The e-petition of Ed Hutchings, which calls for licensing of grouse shooting, has received a government response.I know that Ed is travelling at the moment but before he headed off he said he would write a guest blog here on his return in which he was expecting to comment on the government response which he expected, correctly, would have emerged by then. I look forward to that guest blog. and renewed congratulations to Ed for putting himself out there with this e-petition.
This is the third response which Therese Coffey has signed off on this subject (see here and here for comments on their response to Gavin Gamble’s ‘ban’ e-petition and here for their response to Jane Griggs)) . She hasn’t learned much, but her response tells us much about her and the Defra approach.
Remember the RSPB supports licensing and says that it is supporting this e-petition (although that support seems rather half-hearted at the moment). This government response is a slap in the face for the RSPB. It suggests that Defra has little regard for the views of the RSPB and some of its 1 million members. This response is simply another indication that on the subject of illegal raptor persecution and unsustainable moorland management the RSPB has no clout with this Westminster government whatsoever. Most of the blame for that must fall at Defra’s door – a government department that fails to act for the public good – but some of the blame must stick with the RSPB. The RSPB is seen by Defra as a weak force, from which there is little to fear in terms of public censure and which can safely be ignored. The RSPB has failed to provide a hard place whereas the grouse shooters have provided a rock (albeit a rock that is friendly to, indeed mates with, Defra).
Here is the full text of the Defra response with a few first thoughts annotated in red.
‘Grouse shooting is a legitimate activity providing economic benefits, investment in remote areas and benefits for wildlife and habitat conservation. The Government has no plans to introduce licensing. Driven grouse shooting is underpinned by, and relies on, wildlife crime. Defra is soft on wildlife crime and soft on the perpetrators of wildlife crime.
The Government has no plans to license grouse moors nor to introduce vicarious liability in England for offences related to wildlife crime. Then you should be ashamed of yourselves. The introduction of such new regulation would require evidence that it will be effective. The maintenance of the status quo requires evidence that it is working. Your response suggests that you are completely happy with the status quo where raptors are persecuted in large numbers and are missing from large areas of the uplands of England including in National Parks, AONBs, SSSIs and SPAs. We are not aware of compelling evidence that the introduction of such provisions would have a significant deterrent effect on those who persecute wildlife. Try it and see. That’s what the Scottish government is doing and that’s what wildlife experts suggest is a way forward; a minimal way forward. We will continue to monitor the situation in Scotland and to consider whether this approach is necessary and proportionate to assist in tackling wildlife crime in England.
The Government appreciates that many people have strongly held views on grouse shooting. I bet you are. I’m sure the Moorland Association are breathing down your necks all the time. Is the RSPB doing the same? The Government also recognises that shooting activities bring many benefits to the rural economy and the environment, in particular wildlife and habitat conservation. The Government therefore continues to support shooting, recognising it is vital that wildlife and habitats are respected and protected and we ensure a sustainable, mutually beneficial relationship between shooting and conservation.
The Government recognises the international importance of the UK uplands. The UK has 75 percent of the world’s remaining heather moorland and about 13 percent of the world’s blanket bog (rain-fed peat bog that ‘blankets’ the landscape). Seventy percent 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. When will Defra publish the result of the EU Commission’s complaint against Defra on the burning of blanket bogs? This government has failed to act to protect blanket bogs – come clean!
Natural England is working with landowners of grouse moors within special areas of conservation to develop long term land management plans, 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 these plans in place for all the benefits they bring to moor owners and to the environment. These are a sham! See here, here and here and further blogs on the subject to come.
With regard to grouse moorland management, grouse shooting is one of the main land uses in the uplands along with grazing and forestry. The Government recognises that healthy, active peat provides good habitat for grouse as well as numerous environmental benefits and ecosystem services. The Government is working with moor owners and stakeholders to further improve management practices and peat condition, such as through the Blanket Bog Restoration Strategy.
