Gavin Gamble’s e-petition has already achieved something – it has shown us that Defra gives not a fig about wildlife crime. That may not surprise many people but it is a useful stake in the ground.
I know that many people are suffering from petition fatigue (and I have as much cause to feel that as most, I reckon) but it is when the struggle for change gets wearisome that the mettle of those looking for change is tested. We are being tested now.
Let’s just imagine that there are four camps in this debate over the future of grouse shooting. They might be:
- those who wish to see driven grouse shooting (and perhaps all forms of bloodsport) banned completely
- those who would like to see shooting, maybe particularly intensive grouse shooting, licensed
- those who just wish that wildlife crime would cease and then everything would be lovely
- those who, whatever they say in public, are perfectly happy with the status quo.
There are probably 40+ positions rather than just four.
I think we can now be pretty sure that most of the shooting community and Defra are in Camp 4 – they may say the right things so that they look as though they are in Camp 3, but their actions put them firmly in Camp 4. We should treat them as though they are in Camp 4 until they do things that look as though they are truly decamping.
Then there are quite a lot of people in Camps 1 and 2. I am in Camp 1 because I don’t think that Camp 2 is a place that can exist in the real world – but I’d be willing to be proved wrong.
Now let’s go back to Gavin Gamble’s e-petition, which is progressing, but progressing slowly and somewhat unspectacularly at the moment (it has to be said). If you are in different camps, how do you view this?
If you are in Camp 4 you are chuffed to bits I assume, because it might mean that the fizz has gone out of this issue and your stonewalling (as in the latest Defra response) seems to be paying off.
If you are in Camp 3 you are maybe not that bothered, but you ought to be a bit sad that the pressure is relaxing on the bad guys.
If you are in Camp 2, then providing you have your wits about you, you should be really disappointed because there is no other game in town at the moment. An e-petition supporting a ban is the only standard around which to rally in order to try to produce change – unless of course, the RSPB leaps into lobbying mode and launches an e-petition in favour of licensing (which they have always seemed too timid to do). The fact is, as things stand, the best way to get licensing is to demand a ban (and I want a ban anyway) and to make sure that the number of signatures is reasonably impressive.
And if you are in Camp 1 then you may be feeling a bit down-hearted too because you want there to be a ban and at present it looks as though support has weakened.
So, if the number of signatures on Gavin Gamble’s e-petition remains fairly low the only people who will be pleased about this are the people who support the status quo. Can we let that happen? I think not.
This isn’t my e-petition, but I have enough skin in the game, as I believe the expression is, to want it to do well. In particular, I’m very keen that Gavin Gamble’s e-petition passes at least the 25,322 signatures amassed by the failing e-petition supporting driven grouse shooting last year. I’m not sure that one is only as good as one’s last e-petition but, but … I would prefer it, as a campaigner, if the head-count for a call for a ban were always ahead of the call for the status quo. So, although I might have advised Gavin Gamble not to launch his petition if I’d been asked, we are where we are and I really hope he gets the support that he deserves and that his petition heads into the 20,000s, 30,000s and 40,000s at least.
And remember, there is nothing to stop the grouse shooters starting another ‘rival’ e-petition and getting a higher score this time around. Does this sound like a game? Well, to some extent it is, isn’t it.
I have a few ideas, based on our previous experience, of how to help Gavin Gamble’s e-petition gather a respectable number of signatures and for a variety of reasons, some of them personal ones, I’ll be deploying those ideas towards the end of the petition period in February and March. This also has the advantage that one can see what moves the opposition, remember that is Defra and the shooting industry, have made and also that if there is a general election called (which might just happen) then one can keep one’s powder dry.
So you’ll see less mention of Gavin’s e-petition on this blog from now on for about 10 weeks – that doens’t mean no mentions (I won’t be able to resist), but fewer mentions. And don’t take that as lack of interest on my part, I’ll be checking the petition figures many times a day for sure. Also, don’t take it as lack of engagement, there are some things I need to get done which will take up my time (writing stuff!) but I’ll be attempting to set some things up to help Gavin get those signatures for early in 2018.
Here are some thoughts from others:
‘Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world; indeed, it’s the only thing that ever has.‘ – Margaret Mead
‘Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did and it never will‘ – Frederick Douglass.
‘The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing‘ – Edmund Burke.
