‘From Havel, we learn that the true heroes of our time are those who stay the course.’ – Bruce Chatwin
Earlier this year an e-petition to support grouse shooting ground to a halt with 25,322 signatures following our very successful e-petition calling for a ban reaching 123, 077 signatures – it was a rout!
Now we see Gavin Gamble’s e-petition ticking along and currently standing at 18,140 signatures. And there is a rival petition (thanks to readers of this blog for pointing it out) which has a magnificent … 8 signatures! So at the moment we are 18,132 signatures ahead in this second face-off.
I don’t know what’s going on here and will keep an eye on the rival e-petition, and update you on its progress alongside that of Gavin Gamble’s every week.
If you are only as good as your last performance/game/success/whatever then it does matter that Gavin Gamble’s e-petition keeps growing and keeps putting distance between itself and the rival petition – particularly because Gavin’s e-petition will close a while before the ‘rival’ one.
Let’s make sure that we stay the course.
PS I’d love to see the RSPB set up a third, middle-way, e-petition calling for licensing of shooting. They should, but they won’t. Maybe someone else will.
[registration_form]
Who is the little fella that ticks a dislike on everything. I feel a bit sorry for him to be honest. Open up to us mate. You must be lonely.
‘Ticking along’ is a good way of putting it. That’s exactly what Gavin’s petition is doing, at a good rate. Of course it will need to pick up pace but then petitions do before they close. Especially ours perhaps because there must be loads of people who signed Mark’s successful petition last year who just need to be reminded that this is a new one they can sign. Meanwhile we seem to be 18,143 ahead.
Should I worry? Since you drew attention to it, the opposing petition has gone up by 25%. But then again, that’s 2 signatures. Gavin’s has got 30 in the same time, that’s 15x the rate, which seems fair.
Has anyone actually read this:
“Grouse moors and grouse shooting are integral and traditional parts of moorland management which benefit the grouse and ALL native wildlife i.e. Lapwing and plovers. Grouse shooting is supported by the Royal family and real country people.
Grouse shooting income is essential for local businesses and jobs and should not be banned. Killing vermin is a social service which benefits ALL wildlife. Birds of prey are over-protected and are out of balance with natural habitats and species.”
Unbelievable. I’m quite tempted to start a petition calling for the licensing of shooting.
Ed Hutchings – it’s nonsense isn’t it.
‘Real country people’ – an interesting term.
Does it include for example urban dwellers who might have dreams about watching legally protected hen harriers on grouse moors or are they excluded because they don’t quite fit in?
murray – it’s nonsense
It’s so ludicrous it condemns itself out of its own mouth.
And for a 100% fair comparison with your 123,077 BDGS petition, the intensive grouse farming industry (IGFI) should start up a PDGS petition – ‘Protect Driven Grouse Shooting’.
No way — this would stimulate far too much scrutiny and risk the likelihood that such a petition would never get anywhere near the 25,322 achieved by the much more fluffily worded ‘Protect grouse Moors and grouse Shooting’ petition.
‘Real country people’
Of the 10 signatures, 3 are from urban areas (Aberdeen, Derby and central London).
De – and last time there was a similar petition an awful lot of the signatures were from the posher parts of London.
Being blunt the grouse shooting “industry” the owners, agents, participants and employees are currently ALL over protected by a system that makes prosecuting wildlife crime difficult to near impossible and only those committing the crime can be so charged, not those who commission it can be held responsible nor those who benefit from it (proceeds of crime).
Perhaps there should also be a crime of “wilful ignorance” for the ecologically illiterate such as the author of the pro shooting petition mentioned above.
Ok then. How is this
“Introduce a licensing of gamebird shooting
It is well documented that the game-bird shooting industry is a focal point for illegal persecution of the UK’s wildlife as an example persecution pressures around driven grouse shooting estates have reduced England’s breeding hen harrier population to less than 5 pairs.
Licensing of shooting estates would allow the authorities to revoke the licences of any estates in the event of illegal persecution on or around the estate. Licensing is an alternative to a full ban on driven grouse shooting which will only affect those estates that break the terms of the licence, those estates that do not partake in illegal activities will have nothing to fear from licensing which is much needed as the industry has shown no to little effort to self regulate.”
Or do you want to licence all shooting activities in which case
“Introduce licensing for the shooting of live animals.
Certain aspects of the shooting industry are responsible for the illegal persecution of the UK’s wildlife. To date the status quo of industry self- regulation has so far failed to prevent such persecution. Licensing would reduce these persecution pressures without affecting the whole industry.
Any licensing scheme should, in the interest of fairness apply to all live animal shooting and should be split into 2 parts.
Part 1: Individual licence. A person may apply for a site-specific individual licence, which must be signed by the landowner if different.
Part 2: Estate licence. A shooting estate may apply for a site specific licence that permits shooting activities by their employees and invited guests. on estate land only.”
Anthony – looks pretty good but I think you have exceeded the stingey word limit.
Don’t forget though that there are 2 drafts there, each on it’s own does fit within the word limit. (I know as I used the petition site to write them).
So the choice is:
1. licence gamebird shooting
2. licence all animal shooting