Dr Therese Coffey is the junior minister at Defra. Now that Gavin Gamble’s e-petition in favour of banning driven grouse shooting has passed 10,000 signatures Dr Coffey will need to sign off a government response.
In order that she does not make Defra look even more foolish than they do already I am providing a reading list for the minister to inform her response.
Please sign this e-petition to ban driven grouse shooting and put Dr Coffey on the spot.
In today’s Times, BASC’s acting Chief Executive, Christopher Graffius is quoted as saying some very sensible things.
He states that killing raptors to protect pheasants and grouse was a ‘fool’s bargain‘ that his members had to stop or risk their sport being banned. He admitted in a letter to BASC’s 150,000 members that there were ‘criminals among us‘ who risked ‘wrecking shooting for the majority‘.
‘All of us need to realise that the killing of raptors is doing us no favours. It risks terminal damage to the sport we love‘ he said.
‘Peer pressure is a powerful force in shooting. We must make clear that wildlife crime has no place in our community‘.
Graffius admitted that BASC had been put under pressure about raptor killing by politicians of all parties at this autumn’s political party conferences.
Jeff Knott of the RSPB, said that it was ‘good to see BASC stand out from others in the shooting community‘ and that this ‘willingness to lead change is to be welcomed‘ and I would echo that.
This statement is a small, but welcome step forward. It kicks into touch the ‘nothing going on here’ lines of the Moorland Association and the Countryside Alliance and it goes some way, though not far enough, to recognise that wildlife crime is endemic to driven grouse shooting and that it is not just ‘a few bad apples’. This is progress indeed.
Even the Shooting Times, yes, even the Shooting Times, has said ‘If the shooting community refuse to admit it [crime against raptors], the future for our sport could be bleak‘. That, in some ways is even more significant.
What BASC appears to be doing, I’m guessing, is making it easier for Defra to introduce some measures to deal with wildlife crime. BASC is never going to say, ‘slap some more regulation on us’ but they can see the way the wind of change is blowing. They are signalling their resignation that change will come, and actually they are signalling the inability of the shooting community to sort this problem out amongst themselves. It’s about as far as one might expect BASC to go, and their willingness to go that far is to be welcomed.
And so the ball is in Defra’s court. The shooting industry is admitting, as much as it is ever likely to do, that wildlife crime is a huge problem that they cannot fix themselves. The science is telling Defra that wildlife crime is a real conservation problem. The RSPB has just shown in its Birdcrime report that driven grouse shooting is associated with high levels of wildlife crime. And the public and media rarely talk about grouse shooting without also mentioning birds of prey being killed.
So what will Defra do? Will we see a promise to introduce vicarious liability for wildlife crimes in England in Dr Coffey’s response to Gavin Gamble’s e-petition? Perhaps? Will we see words from Defra that threaten licensing of all shooting estates, upland and lowland, unless raptor numbers improve on driven grouse moors soon? Perhaps we will, and then all those Pheasant and partridge shoots will be feeling the impact of Hen Harrier and Peregrine persecution in the English uplands on their own lowland estates.
Please sign this e-petition to ban driven grouse shooting and put Dr Coffey on the spot – the more signatures, the harder it is for Defra to do nothing.
The government response should:
- be published within 2 weeks of Gavin Gamble’s e-petition reaching 10,000 signatures
- announce that vicarious liability for wildlife crimes will be introduced in England because of the unacceptably high levels of wildlife crime
- announce that Defra will ask the RSPB to come forward with proposals for licensing of shooting estates within a month and that Defra will respond to them by Christmas
- acknowledge the level of concern about driven grouse shooting which led to 123,077 signatures being gained last year for an absolute ban on this hobby (I’m not expecting Dr Coffey to say anything nicer than that about a ban)
- confirm that Defra is looking at removal of farming subsidies from grouse moors in its post-Brexit agricultural strategy
- confirm that the evidence for wider environmental damage of heather burning has increased recently and that this is an issue that government will address and that this will require widespread changes to grouse moor management (burning and draining)
- mention where the government is with dealing with the RSPB complaint to the EU over unsustainable moorland management due to grouse shooting practices
- acknowledge that the plight of the Hen Harrier has not improved in two breeding seasons since the Defra Hen Harrier plan was launched and that the grouse shooting industry has not cleaned up its act and is on a last warning
- announce that the details of the 15-year Natural England Hen Harrier study will be published by Christmas 2017 in a government report with further recommendations for Hen Harrier conservation
- acknowledge that wildlife crime applies to many other protected species other than the Hen Harrier
- announce that the National Capital Committee has been asked to compile a report on ecosystem services and grouse moor management
- announce a review of the economic costs and benefits of intensive grouse moor management will be carried out by independent academics and published by Christmas 2018.
