Defra responded yesterday to Gavin Gamble’s e-petition to ban driven grouse shooting. Congratulations to Gavin for having moved things on a bit – it’s always interesting to get a glimpse of what is going on in the government mind.
Here is the government response:
Defra is working with key interested parties to ensure the sustainable management of the uplands, balancing environmental and economic benefits, which includes the role of sustainable grouse shooting.
The government appreciates that many people hold strong views on the issue of driven grouse shooting. The government considers that shooting activities bring many benefits to the rural economy and can in many cases be beneficial for wildlife and habitat conservation. We recognise that it is vital that wildlife and habitats are respected and protected and the law is respected. We will continue work to ensure a sustainable, mutually beneficial relationship between shooting and conservation. We do have concerns that in some limited instances management practices have unwanted consequences for the wider environment.
Persecution of British raptors and other wildlife
All wild birds are protected under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. We have identified raptor persecution as a wildlife crime priority. Each wildlife crime priority has a delivery group to consider what action should be taken, and develop a plan to prevent crime, gather intelligence on offences and enforce against it. The Raptor Persecution Priority Delivery Group (RPPDG) focuses on the golden eagle, goshawk, hen harrier, peregrine, red kite and white-tailed eagle. The group is working on developing tools to help tackle raptor persecution crimes.
The National Wildlife Crime Unit, which is part-funded by Defra, monitors and gathers intelligence on illegal activities affecting raptors and assists police forces when required. Despite instances of poisoning and killing of birds of prey, populations of many species, such as the peregrine falcon, red kite and buzzard have increased. We are concerned that with respect to eliminating illegal bird of prey persecution, there are still individuals who continue to commit these crimes. We will work with all stakeholders to try to eradicate these crimes.
In particular the government takes the decline in the hen harrier population in England very seriously and is committed to securing its future. In January 2016 the hen harrier sub-group of the Defra led Upland Stakeholder Forum published the Hen Harrier Action Plan to increase the English hen harrier population. It contains six actions which individually can bring benefits for hen harriers, but when combined, underpin each other and have the potential to deliver positive outcomes.
The Action Plan was developed with senior representatives from organisations including Natural England, the Moorland Association, the National Gamekeepers’ Organisation, the Game & Wildlife Conservation Trust, National Parks England and formerly the RSPB. These organisations, led by Natural England, will monitor activities and report annually on progress to the Defra Uplands Stakeholder Forum and the UK Tasking and Co-ordinating group for Wildlife Crime.
Targeted control of problem species is only one part of a complex mix of factors that can influence populations. Maintaining the balance between biodiversity and the numbers of each species is important. Defra monitors populations of a number of rare or vulnerable species where human intervention is thought to be a contributing factor in their decline, and ensures appropriate action is taken to keep their populations out of danger.
Subsidies to grouse moorland estates
Neither subsidies nor agri-environment payments are paid to farmers to support shooting activities. Agri-environment schemes provide funding to support environmentally beneficial land management, including the management of habitats and work to improve water quality, facilitate carbon capture and protect our historic landscapes. Uplands, including grouse moors, have complex land ownership and tenure arrangements with many areas being designated common land with multiple beneficiaries. Hence, many of the agreements under our schemes result in funding going to grazing tenancies that are critical to the beneficial management of these areas.
Flood risk, water pollution & environmental damage
The government is aware that the UK uplands have 75% of the world’s remaining heather moorland and about 13% of the world’s blanket bog. 70% of the UK’s drinking water is provided from upland catchments, and tourism brings in an estimated £1.78 billion to England’s upland national parks.
The government recognises that healthy, active peat provides good habitat for grouse as well as numerous environmental benefits and ecosystem services. Natural England is working with landowners of grouse moors within Special Areas of Conservation to develop voluntary agreements, which include vegetation management principles for the various habitats on grouse moors. The government encourages land managers to work closely with Natural England to put voluntary agreements in place for all the benefits they bring to moor owners and to the environment.
The government is also working with moor owners and stakeholders to further improve management practices and peat condition, such as through the Blanket Bog Restoration Strategy.
Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
If Rory Stewart’s previous efforts were worth a mere 3 out of 10 (I am a generous marker) then this one might have scored 4 out of 10 were it not for one massive lapse contained in it. This response, despite some very slightly encouraging words also only rates 3 out of 10. Dr Coffey – you have failed.
The relevant sentence which occurs in the section “Persecution of raptors and other wildlife’ is:
Targeted control of problem species is only one part of a complex mix of factors that can influence populations.