With regard to birds of prey, like all wild birds they are protected under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. The current legislation and guidance balances competing social, economic and environmental interests, while protecting the conservation status and welfare of the relevant bird of prey species. You think that the conservation status of the Hen Harrier, Peregrine, Goshawk and Red Kite on English grouse moors, in the English uplands, is ‘protected’ do you? An interesting phrase. By that yardstick we can expect wildlife to drain from the British countryside and seas while Defra preens itself at the tables of grouse moor owners, developers and agri-business. This is nonsense akin to Newspeak, and complacent nonsense to boot. Some species of birds of prey need specific protection because their low numbers indicate that their populations are struggling. We all know that their populations are struggling and this is despite the legal protection that they have had for over 60 years. You are not enforcing the legal protection that exists – you aren’t even recognising the problem. Defra is in the pockets of vested interests and failing to do its job in the uplands of England. Don’t expect anyone to believe in the new Defra of Michael Gove when your actions on grouse moor management put Defra firmly in the early twentieth century in terms of thinking and approach.
The Government takes the decline in the hen harrier population in England very seriously Errr. No you don’t We really treat this comment with the contempt it deserves. and is committed to securing its future Errr. no you aren’t. This is such utter nonsense. Your Hen Harrier Inaction Plan and subsequent actions show that this is completely untrue. In January 2016 we published the Hen Harrier Action Plan to increase the English hen harrier population. It contains six actions that individually can bring benefits for hen harriers, but when combined underpin each other and have the potential to deliver positive outcomes. You have noticed that the English Hen Harrier population went down in each of the first two years of your plan? By the way, what about Peregrines, Red Kites and Goshawks, just for a start. Do you have inaction plans for them too?
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. RSPB bailed out – remember? That leaves Defra, two bodies funded by Defra and the grouse shooting industry as the owners of this plan. And we the public reject it completely.
Raptors, like all wild birds, are afforded protection from illegal killing by the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. However, the Government is concerned that there are still individuals who continue to commit these crimes.
As a result, the Government has identified the illegal persecution of raptors 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 is made up of representatives from Government and non-government organisations working together to help preserve and protect the six UK priority raptor species (goshawk, red kite, golden eagle, hen harrier, peregrine falcon and white tailed eagle).
Additionally, the National Wildlife Crime Unit, which is part-funded by Defra, provides valuable intelligence and operational support to police forces in tackling wildlife crimes, including raptor persecution. There are strong penalties in place to punish those committing offences against birds of prey and other wildlife.‘
These government responses are quite irritating but very valuable. Well done to Ed Hutchings in stimulating this one. They document very clearly the head-in-the-sand thinking of Defra, its cosiness with the grouse shooting industry that is the source of wildlife crime against birds of prey in the uplands, its failure to grasp the issue and its utter lack of a grip of its job of protecting wildlife. They not only provide masses of ammunition for the campaign against driven grouse shooting but fire up those who care about these issues. But they also undermine Michael Gove’s credibility as an environmentalist. His department is soft on wildlife crime and soft on the causes of wildlife crime. Gove is condemned out of his junior minister’s own mouth.
Defra clearly needs a stronger signal – please sign Gavin Gamble’s e-petition in favour of banning driven grouse shooting.
[registration_form]
Unless the RSPB mobilises hundreds of thousands of its members on this issue – which it is perfectly capable of doing – Defra will continue to dismiss our concerns out of hand.
The fact that the RSPB has not chosen to do so, suggests that tackling the illegal persecution of birds of prey sits lower down its list of priorities than it suggests. Or that it is more worried about the political fallout of tackling this issue head on than it is about standing up for threatened raptors. Either way it’s a poor show from ‘nature’s voice’.
Paul – it does suggest that. It doesn’t prove it of course, but it certainly does suggest it.