‘Encouraging a response from those who defend the status quo is important too. A victory is scored when your opponents are forced to debate issues they would rather leave ignored…’ – Owen Jones
[registration_form]
I too am wearisome of yet more petitions; particularly on the same subject. I understand why Gavin did it – keeps momentum, and pressure would be a reason; but any number significantly short of 123K is going to be pounced on by those in your Camp 4. I’d say that it really has to surpass 100K; anything less (even 99,999) would offer those who seek the status quo plenty of opportunity to deride, spin and claim that the issue has been put to bed.
Assuming, and unless there is some serious advertisement as before, I think it is a big assumption, that it exceeds 100K, I doubt we will have a different debate (assuming a debate is held). I think if the numbers of Gavin’s petition reached around 80K, we would very likely see a counter-petition as I believe there would have to be a requirement to have one to ensure the pro-shooting lobby have strong justification in participating in any eventual debate (as before).
Mind you, a counter-petition would also come with some risk, as unless they acquired a vastly significant increase in numbers (I would suggest in the region of 80K minimum) then they would be vulnerable to claims that cumulatively, they cannot muster support, even in the knowledge that Defra are seemingly indifferent to changing the status quo. But a good performance by Gavin’s petition would likely force their hand.
This all said and done, for the petition to have any influence, I think it would have to markedly exceed 123K – indeed, I would suggest it would have to exceed 200K. I think a significant reason why there was even a debate in October 2016 was that the numbers rose over successive petitions and whizzed passed 100K last time round – it became an issue. For it to become an issue again (in the eyes of the Petition Committee and MPs in general), it will have to result in a massive number; and 200K would be a good benchmark; close to 240K would be a better one.
So for Gavin’s gamble (with a small ‘g’) to succeed, these are, in my opinion, the numbers to achieve. I sincerely hope they are acquired.
Except that a petition launched too soon, a duplication of a previous mode of protest, does not keep up momentum. It kills it through fatigue (especially with all the Brexit stuff steal attention and protest time). Well meaning good intentions do more damage than actual malice most of the time, and this was one of those times. Instead of trying to fight fatigue and refight the same arguments as last time, which we now have to do thanks to Gavin, we should have been focusing on building on the last petitions scientific basis, focusing on the cracks that were opened up, and using disruptive field protests, and then in three or four year’s time going back to a petition with actual new material and new public awareness.
All Gavin has achieved is to reset the clock to before Mark’s petition took place and wipe away any and all progress. Gavin has damaged the fight more than any of our opponents by this well meant, but ill conceived blunder.
I’m in Camp 1 and, having received Defra’s response, agree that it must be in Camp 4.
I not only find it infuriating that Defra appears indifferent to wildlife crime but, particularly, that its response indicates such pathetic ecological illiteracy.
Agreed Phil. The trouble is that DEFRA know they can rely on the general public’s pathetic ecological illiteracy, to use your phrase. For example they know they can say things like “UK uplands have 75% of the world’s remaining heather moorland” and the general public won’t know that this is because those UK uplands have been devastated by deforestation, sheep grazing and grouse management, and they won’t know that the resulting endless heather monoculture isn’t the natural habitat of anything and isn’t worth conserving.
I’m sure we’re all ‘illiterate’ in certain specialist subjects. The general public can however tell a good thing from a bad thing, when presented with a simple choice rather than an ecology lesson.
Would you rather our countryside was full of wildlife such as birds of prey? Or would you prefer to see a few rich people exterminated them so they could shoot more of some other birds?
It is unrealistic to frame the wider public debate in terms they are unfamiliar with.
‘Would you rather our countryside was full of wildlife such as birds of prey? Or would you prefer to see a few rich people exterminated them so they could shoot more of some other birds?’
Paul, if you don’t mind, think I’ll pinch that paragraph for my Christmas message in my cards this year.
(Hard to put a link to Gavin’s petition in a card though).
Please do. I’ll be expecting one…
Petition fatigue? Well, possibly.
I well remember how when signing the third petition in as many years, I felt that it might be one to many. How wonderful that I was proved wrong. Instead of fatigue, it was as if keep asking people to sign the same thing over and over again, highlighted the fact that the problem was still there.