I looked at this several times before I could believe what a minister has signed off in this response. Defra has chosen to describe illegal persecution of protected wildlife as ‘targeted control of problem species’. This must be the sentence that the Countryside Alliance wrote for this response! It is truly shocking. And the rest of this paragraph is written in a very different way from the rest of the response. It really is almost as though civil servants wrote most of it, quite carefully, and then Tim Bonner was given the opportunity of writing any old rubbish in one paragraph.
I’ll come back to this subject tomorrow but it’s clear that Defra is still pretending that raptor persecution is a small problem and that they are implementing viable solutions to this little matter.
There are a whole bunch of interesting things in this response but the bottom line is that Defra is still sticking its head in the sand and hoping that the subject will go away. The question for us is whether we let that happen.
I produced a checklist of things that Dr Coffey, the minister who will have signed off this response, should and shouldn’t have said in it. Below is a quick comment on how badly this response measures up. But the bottom line is that Defra is still acting as an apologist for grouse shooting rather than being the the environment department. This response is a blot on Mr Gove’s tenure at Defra because when it has come to it, his department has defended the pointless hobby of the few and ignored the best interests of the many.
The government response should:
- be published within 2 weeks of Gavin Gamble’s e-petition reaching 10,000 signatures – FAIL
- announce that vicarious liability for wildlife crimes will be introduced in England because of the unacceptably high levels of wildlife crime – FAIL
- 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 – FAIL
- 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) – PARTIALLY
- confirm that Defra is looking at removal of farming subsidies from grouse moors in its post-Brexit agricultural strategy – an interesting FAIL since this would have been an opportunity to reinforce what George Eustice said in January without in any way tying government’s hands
- 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) – PARTIALLY (perhaps because the RSPB’s Walshaw Moor case will force government’s hand – watch this space)
- mention where the government is with dealing with the RSPB complaint to the EU over unsustainable moorland management due to grouse shooting practices – FAIL but just because it wasn’t mentioned doesn’t mean that it isn’t looming
- 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 – FAIL although this response goes further than any other in admitting that there is a problem
- 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 – FAIL and an interesting fail since I understand that Natural England has asked a couple of academics to analyse the data, but Defra failed to acknowledge that anything is going to happen (they would have been wiser to acknowledge that something is happening)
- acknowledge that wildlife crime applies to many other protected species other than the Hen Harrier – FAIL because other species are only mentioned as doing well, generally, even though they are doing badly on grouse moors
- announce that the National Capital Committee has been asked to compile a report on ecosystem services and grouse moor management – FAIL
- 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 – FAIL
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) – FAIL
- say or suggest that grouse shooting provides a nett economic benefit to the nation (because there are no such figures) – SUCCESS
- suggest that the current Hen Harrier Action Plan is remotely fit for purpose – FAIL
- praise gamekeepers – SUCCESS
- 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) – SUCCESS
re. economic benefit, aren’t you being a bit generous to the statement? Para1, sentence 1 finishes with ‘…driven grouse shooting.’ And the next sentence goes on to talk about the benefit to the rural economy of shooting, failing to separate DGS from other shooting, as usual, and implying that DGS has reasonable benefits to the economy, whereas they are probably microscopic, except to the landowners and lead-shot salesmen.
Lots of other things wrong with it too of course.
Well said. And can the govt come up with any studies to show that DGS is a net economic benefit rather than a dis-benefit through the way it seriously compromises practically every other form of land use and recreation due to its extensive and intensive nature? It’s the height of irresponsibility that any govt is using the argument economic worth of something as part of its defense when it doesn’t know what it is or in fact if there really is any at all! Smacks of tremendous incompetence at best, blatant favouritism at the worst. The argument being used here to give the thumbs up to DGS could just as easily have been made in defense of the coal mining industry, shipyards and steel plants – they weren’t, rightly or wrongly they did some sums and said no. Wonder why DGS is so special? One way or another next year there will be a petition for Westminster asking for a full and independent review of the actual economic value (and to whom) of DGS. As such a study will actually be in process in Scotland by then, wonder how they’ll wriggle out of doing one south of the border? It’s been interesting to note that up here some of the Moorland Forums have been trying to undermine Glen Tanar’s example as an estate that can successfully diversify….getting desperate obviously.