Of course the other factor is likely to be perceptions among prospects. For the RSPB to stick its neck out and campaign robustly on birds of prey may not sit comfortably with its desire to be seen as an ‘all nature’ organisation. As opposed to a narrow, special interest group with an obsession with rare raptors – as some may see it.
I hate these ‘why don’t you’ … comments but I’ll put one to you anyway!
Why don’t you write to the EU Commission to ask them for the result of the EU Commission’s complaint against Defra on the burning of blanket bogs?
I would but I don’t know the details. Sorry.
Lizzybusy – I might, but i keep being told by those in the know that it’s imminent, but then it has been imminent for months. It might just be that the Commission has noticed the blogs here and is wondering whether Defra is playing the game.
The EU’s action against the UK government on this matter was initiated, as it happens, as a result of a complaint by the RSPB. You can see more details here: https://www.rspb.org.uk/our-work/our-positions-and-casework/casework/cases/walshaw-moor/ or here http://www.iucn-uk-peatlandprogramme.org/news-and-events/news/european-commission-starts-legal-action-over-burning-uk-protected-sites.
It seems as though everyone is waiting to see what the result of the European Commission’s legal action is but why don’t you write to your MEP, Lizzy, to ask her or him to find out what’s happening (she/he is there to represent you!)? You can find out who your MEPs are here http://www.europarl.europa.eu/unitedkingdom/en/your-meps/uk_meps.html#shadowbox/1/
Thanks Jonathan. I will.
I think this may be the worst response yet. Almost every line had me twitching with rage.
The line: “The Government also recognises that shooting activities bring many benefits to the rural economy and the environment, in particular wildlife and habitat conservation.” is nothing more than a dogmatic (and fanciful) opinion expressed as fact. There’s no attempt to provide evidence. How does grouse shooting benefit wildlife conservation? If you’re a red grouse, it forces you to live at disease-ridden unsupportable densities. If you’re almost anything else, it’s also bad news. If you’re a lapwing, you might just scrape by.
High fives all round at the Moorland Association I’d imagine.
What we see there is the result of criminals being in charge of policing themselves. Had the perpetrators been common people this would have been jumped on and stopped by now. This document only shows how high the level of corruption and palm greasing goes in this country.
It continues to surprise that Michael Gove is allowing this to continue. Suspicion of his damascene conversion to green causes is hardly surprising and for a large number of the people he is trying to convince this issue and others like the badger cull are litmus tests of his sincerity and commitment. He is known to have overturned a number of his junior minister’s antideluvian decisions – why not this one ? Why undermine his political direction over a third order issue ?
It would appear that the new leaf Michael Gove turned over has been consigned to the compost bin, and rotted away. I hope he and Ms Coffey are studying the Yorks Dales NP evidence review. When the next election comes….. we will remember!
An insult to everyone who cares about our countryside. Whitehall whitewash!
I don’t live downstream of a DGS moor but this must seem a bit like a kick in the teeth for those who do and have already had a home, business premises or school flooded. To state the obvious climate change is going to increase intense rain storm frequency. The disruption from flooding to areas downstream of DGS moors is only going to be worse in the future if the status quo is allowed to continue.
Gosh what power organisations like the NFU, Moorland Association et al must have over Defra to ignore ordinary people who have to pay the price for their interests.
Could a government department that only delivers transparency in decision making and evidence based policy ever exit?
My answer is that if our political establishment wants to stem the current wave in political populism that we are witnessing at the moment then it may be shock horror for lobbyists as such departments may have to exist and could be a solution. But I am not to optimistic.
I have a book inscibed by the lovely David Bellamy. It reads. “The future of nature lies in the common sense of man”…Can any man in his heart of hearts put a price on the joys of nature. It is time that tne natural world and our glourious British wildlife were protected from persecution and tbe sporting follies of a few rich selfush men. We may in our philosoophies deny that animals have rights but one cannot deny that we have a greater responsibility to ensure the protection and survival of our wonderful birds, wildlife and their forever diminishing habitats. Lets us pray that our governments can employ the powers of common sense and save our Hen Harriers and other threatened birds before they are lost forever to the lead bullets of mans shame!