I now view all these petitions, and the ease with which you can sign them, very differently. I now see that, much as we may say, ‘oh gawd, not another petition’, it is actually a very effective method of getting messages across.
Perhaps Gavin could have tried one of the many online petition sites this time? No, don’t sigh, just look at it another way.
At the moment the same petition is going on the same (government) site, so it is not getting the views it deserves. Now if a few of us were to put up a petition on several different sites, it would reach, and therefore, inform a whole new audience.
For all our bleating, not one of us really thought that Defra would respond in any other way did we? Far to much vested interest is at stake. We are asking the government to turn there backs on the very people that fund them. And what have they got to lose? A few votes maybe? They look at the fact that ONLY 123k people know of, or care about the problem and provided that figure doesn’t get a lot higher, they can ignore it.
So that’s it. The figure has to get higher. A lot higher. And if the main NGOs are to frightened to do it, it has to be us.
I wonder how big the reach would be if you ‘advertised’ it on Change.Org, Sum of Us and all the other on-line petition sites that exist. It may not be ideal, but if it gets the info out there, why not?
The last thing the government want is for this issue to get publicity, so that’s what we need to do, publicise it, any which way we can.
Please don’t dislike this, discuss it.
One of my greatest disappointments is how few people in bird clubs or other wildlife bodies seem to care. I hope that’s just me being a pessimist. Add to that other organisations which we might expect better of, including RSPB (who appear to be in camp 2), and even sadly to say in my experience some members of Raptor Study Groups who prefer to remain low profile, and seek selfish ownership of the raptors they “study.” The RSPB in particular could make a huge difference if they were prepared to shake off the “Royal” mantle and get down to the serious business of making progress in bird protection, not just treading water and fire fighting. I have attended several local RSPB Members’ Groups, and usually come away downhearted at the prevalence of apathy regarding harrier persecution. I’m not saying this is universal, and I’ve been very impressed by the RSPB contributions to the media by the likes of Duncan Orr-Ewing, who clearly communicates with passion and sincerity. You too Mark, and Raptor Persecution UK to whom we owe tremendous gratitude for investigating and highlighting the problems, with such incisive analysis. However I’m sure all are aware that we are reaching a fairly limited audience, and it would be good if this could be corrected by more active campaigning. Like all of us I expect, I have friends who have no great involvement in birdwatching or ornithology, but who are surprised and appalled to hear of the plight of Hen Harriers and Golden Eagles, coming from the barrels of so many gamekeepers’ guns. This is a message which I believe would arouse the public at large, but perhaps we’re a bit slow in getting that message across. Do we need to focus more on press releases?
A few weeks ago I was at a vegan festival (I’m not even a veggie TBH, but was sitting at a stall for a local org) where the RSPB had an info stand. I was really pleased to see that there were several prominent images of persecuted raptors that had been killed through poisoning, traps and being shot – actually less depressing that they were on show as opposed to not being on show. I fell into a right good chinwag with the RSPB guy, a brilliant bloke, and we nattered about Hen Harrier day, some of the characters in RSPB Scotland etc. When I said how pleased I was that raptor persecution was being highlighted on his stand he replied ‘well usually we wouldn’t put those pictures up because we think they are too strong for general use, but because of the nature of this event we thought it would be OK here.’ This was quite a revealing remark and on reflection I remembered that while similar images had been used on a RSPB stand in Kelvingrove Museum about 7 years ago, I’d never seen them on any other RSPB stall and as I attend lots of events and fairs that’s quite a few. I love the RSPB, but there’s inconsistency in when and how they deal with taking the message on illegal killing of BOPs to the public, often underplaying it I’m afraid.
So, if I was the RSPB and wanted to see licensing introduced, I would urge my members to get behind this petition, on the basis that I could drum up 250,000+ signatures and put on some real pressure that might at long last lead to a compromise of bringing in licensing – a potentially helpful first step.
Or, I could talk about licensing, do a bit to argue the case for it; make sure I don’t unduly alienate the government, influential landowners and the establishment; not bother my members too much about a cause that goes to the heart of why the RSPB was formed in the first place, ie wanton persecution; make my organisation look weak when it comes to an issue that it should be expected to lead on; upset and potentially alienate many keen birders (while not troubling lots of more casual countryside loving members and prospects with a controversial issue), and hope it all goes away pending a possibly more sympathetic labour administration coming into office and taking a different stance.