Outraged, perplexed, disgusted yes all of this and more. For someone who is science based Dr Coffey espouses and repeats opinion based on assumptions, a cardinal sin for all scientists. I had to read their email response several times, I tried hard to find the positives and think you are being very generous give 3 out of 10 Mark. The response from Defra should serve us all as a further motivation in seeing this sick hobby banned completely. I need a stiff drink…
Well done to Gavin Gamble, Mark, and those who signed the petition. But this drivel of a response is meaningless and disingenuous justification of the worst kind. It’s amazing that they gall to mention the Wildlife Crime Unit when essentially this government was planning to axe the paltry funding for it, and was only forced to reverse this because of the howls of protest.
Let’s be very blunt about this. If this government or previous governments really wanted to tackle the orchestrated and illegal persecution of protected birds of prey they could do it tomorrow. The type of policy which would tackle it is well known. When the authorities have wanted to clamp down on any illegal, disruptive or anti-social behaviour usually legislation is introduced which gives the police strong powers, heavy penalties are introduced, and the police are ordered to act.
Just give the police and other bodies the power to investigate and monitor the activities of those responsible for the persistent illegal persecution of protected raptors. Give substantial prison sentences to those perpetrating this crime, with the option of reducing their sentences if they agree to cooperate with the authorities in naming others involved in this despicable crime. These tactics would be very effective in this instance. The people responsible for this like to be seen as respectable and law abiding. These are not people on the fringes of society for whom being caught and prosecuted would just be an occupational hazard. It should be tackled in a very similar way to the trade in illegal drugs. The authorities know how to do this.
But let’s be blunt why they won’t do this. Ultimately the people behind this orchestrated and persistent crime are some of the most powerful people in the establishment. These raptors are being persecuted to protect the very privileged activities of a very wealthy and powerful few. The whole presentation of this, that these raptors are being persecuted by a few out of control rogue gamekeepers, and that the landowners and shooting interests strongly disapprove of these actions is so disingenuous and dishonest that it staggers belief. Why would they even consider employing people who were disobeying their wishes and doing something that disgusted them? In the countryside gamekeeping jobs are few and far between. These are much sought after positions, and the employers have the pick of who they employ. If gamekeepers thought they’d be immediately dismissed for illegally persecuting raptors and would become unemployable. they’d never even consider it.
In any other sphere of life it would be seen that the responsibility for tackling this problem would lie with those employing those primarily responsible for this crime. The buck should stop with the owners of these shoots.
Land reform is the way forward.
What exactly do you have in mind?
LVT is a good starting point.
Well analysed Mark. The highlighted sentence immediately rang alarm bells with me too. DEFRA just haven’t yet got the message or perhaps their hands are firmly tied by politics. Signal: no let up.
What’s the latest news on Walshaw Moor developments please Mark? Worth a separate blog?
Have a read of this, Mike. As far as I can tell, it’s the most recent article (April 2016), but if anyone knows any more, I’d also be interested to know.
http://www.rspb.org.uk/community/ourwork/b/martinharper/archive/2016/04/29/england-39-s-moors-a-burning-issue.aspx
“Targeted control of problem species is only one part of a complex mix of factors that can influence populations”. Which “problem species”? Raptors which are only a ‘problem’ for the intensive game shooting lobby or Pheasants (released en masse) and Red Grouse (managed to reach unsustainable numbers) which arguably cause far more problems (direct and indirect) for the whole environment? The inherent bias in the response is disturbing but no longer surprising.
My thoughts exactly. It’s so biased a statement that it is just obvious that pressure has been applied from those with power and influence – but perhaps not much pressure was needed. Therese Coffey really doesn’t care about this subject does she? Otherwise she would have taken the time to read the evidence properly. I had dared to hope more of Michael Gove, but he doesn’t seem keen on reading the evidence either – perhaps it’s just that none of them want to upset those Tory donors…
I’m pretty sure it is not what Coffey meant but in this situation the “problem species” is Homo sapiens and “targeted control” should mean the prompt arrest of all the people involved in persecuting hen harriers and other raptors (either directly or by aiding and abetting).
-10.
Deeply depressing, but also a spur to carry on fighting.
‘The targeted control of problem species…’, what does this mean?
Surely it can’t include legally protected raptors? Defra is not that stupid. No, it looks like sloppy writing which was triggered by an evasiveness to avoid the ecologically and ethically embarrassing issues of mustelids, foxes and mountain hares whose mass slaughter is required to produce highly unnatural red grouse numbers on driven grouse moors.