Just a shame he chose to side with the Countryside Areliars; the very antithesis of nature conservation.
And advertising “Dettol” of all things. An inspirational lecturer gone wrong.
I saw him talk about his book ‘Jolly Green Giant’ at the Edinburgh International Book Festival. He mentioned how when he was a boy a gamekeeper showed him a bird’s nest and said ‘it’s because of me that’s here’. Bellamy fell for it! At his very best he had no peer, now he’s just become a pathetic contrarian. Very, very sad.
This response makes it perfectly clear what the government’s position is over driven grouse shooting, and the illegal persecution of raptors on managed grouse moors. Nor is it just the position of Therese Coffey, because this position has existed long before she was at Defra. Essentially this position is that driven grouse shooting is an activity which should be protected and enabled at any cost, most likely because it is one of the principle interests of the most senior members of the British establishment.
In other words, no matter what the evidence is of the illegal persecution of protected raptors across managed grouse moors, the problem should be ignored because enabling and protecting driven grouse shooting comes first.
Specifically here, there is absolutely no acknowledgement that there is a general connection between driven grouse shooting, and the illegal persecution of raptors, especially Hen Harriers, but also Peregrines and other species of raptor. The response talks about “individuals” as if it is only the odd individual, and it makes no mention of what might motivate them to do this.
This is an Orwellian re-invention of history, because this is what Natural England placed on their website on 22 December 2008 at the time of their publication A Future for the Hen Harrier in England (It is on the National Archives, and was archived on 14 March 2011). I have the direct link if anyone wants it. I will share the link on Twitter.
“Detailed monitoring work since 2002 has shown that the critically low breeding numbers and patchy distribution of the hen harrier in England is a result of persecution – both in the breeding season, and at communal roosts in the winter – especially on areas managed for red grouse or with game rearing interests.” …
‘Sir Martin Doughty, Chair of Natural England said: “The hen harrier has unfortunately become the emblem of man’s callous disregard for the spectacular and majestic wildlife that we have in England.
“Following seven years of intensive monitoring and detailed research, the picture is unequivocal – hen harriers are being persecuted while they attempt to nest and birds are simply not returning to their breeding areas the following spring.”’
This was very clear and unambiguous, after many years of research and monitoring, the reason for the decline of the Hen Harrier in England, was beyond doubt in 2008. But by some devious re-invention of history, this is now all forgotten, and it is only the odd individual, responsible, and all links between driven grouse shooting have been deliberately omitted, as if it’s something the government and Defra are now unaware of.
Is that the same David Bellamy who denied global warming?
I think the fairytale The Emperor’s New Clothes by Hans Christian Andersen perfectly reflects the Government’s/Gove’s/Coffey’s failure to spot their deluded nakedness.
So the weavers (Moorland Trust, GTCW, etc) promise an emperor (the Government) a “majestic” new suit of clothes (an upland full of rural jobs, beneficial to the environment and rich in wildlife) what they say is invisible to those who are unfit for their positions, stupid, or incompetent. When the emperor (Government) parades (has her photo taken on Wemmergill Moor) and boasts of his “majestic” new clothes before his subjects, no one dares to say that they do not see any suit of clothes on him (unable to see how it could possibly be important to the rural economy, beneficial to the environment or rich in wildlife) for fear that they will be seen as stupid. Finally, a child cries out, “But he isn’t wearing anything at all! (But your moor is empty, nobody is coming here and spending money. It needs to be propped up using subsidies. It is being burnt and pumping out tons of carbon into the atmosphere and intensifies flood events. Where is the wildlife. It is a barren monoculture. We can’t see anything at all!”)
My apologies to anyone now picturing Michael Gove or Therese Coffey naked!