The government response should not:
- say that funding of the NWCU is a sufficient response to combatting bird of prey persecution in the uplands (because nobody who knows has ever suggested such a thing)
- say or suggest that grouse shooting provides a nett economic benefit to the nation (because there are no such figures)
- suggest that the current Hen Harrier Action Plan is remotely fit for purpose
- praise gamekeepers
- conflate benefits of all shooting (economic or environmental) with benefits of grouse shooting (because it makes the government department and/or its ministers look either stupid or biased)
As a Shooting Times reader since the early seventies, I have recently noticed a growing acknowledgement, and willingness to discuss, the problems associated with wildlife crime.
This is apparent both in editorial comment, and in readers letters, where there have been some interesting, though brief, exchanges.
The young editor, Patrick Galbraith, is not everybodies cup of tea, but I think he is doing a good job and is to be congratulated on these changes.
In this week’s issue ( dated Nov 1st), there is even an admiration of the way Chris Packham has dealt with his Aspergers, to become a role model for young people, it’s there amongst some criticism, but it wouldn’t have been there at all not long ago.
Trapit – that’s very good to hear. I rarely look at Shooting Times these days so I may be out of date. My views of it are partly formed from being slagged off in it either personally or corporately almost every week when I worked at the RSPB – it was a source of amusement and lightened the last few days of most weeks. I’m unlikely to subscribe but I may pick one up at a newsagent some time.
Read a copy in Tesco, don’t pay them for a copy.
The shooting community is going through what the egg collecting community did 40 years ago. Denial, fanatically fighting change, now they are in the lamenting the way things are going and are (only just) beginning to accept that change is happening. Soon it will just be outright admitted criminals and people for whom it is just another historical curio involved. Good.
Interesting quotes. I wonder what his views are on lead ammunition. I guess it’s too much to hope that there will be a noticeable shift there too.
Yeah, especially since the angling community have mostly abandoned lead for weighting (apart from a few dickheads, some of which are using it just because they are told not to; like overgrown toddlers), and doubly so because the only reason not to abandon lead is because the old landed gentry want to be able to use antique purdeys instead of just hanging them on their walls and buying a modern gun.
It is sheer obstructionism. If the anglers can give up lead, so can the shooters.
This blog should be called ‘The wibblings of Aunt Sally’
The BASC has been condemning the illegal killing of raptors for ever and a day, as have I (and, on my part, at least, recommending getting rid of both lead and steel shot).
Where movement is needed is in regard to this silly campaign to ban grouse shooting.
The BASC and BTO both recognise that the removal of predator control measures from grouse moors will be disastrous for already struggling upland bird populations, particularly waders, but also golden eagles, hen harriers, evidenced to be vulnerable to nest predation by foxes.
Tim Bidie – you are talking nonsense and you have now reached your daily ration. See you tomorrow perhaps.
Oh dear, Tim, since when have golden eagles been vulnerable to nest predation by foxes? More like foxes are vulnerable to predation by eagles!
Your comment confirms my belief that support for banning grouse shooting is based on misconception, misinformation and simple misunderstanding.
The information that I have previously supplied that would have saved you from error was, no doubt for that reason, previously censored.
‘We checked 30 well established ranges on Skye and Lochalsh and found 29 of these to be occupied by an adult pair…..’