Just saying.
Good point. The RSPB got a free ticket into the debate on the back of Mark’s petition. They really should get behind this one. They can still claim to support a licensing strategy but ask members to sign as a a way of getting a real debate this time.
They would probably get attacked for it by the barmy cricketer but so what? The day he shuts up will be the day everything with a hooked beak is dead (excluding parrots).
I am not downhearted (well maybe a little bit). I didn’t expect the petition this time would really help us. This happened when petitions keep being repeated and people begin doubt the impact that signing would bring. In the past I have not signed a petition because I have already signed one before. If I was worry about petitions reflecting strength of public opinion I would be more concerned that the petition for a Carbon Tax has only 262 signictures.
A far better comparison would be a poll. In March 2016 in Scotland 52% were for a ban of driven grouse shooting and only 19% were against a ban. I think another poll would show support for a ban has grown.
Mark, your petition was fantastic but why Oh why did you permit the RSPB to participate in the debate at Westminster? All of the signatories did so to support the debate to ban DGS not for a fall back motion to licence it! Your efforts were doomed from the moment the debate was split – a united front would have stood a better chance of convincing the panel and preventing your early upbraiding from the chair.
I know little about the technicalities of campaigning however couldn’t better use be made of social media – what about a thunderclap to harness more support?
Alastair – I didn’t choose the RSPB and I didn’t have any say in them being there. That was the decision of the Petitions Committee. As was the decision to invite the Countryside Alliance and Moorland Association along.
But that wasn’t the debate – it was the evidence session (which is an unusual aspect of our petiton). If Gavin Gamble’s e-petition does reach 100,000 signatures then it is very likely there will be a debate in Westminster Hall, between MPs, but very unlikely that there will be another evidence session.
Evidence session, mmmh not too sure I’d describe some of the written submissions as evidence per se. I’m not too sure all would have stood up to thorough scrutiny if their authors had been tested by a half decent committee chair but what do I know, I merely submitted, read others and observed the debacle that Parliament deems to illustrate democracy in action ….
I am still puzzled how c.25k signatures got the DGS a place at the table when 100k are required to obtain a discussion/debate.
Never give up. Or get downhearted. It doesn’t matter how many petitions there are. The demise of raptors on shooting estates is the FACT that will not go away. Suggestions about using Care2, Sumofus and Change are a way to go… Go international…. !
Can one of the large international petition sites be used for a wider impact with a rider for U.K. Residents to sign Gavin’s petition with a link to that? Can we fund an ad or few highlighting the issues and referring a wider public to the petition? Can we produce a summary on the present situation and the importance of signing up to this petition for us all to send out to family friends and contacts?
Mike, I can’t really believe that a ‘commercial’ site would allow a link to another petition, but using them would for sure reach a much wider audience.
One of the major criticisms of these sites is that they are to easy to sign and people don’t really give the subject much thought. However, the facts say differently. Look at the growing land and marine litter awareness, even the Beeb are getting in on the act, but this has been made possible, in part, by use of these sites.
As Paul suggests above, keep the message simple and get the knowledge out there.
As for your suggestion that we fund ads, why not? Why shouldn’t we try a ‘crowdfunding’ of our own.
Sorry, on the wrong post, but re Gove, have you read:
https://www.brexitenvironment.co.uk/2017/11/20/whats-in-store-for-the-precautionary-principle/
Gavin, with the best of intentions upon which the proverbial road is paved, has probably killed the movement deader than DEFRA and Botham could ever dream. It was far too soon for a second petition, it should have been 2019 at the earliest for the next one. This has effectively reset the clock on progress back to square one. Thanks, Gav.
Ouch – that’s quite harsh! But I do see what you mean.
It would be nice to get some reassurance from Gavin that he does have a plan for garnering support, rather than just hoping the petition will gather momentum of its own accord.
Good to see that it’s now mentioned (although not very prominently) on the LACS website.
The best thing all round would be for the petition to be withdrawn, if that’s possible.
I just can’t fathom why anyone would have launched it in the first place. What did they expect to happen?
Ditch it, and perhaps after a decent interval, someone with some public profile, launch a petition for the licensing of shooting estates, along the lines of the SRSG petition.
How awful when Gavin does something that most of us have not either the knowledge or guts to do then people criticize him for doing it.
