might be some covenant running with the ownership that says it must be available for grouse shooting.
Whether or not the National Trust are saddled with an obligation I fear it’s an example of leaving management of land to an organisation that is focused on historic ways and methods rather than modern, progressive methods.
Paul – good question. I don’t know the distant history of the land but…
…the NT must own the shooting rights for this land (Inglorious has an explanation of those too) and so they are under no obligation to exercise them. they can just not allow shooting – as most nature conservation organisations would do whenever they do hold those rights.
the shooting rights and other rights usually travel together through time but not always. When I worked at RSPB there were a few areas of RSPB-owned land where the owner had retained the shooting rights either for ever or for a set period of time. This made life interesting sometimes but it’s part of the UK system.
Interestingly enough and maybe coincidentally, the NT posted a membership recruitment post on Facebook this morning that popped up in my timeline:
“Take a relaxing walk along the coast, explore woodland by bike or even go back in time at a medieval castle. Discover over 500 special places with National Trust membership”.
I was probably a bit bored at the time because I rose to the bait and posted a reply:
“Pay money to join an organisation that supports driven grouse shooting to keep its members off the land that they pay for? No. I was a member for a long time but will NEVER give you another penny until you put wildlife conservation and preservation of the land that the membership pay for ahead of making money from renting it to morally deficient psychopaths who just like killing.”
To my surprise I received a reply a couple of minutes later;
Hello Derik, we’re sorry to hear that – as part of our High Peak vision we’re seeking to demonstrate how traditional land management can deliver nature conservation and wider public benefits like water quality and flood risk mitigation. Where we allow shooting, it must be compatible with our aims of public access and conservation, in accordance with a national code of good practice.
I’m not going to get into a discussion with them because it will just be a dialogue of the deaf, but before I realised the reply was a pre-prepared statement I replied thus:
But you already know that raptors, corvids, hares and anything else that might prey on grouse chicks will be destroyed by gamekeepers to maximise the number of grouse that can then be destroyed by paying shooters. You already know that access tracks will be laid illegally over supposedly protected land. You already know that annual burning to promote new growth for grouse chicks to feed on will destroy the water retention of the ground and result in flooding downstream, ruining peoples homes, businesses and livelihoods. And you expect your membership to stump up the money to pay for it all to happen. You could be a powerful – perhaps the most powerful force in conservation in the UK, but you lack the will to put into practice all those nice soft words in your literature. Your ‘aims of conservation’ are words on paper, nothing more. The only thing the NT is conserving on its land is the 19th century.
Just for the record, here is the NT’s official position on shooting:
‘We appreciate the importance of rural traditions as part of the spirit of many of the places we look after. We allow field sports to take place on our property where traditionally practised, provided they are within the law and compatible with our principal purposes of conservation and access.
‘We allow well managed shooting activity provided it fits at a local level with conservation and access. Where we allow shooting we require it to be carried out in an appropriate way in accordance with local circumstances and a national code of good practice.’
November 2015
That’s it. A platitude in four sentences. A meaningless statement that contradicts itself in successive lines. And they expect people to pay them money for this!
I asked the National Trust a few months ago if they could show me the national code of practice for driven grouse shooting.
I got no answer. Can anyone else enlighten me ?
Steve – no idea!
How can burning vast areas of peat moors, not once, but on a regular basis, be in any way construed as, ‘keeping with the goals of conservation’???? Several studies have outlined the increase in CO2 released in these highly unique moor areas, some (I think) listed as SSSI areas, not to mention the effects of fires and smoke on both wildlife and humans nearby. This is, of course, just one element in the area of ‘conservation’, not even looking at the decimation of any other species that might threaten the massive numbers of Grouse being raised to be killed for huge profit. Also the issue of medicated feed and its possible impacts on other species seems pertinent.
Ultimately, one would hope the NT might take the opportunity, if a property becomes available, to explore some other, truly conservation-oriented tenants, such as this highly successful project: https://raptorpersecutionscotland.wordpress.com/2017/01/11/galloway-red-kite-trail-worth-8-2-million-to-local-economy/
I will not renew my membership or donate to any National Trust appeals unless they change their policy and ban all ‘sports’ which kill wildlife on Trust land. Preserving wildlife is more important than preserving pretty views, or old heaps built on slave trade and other human exploitation.