Again the automatic response of ‘economic benefits’ when anything that might just clip the wings of DGS comes up. The govt needs to put up or shut with this – nothing that receives as much financial and political support as DGS has should have got it without serious assessment of whether or not it really is a benefit rather than a negative. Did coal mining, ship building and steel working get such preferential treatment? Fingers crossed there will be another petition for Westminster later in the year requesting a comprehensive and independent economic study to find the real costs/values of DGS. The Scottish parliament is looking into this, the petitions committee will be discussing PE1663 which pushed for a study on the 22nd of March. Of course given their incessant and loud proclamations that DGS is not only beneficial, but vital for rural communities then I’m sure when the petition to Westminster is live the National Gamekeepers Organisation, Moorland Association, BASC, GWCT and all the clubs and media associated with DGS will rush to support it and get official verification for their claims. We can help ensure they don’t miss this golden opportunity by emailing them, leaving messages on their FB pages etc when the time comes. Strangely there was no such support from the Moorland Forums, Scottish Gamekeepers Association or Scottish Land and Estates for petition PE1663, an anomaly I find I have to bring up every time I can. For a bit of background info on the issues a study would need to look at this http://www.parliament.scot/S5_PublicPetitionsCommittee/Submissions%202017/1663C_Petitioner.pdf
I look forward to the government’s announcement of a committee to tackle organised crime, including the Mafia, Yardies, the banks, the big four accountancy bodies, Capita, ATOS and G4S.
I couldn’t agree more with Mark about his response to this disgraceful but of sophistry. The response is completely inappropriate to the situation.
To me the recent BTO report on Peregrine distribution is far more telling than even the Hen Harrier distribution. This is because Peregrines use a far wider array of landscape for breeding, and are thriving around managed grouse moors, but have largely disappeared as breeding birds from grouse moors. This illustrates that raptor persecution on grouse moors is very intense, and is common to most managed grouse moors. In other words, this isn’t a few bad apples and the illegal persecution of raptors is taking place across most managed grouse moors. Indicating that grouse moor managers are treating the law with impunity.
I have to admit that I used to favour the licensing of grouse moors, and thought at first Mark’s campaign to get driven grouse shooting banned was a distraction, because it had less chance of success. However, the arrogance of the shooting industry has completely change my mind, along with it’s relationship with the Conservative Party, which is subverting the public interest and the law.
It has become clear that the driven grouse shooting industry will carry on flouting the law until it is banned. It is clear that the driven grouse shooting industry thinks that all raptors on grouse moors are incompatible with driven grouse shooting. Therefore licensing is pointless because they will just carry on breaking the law, and certainly with this government, there is no chance of the government Defra, or associated agencies taking any action. I think it is imperative that the RSPB understands that it’s approach is going nowhere, and the only hope is for it to throw it’s weight behind a vigorous campaign to ban driven grouse shooting.
So they want strong evidence for licencing but are happy to run trials for brood meddling?
That was the worst insult to our intelligence. Anyone with more than a cluster of brain cells can think of umpteen policies they introduce with no evidence whatsoever. With the environment, the Badger cull, leaps out and shouts ‘liar’.
Allowing Scotland to show the lead and highlighting it in their response just shows incredible weakness and double standards. If there is no need for action why are they even mentioning Scotland?
It is very interesting that quite rightly this Government is emphasising regarding the terrible incident in Salisbury, that this country is a law abiding country and again, quite rightly, they are employing a lot of people to find the source of the crime and the persons responsible.
However one does feel there is a bit of a double standard going on here with regard to Hen harriers, where this Government is inventing a brood meddling procedure largely, it would seem, to avoid enforcing the law and confronting the Grouse Moor Estates that illegally allow Hen harriers and so much other wildlife to be killed to boost their financial incomes.
So, it seems there is one law for political issues and another ( or no law enforcement or law avoidance) for protecting wildlife
Well the Conservative party is only interested in wildlife when it makes them money, provides them with a fun bit of ‘sport’ or tastes good – ideally all three.