Shit: ‘evasiveness to avoid’ 0/10. A sloppy double negative? But you get my drift and surely it would have to take an unkind person to shoot me down for my mistake?
Murray,those of us not as bright as most did not even notice anything wrong.
Thank you for your link several days ago but by the time I studied it then it was to late to give my thoughts but will try to fit it in when an appropriate blog comes along.
Thanks Dennis, I’ll look forward to that and learning things ….
It’s difficult to see what else could be meant other than protected raptors. It looks like a revealing slip suggesting a willingness to accept the desire by the CA and their fellow travellers to see such protections relaxed to the point where they become unenforceable (cf the permission to cull Buzzards). Besides, DEFRA really is beginning to look that stupid …..
I think you were more than generous to this less than honest reply
I find that on reading any official response statement by the government, that it helps to get a better depth and true understanding of their insincerity, dishonesty and general overall lack of any factual knowledge, by breaking them down completely and using the technique of pausing for 2 seconds after every 3 -5 words read. On doing so, you should in turn find that the ratio of ones own sighs, huffs, head shakes and slightly deranged laughing far outweighs any positive feelings, agreement or satisfaction.
For your comfort however you may find it helpful to know that a slowly sipped cup of tea does help in the event of any lingering feelings of nausea.
It’s just a matter of perspective!
Theft = specific redistribution of goods
Murder = resolution of individual human obstacles
etc.
This DEFRA response is a very good example of mostly meaningless flannel. How can this Government say that shooting benefits local economies when they have done no proper assessment of the great number of disbenefits that come with it, to say nothing of the cruelty inflicted on the birds and other wildlife. This is really just like the arguments of the 19 th century when to stop sending children up chimnies to clean them would be economically detrimental to the local economy.
All in all a pretty shabby, though not unexpected, response from this Government and giving them three out of ten I think is quite generous, Mark.
The biggest laugh – The government recognises that healthy, active peat provides good habitat for grouse. [I presume Red Grouse as Blacks live elsewhere] but hang on. Has no one told them that wet peat actually kills heather as it hates its feet in water! Why do you think these Red Grouse owners put drains in 20 yards apart to drain the peat? £millions of government money now spent blocking the drains and bringing back the water! Large areas will have so little fast growing heather with lots of Cotton Grass and sphagnum! Eat that you heather loving veggies!
Well done Gavin! You have yet again exposed the shallowness of their arguments. Their position is purely political and they have to make ridiculous claims to pretend that they have a legitimate argument. Don’t be downhearted, get back up and start again.
Its easier to win small arguments… lets ban muirburn.
Time for the RSPB to ask members to support Gavin’s #BanDGS petition. I think after Dr Coffey’s response this is the only option. Perhaps after this, Mr Corbyn and the Labour party will also show more support of this matter, to at least obtain a debate in parliament.
Hats off to Mark, Findlay and to Gavin and to all the others trying to preserve our precious wildlife.
Defra is simply corrupt and has to resort to dishonesty and sophistry to defend the turning of a blind eye to the habitual criminal activity of a close ally.
But do not forget that the Labour Party, the Lib Dems and the Conservatives are complicit with this corruption, because they have all recently been in Government.
However, many individual Labour Party, Lib Dem and Conservative members may not be. We need to continue to raise the public’s awareness of this issue until these dominant political parties are forced to act.
Send a Findlay card to you local MP (and your local newspaper editor) and explain why it is being sent:
http://wildeaboutbirds.blogspot.co.uk/2017/10/those-thought-provoking-hen-harriers.html
Cheers
Flagrant disregard for the law of the land. That sentence about the targeted control of problem species clearly says that Defra are in it up to their necks with the people who are illegally killing Hen Harriers. Beggars belief really, why the hell should anyone else follow the law if the Governments own agencies don’t uphold it. Suppose its one law for the few and different ones for the many.
But this response is entirely consistent with those Defra have made under FOI requests regarding missing Hen Harriers, which is clearly and simply obstruction. It will mean passing FOI requests to the relevant commissioner, to do our utmost to prize this information out of them, ideally before the petition closes.
If the ‘targeted control of problem species’ bit doesn’t shake the RSPB hierarchy out of it’s torpor, they should be ashamed of themselves. Let’s hope the scales fall from their eyes soon.
“takes very seriously ”
My browser has a handy “Find in page” text-finder. All pages with this text can quickly be identified as generated by corporate flannel templates, disingenuous, and safely ignored without reading.