Now that there is an e-petition asking governments to introduce licensing of grouse shooting, which they could do as part of all shooting or just for grouse shooting I guess, the RSPB and others need to think about whether they will promote this matter to their memberships.
I think they should but I’m guessing that they won’t. The RSPB’s track record is not good on this matter. Many years ago the RSPB said that they would support John Armitage’s e-petition on licensing but then failed to keep the bargain. And early last year when I was thinking about launching a third e-petition on grouse shooting I spoke to the RSPB but they didn’t want to cooperate on a joint e-petition that could have encompassed a variety of approaches. Well, in retrospect we all got a simple ‘ban’ e-petition over the line, up to 123,077 signatures and discussed in parliament without the RSPB.
A disappointing element of that was that the RSPB failed to capitalise on that opportunity and make progress with their idea of licensing of shooting estates. Well, now they have another chance thanks to Ed Hutchings.
There is plenty of time for the RSPB to get behind Ed Hutchings’s e-petition – in the Nature’s Home magazine that comes out in spring but more importantly through social media and through emails to their members. This is a real opportunity for the RSPB to show its members that it is serious about getting change on this issue. It would be good to see some passion and some clever and effective campaigning. I wonder whether we will.
I’ve emailed the RSPB Chair of Council, Kevin Cox, asking whether he’d like to write a Guest Blog here early in the New Year on what the RSPB plans to do (his predecessor Steve Ormerod explained the RSPB position here twice over the last few years which was very kind of him). We’ll see.
There are currently three e-petitions on the Westminster parliament website concerning grouse shooting – two of them are well worth signing and they are:
- the Gavin Gamble e-petition to ban driven grouse shooting which closes on 2 April and currently stands at 20,049 signatures.
- the Ed Hutchings e-petition to license driven grouse shooting which closes on 15 June and currently stands on 805 signatures
But the other e-petition, the one rooted in the nineteenth century, is doing pretty well and it is
- the Jane Griggs e-petition in support of grouse shooting which closes on 24 May and today has passed 10,000 signatures. It has therefore triggered a government response and it will be interesting to see what Therese Coffey has to say about it – especially the bit about raptors being over-protected!
[registration_form]
I personally think the RSPB wants this issue to go away and has decided internally to say as little as possible about it. And, given the lack of enforcement of the law governing fox hunting, and the National Trust’s unwillingness to make sure their hunting license holders observe the law, I cannot see how any licensing scheme could possibly work.
An all-out ban on driven grouse shooting is entirely enforceable: you cannot have a driven grouse shoot without very intensive grouse moor management, and such management is plain for all to see. As such, a ban can be enforced (partly remotely using satellite data).
Frankly, I think the RSPBs approach here is disreputable.
Never been happy with the RSPB stance on this Mark – so much so that I am now considering withdrawing my membership. They are trying to keep too many people happy too much of the time – it never works, especially with subject matter as divisive as this. As you and many other blogs make well known the debate surrounding grouse shooting is so much more than just about persecution, although obviously it takes centre stage (and quite rightly so in my opinion). Time for the RSPB to step up to the microphone and put their weight and resources into PROTECTING our birds of prey!
Hi, I would like to sign your petition, but the ‘Sign’ button is not live on my screen, and I can’t find any alternative. Help? – I am not on Twitter or other social media.
Thanks, Lois Pryce
Birdwatcher & BOC member, Bristol
Lois, i think you are trying to click on the photo.
Go lower down to the highlighted in orange text
‘ the Gavin Gamble e-petition to ban driven grouse shooting’
and/or
the Ed Hutchings e-petition to license driven grouse shooting’
and click on them.
They will take you to the government website and there follow instructions.
Don’t forget to open and click on the confirmation e-mail which you will receive.
Lois, you need to click on the following link on Mark’s blog above:
“Ed Hutchings e-petition to license driven grouse shooting”
this will take you to the live petition site where you can click on the “Sign this Petition” to enter your details. You will then receive an email to sign to confirm your intent. The top part of Mark’s blog is just a screen grab and not active.
Hope that helps.
Guess would have to be stick their head in the sand while drawing large salaries while reportedly representing the RS Protection of birds.
If it was not so serious it would be funny.
The RSPB has a proud track record of taking the initiative in saving birds of prey – peregrines, ospreys, white-tailed eagles, red kites. Given that fantastic backdrop, I struggle to understand its reluctance to seize the opportunity and do the same for hen harriers and other raptors threatened by driven grouse shooting. Is it putting politics and public perceptions ahead of protection?
Maybe really confronting driven grouse shooting is a bridge too far for the RSPB. After all they would be going up against some very rich, very powerful and well place people. Could be they see a threat to both their access and funding streams, affecting the good works they do.
Quite possibly. It isn’t an easy call, but shouldn’t conservation principles come first? I’m sure that in fighting the plumage trade, the good ladies of Didsbury made plenty of influential enemies, yet they fought and won. Those who might resent RSPB taking a more forthright stance are hardly the Society’s greatest fans and collaborators at present.
One of the main points I was trying to make about Mark’s general criticism of Natural England, was that most of the conservation NGOs are also compromised when it comes to powerful vested interests, such as game shooting interests. It is a massive systematic problem in the UK in that some powerful vested interests embedded in the establishment have massive influence they should not have.
In the UK all interests are supposedly equal, but some are far more equal than others. The whole point I was making before was that criticism should be specific and not general. What I was trying to say is that we need to focus on the real problem and that is the malign influence of certain interests such as shooting interests behind the scenes in our system, which is why organizations, whether they be official bodies, or NGOs are scared to take an overt position which may upset the shooting and landowning lobby, for fear of the impact on their organization. It’s a culture of fear.
Personally I long favoured the licensing argument because I felt it had a much higher probability of being accepted, and it was very difficult for the shooting industry to argue against it. In other words, if they’ve got nothing to hide, then what have they got to worry about? Although of course we know that in reality plenty of shooting estates have got a lot to hide and the idea that it is just the odd bad apple is a joke.
The fact that large NGOs like the RSPB are scared to openly lobby for licensing tells us just how powerful shooting interests are. Shooting interests are very opposed to licensing and more scrutiny because they’ve got lots to hide. Also whilst in theory it should be easier to get licensing than a ban, in reality it’s a long way off. Certainly it’s got virtually no chance of happening with a Conservative government. There’s also a big question of what would happen if it was implemented. Going on case precedent even if it was possible to implement licensing, it is likely it would be so watered down, and so full of loopholes that it would be as much use as a chocolate fireguard. Therefore campaigning for a full ban might be more realistic. The shooting industry has brought this on themselves with their complete inability to self-regulate and the dishonesty they use to deny the scale of the problem.
A problem can’t be solved unless it’s acknowledged. And what the shooting industry will acknowledge about the illegal killing and persecution of birds of prey is so far removed from the actuality, that there can be no possibility of effectively working with them.