Goodness me he has kept it in everyone’s mind and proof is Mark has blogged about this petition many times.
Gavin’s only problem has been he has not a big captive audience of cliques to draw on for scratch my back and they return the favour.
Gavin you have done more than almost anyone with the exception of a dozen or so well known people,do not get dispirited.
I agree and at least he is not afraid to use his name either.
Nice to see I’ve pissed on everybody’s chips here. I’m trying to do my bit, but criticism from your own side is pretty tough to take. Two options were either to let the whole debate fizzle out, DEFRA think they’ve got us off their backs, the shooting lobby remain happy in victory from the last debate and the Tories, unanimously in favour of Grouse Shooting can continue their agenda and ignore climate/ecological issues like the good old days, or we can keep this in the public eye and try and keep the fight alive. For readers such as Random, what are you expecting to achieve with silence? You think a Tory Government is going to wake up one day and suddenly decide to do something about this shit shower? Like their whole hunting-centric, bloodlust, only for the wealthy personality disappeared over night? Regardless of what science brings to the table, do you think they will listen if nobody is shouting? They haven’t listened for the last god knows how many years. Pressure wins change, not the facts of whether something is right or wrong because if it did, climate change, war, famine wouldn’t exist. I apologise if the timing isn’t right, I apologise for not being of celebrity status, soon I’ll be apologising for caring about the whole cause no doubt, to my own team. If I could withdraw the petition I bloody well would right now and then hope that inaction would get us all to where we want to be!
With all due respect, what you should be apologising for is setting back the cause.
De – no, it is those who have sat still and done nothing who have done that.
But it is difficult to keep things going when one faces a brick wall of indifference from government.
Please don’t get dispirited Gavin. There are, obviously, pros and cons for another petition soon after the last but it is important to keep the subject in the pubic domain. And that is exactly what everyone who supports BDGS, and licensing DGS, should be doing. It is up to all of us.
Gavin – Fair comments, thank you.
Well said. You deserve our praise and support, not criticism.
Paul – I agree
Oh dear Gavin,please please you need to just learn one thing that is that this blog gets some people happy to be critical of something they are unhappy with.
I understand your hurt but develop a thicker skin and Mark is a good person to study in that respect.
Lots of people,13,120 and more all the time think you are right with this petition.
Well done keep calm and carry on.
One thing for your detractors to consider.
If you want to be critical then have a go at the RSPB top people as it seems to me Gavin has done more on his todd than they have with all their money and members.
Dennis – well said.
Mark,the really good thing is your positive attitude to Gavins petition and although you spread the credit around you are definitely a very important part if this campaign is successful.
Think some people did not realise at the start that it is likely some of us older ones will not see the end as it will take a long time and constant battle.There are only so many things to do to promote it and it is bound to be seen as monotonous at times by some.
Dennis – thanks for your comments. We have to be in this for the long game.
Be of good heart Gavin, ignore the critics, you did something positive. Well done you!
Gavin, I had mixed feelings a bit about your petition for all the reasons described above. Forgive me, I’d never heard of you and I even thought that it could be a cunning ploy by the opposition to launch a petition that would fail that would allow our opponents to show that it had fizzled out. Perhaps you could have consulted opinion first before launching the petition. That said, we are where we are. So. I think you (and we) need to garner some more support. Have you tried Save Me (led by Brian May) to promote your petition. There are some great thinking musicians out there with a wide audience reach through their facebook pages. You should think about engaging the likes of Billy Bragg, Paul Heaton, the Manic Street Preachers etc. These are campaigning artists and I hope that their fans – like me – think along broadly the same lines as they do about the world. You should think about engaging other prominent supporters. Try people like Bill Bailey, Bill Oddie and other prominent names to promote via their own social media. This is your petition. Happy to help, but I think you need to start networking and securing “sponsors” to your petition reach a wider of audience out there who will undoubtedly care, but who are unware.
I guess it’s not uncommon for the same petition to loose momentum after a few attempts especially when the subject is held in such low regard by MP’s. Maintaining an active petition imo ensures there is always a way for people to express their dismay for the way raptors are treated and their governments refusal to take the issue seriously. This latest petition may do worse than Mark’s last, or it may do better, only time will tell on that regard. Let’s hope for the latter.