‘Of the 29 pairs, 24 were seen incubating……Twelve pairs failed at the egg stage and deserted aggs were collected under licence from 3 of the failed nests and sent to the Predatory Bird Monitoring Scheme at the CEH for analysis. The other 12 pairs all hatched chicks. Two pairs lost their single chicks at the downy stage, both on vulnerable and easy accessible nests. On one of these we found a chewed off downy chick’s wing and suspected fox predation. We suspect the other downy chick may also have fallen prey to a fox as it was also a ‘walk-in’ site. A 3rd pair lost a chick at approx 7 weeks, and this site had strong evidence of fox predation. Chewed feathers were found on the nest with no other remains. Fox scats were below the nest and we found a mass of feathers mainly from the chick’s left wing on a mound downhill from the site, all with chewed ends, as if the fox had carried off the chick and stopped to remove some of the ‘weight’.’
Skye golden eagle survey 2015
Well, TB, I see you are an early riser. Eager to see how many people you can rile today?! Sorry, it doesn’t work, I’m just amused! Go make a cuppa, take a deep breath, look out of the window at the clouds, or hug a tree and relax!
Thank you for your delightful response!
OK, Tim, what I should have said is, since when have their ‘populations’ been vulnerable to fox predation. Not unusual for odd pairs of young and inexperienced birds to nest in unsuitable sites where casual disturbance can increase the risk of predation. No evidence in the report you quote that foxes were entirely responsible for the nest failure, scavenging behaviour would be an equally likely possibility.
We know that the hen harrier in England is struggling to establish itself, in the main due to predation, possibly exacerbated by well intentioned but often disastrous nest visits that lead foxes straight to the nest.
The golden eagle, likewise, has failed to establish itself in England.
Tim – that’s such nonsense.
Maybe, maybe not:
‘….my long term study of Hen Harriers in the area has been beset with years of low productivity due to problems of fox predation. After disastrous breeding seasons in 2015 and 2016, the 2017 season was approached with a degree of trepidation…….Anyway it was decided to view birds from a distance and not to visit nest sites…..I am now delighted to report that of seven active territories located, all have been successful and no fewer than 17 young have fledged…..By not visiting nests perhaps trails were not left which foxes might follow.’
Hen Harriers 2017 A birders guide to the Isle of Skye’
Saying you condemn illegal persecution is the bare minimum, the key issue is what comes next. Until the last few days for many years, such indignant condemnation has been followed by blank denial that there was a problem (backed by a tissue-thin apologia to deflect responsibility), active attacks the RSPB, disparaging the science, crude attempts to silence critics, attempts to undermine the current protections and an utter failure to turn in those notorious ‘few rotten apples’ who in the meantime were carrying on as normal. Whilst you may be sincere in your position, it’ll take a damn sight more than ritual condemnation by the shooting lobby to convince anyone outside that bubble that such comments are any more than a vacuous self-serving excuse for not taking any action.
Hopefully (and very probably) this is something coming from the new BASC Chief Exec:
https://basc.org.uk/blog/press-releases/latest-news/basc-appoints-new-chief-executive/
Otherwise Christopher Graffius would have done this sooner.
Hopefully (and possibly) he’s told the various shooting organisations that they need to get their act together on the issue of wildlife crime as defending the indefensible is not a credible policy position!
Good for Mr Graffius. I hope he makes progress but he is asking a lot from shooting.
He says that peer pressure is a powerful force in shooting. That peer pressure has always closed ranks around a culture of prejudice isolation, exceptionalism and paranoia. Participants identity is tied up with bogus notions of their unique expertise and entitlement where land and wildlife management is concerned and a macho dismissal of the rest of us. A community with those weaknesses can be manipulated by those who are making the real money from estate asset values and currently high shooting income. These people have already calculated the level of threat to their activities and, clearly from current persecution levels, have decided they can afford to carry on with business as usual. They are also the people whose social and financial status makes them the most insouciant regarding the risks, and the most effective at legitimising criminal activity in the wider shooting community.
It takes courage and self awareness to examine the prejudices that underpin your own identity. You have to question whether shooting is capable of that.
I await a response to the article from a certain ex England cricketer
Amazing how a report from America showed a decline in shooting but a massive rise in wildlife watching was not picked up in the UK! http://raptorpolitics.org.uk/2017/09/13/86-million-americans-watched-wildlife-in-2016-a-20-percent-jump-from-2011/
Even more amazing while folk moan about the wrongs in this country this survey by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is carried out every 5 years where many of our surveys are historical [Mull] to say the least.
If we care for the future of our wildlife then we need to do more to show how much they are worth.