This article by the Countryside Alliance is quite interesting but not very convincing.
The CA says that it believes that the most pressing issue for shooting is to self-regulate. I think that we can take that to mean that they are scared of anyone else regulating them – and so they should be because shooting has a poor record of sticking to regulations. Whether it be complying with the lead-ammunition regulations for wetlands, remembering not to kill protected birds of prey or sticking to the codes of good practice on heather burning, shooting has a poor record. Shooters are their own worst 
enemies and yet shooting has not sorted out the bad apples over many years and there is no reason to think that they can or will now.
The fact is that no pro-shooting organisation has any meaningful control over shoots or gamekeepers. The role of BASC, GWCT, Moorland Association and Countryside Alliance is to say some moderate things for the consumption of gullible politicians and the media whilst on the ground nothing changes – and sometimes it gets worse. The failure of the shooter-supported, conservationist-rejected, Hen Harrier Inaction Plan demonstrates that nobody takes the slightest bit of notice on the ground of any words said to politicians in Westminster or Holyrood by pro-shooting organisations.
Shooting has many decades track record of failure to reform. There is no reason to believe that it is ready to do so now. But it’s good to see that it is rattled that change will be forced upon shooting.
The CA is also worried that supply of gamebirds might outstrip demand for the birds. We’re already there it seems – this isn’t a fear for the future, it’s a reaction to the present. And that’s largely because the profit made from shooting is much more to do with each bird shot than each bird eaten. So big bags are the name of the game in Pheasant shoots, some partridge shoots and Red Grouse shoots. Of course there is over supply – ridiculously high numbers of birds are being shot and the people shooting them have no stake in what happens to the carcases.
There would be one relatively easy way for the shooting industry to reduce their problems and that would be to move away from lead ammunition voluntarily because eventually they will be forced to do so. Much of what is said about the quality of game meat as a food is true, but the fact that it is voluntarily and uncaringly loaded with lead, a poison, by the suppliers of the meat is a crushing indictment of the whole industry. This is bound to hit market penetration – and we should continue to make sure that the public are told about lead in game meat. Shooters have backed themselves into this corner and it’s entirely their own fault.
To encourage more soul-searching by shooting, and to get politicians to bring in a variety of measures, please sign Gaving Gamble’s e-petition to ban driven grouse shooting. We need that ban – but if politicians hear ‘ban’ and act in other ways it will be a start.
[registration_form]
You are a generous man Mark. I would say the gestating diatribe of the Countryside Alliance is, as always, entirely meaningless.
Its all so reassuring if you take it at face value there is no mention of the reality of their weaknesses. Lead use and even wildfowl are still often shot with it. Raptor persecution, still much more regular than they admit, almost routine on many grouse estates. The fiasco that is unregulated medicated grit use. the obscene numbers of released alien pheasants and redlegs ( seem ever increasing too) without knowledge or care of what that means for our countryside ecology and the new trap regulations are supposed to come in this year, most Fenn trapping will be illegal currently.
All the game lobby organisations are lobbying groups they have shown time and time again that self regulation is a very bad joke, they are incapable of it and to that end the CA statement is meaningless piffle.
‘no pro-shooting organisation has any meaningful control over shoots or gamekeepers’. Absolutely true, and they do not even band together either to get rid of the keepers and sporting agents causing the main problems, to report their activities to the police or to support the keepers who are witnesses to their peers’ crimes.
I always feel that the insincerity of the shooting organisations’ condemnation of raptor persecution is revealed most clearly by their glee on those occasions when the case against some gamekeeper or other who has been caught on film clubbing a bird of prey fails on a technicality. If they were truly concerned about illegal raptor killing they would not be cheering the failure of the RSPB to successfully get a prosecution on these occasions but lamenting the fact that a criminal has got away with his crime but they just cannot bring themselves to do that.
It’s interesting that they talk of lessons learned from hunting with dogs and how lack of self regulation and continued bad practice led to banning legislation. They must see that driven grouse moors are in danger of dragging shooting in the same direction with their excesses and inability to function without bad practice. I guess some of the old guard are thinking quite selfishly and just hoping to prolong things for a few more years so that they can carry on until the end of their lives – little matter the longer term and potentially irreversible damage they are doing to shooting as a whole. The CA article shows that some in the business are thinking about these issues but the old guard are probably just too set in their ways and too powerful to shift.
I see that GWCT have a Grouse Seminar on March 8th. Apparently anyone can attend for £40.00. Perhaps a few of your correspondents and perhaps yourself, Mark, should attend? A bit of crowd-funding needed? I’m in for a few quid.
https://raptorpersecutionscotland.wordpress.com/2018/01/10/gwcts-north-of-england-grouse-seminar-2018/
All the speakers are scientists from the GWCT except an unnamed presenter from Natural England. All subjects are relevant to the Ban Grouse Shooting lobby and perhaps a broader perspective could be advanced.
I’d be happy to put in a few quid to get someone there from the BDGS lobby.
That they feel the need to peddle such is an indication of the impact ‘we’ are having?
Conference: perhaps that’s where the C (aka Natural England) comes from in Game Wildlife [mis]Trust ….
Accept there are still probably some rare species left in the statutory lapdog somewhere …. but in anticipation for all the dislikes ….
25,322 – Hooray.
New funding stream in Ireland, just come to my attention….
https://www.farmersjournal.ie/hundreds-of-farmers-apply-for-hen-harrier-programme-336376
a project helping farmers fund the SUPPORT of hen harriers on their land.
Inability to self-regulate amongst the shooting community affects pretty much all aspects of shooting. Even woodcock, which is a generally well-respected and revered quarry species, is taking a hit. I know of quite a few shooters (generally informed and enthusiastic individuals) who restrict their daily bag to 2-5 birds out of respect that woodcock is a wintering-site-loyal wild bird which cannot take any extent of overexploitation.
There is talk of self-regulation among these folk, yet, as there is no legal bag limit on woodcock, some shooters take that as an invitation for a free-for-all, shooting as many as they can. Even worse is organised, driven woodcock shooting and woodcock flighting (shooting them as they fly out of roost in the evening). I have seen pictures posted on facebook of big lines of shot woodcock, which understandably upsets some of the hunters who restrict themselves. But everyone is so afraid of creating a row and offending each other (shooters are some of the most sensitive and defensive people I have ever seen on facebook!) that positive discussion between the hunters with opposing views is difficult to impossible. From what I can see, most woodcock shooters are deathly afraid of tighter legal regulation, or an outright ban on woodcock shooting – yet tighter legal regulation can be the only way forward to protect numbers of woodcock, both locally and nationally, as self-regulation is impossible.
Not to mention the ones who feel that they must shoot as many as possible as part of their personal war against “political correctness gorn mard” in order to show the filthy hippy/lefties who is boss. Shooting out of spite.
Can’t say I’ve experienced that breed among the shooters that I know. But I’ve no doubt there are some out there with a gun and a very bad attitude.
The real significance of lead is that it would be an easy concession for shooting to show some good faith without impacting its core beliefs/objectives. John Swift understood this – and the crowing from the CA et al when his point of view was defeated says everything you need to know about the attitude of the people with the upper hand in shooting at the moment – and a timely reminder that it takes two to compromise, and it is not the conservationists who are at fault. Quite the opposite, many including myself feel strongly that RSPB has bent far too far towards a compromise which has remained totally unreciprocated by shooting interests.
In contrast, Mr Gove is racing to tackle as many issues as possible which don’t threaten his core agenda – which is probably not to spend any money.