Today may be a momentous day in the Westminster Parliament but not because of the days spent toiling over the crafting of a response to the Wild Justice e-petition to ban driven grouse shooting.
The response is the usual old guff, presumably signed off by Therese Coffey, and can be read on the petition site, I’ll come back to it later with an an analysis of its poor nature. One way to get to read the government response is to go to the petition and sign it!
Please sign this e-petition by Chris Packham calling for a ban of driven grouse shooting.
[registration_form]
The standard and absolute rubbish response from the Government. However one would expect nothing less from a collection politicians with their vested interests very firmly part of the uncontrolled shooting industry that kills our wildlife for the fun of it.
Despite all the research and the continued routine killing of protected iconic wildlife, the upland heritage of us all is stilled being trashed by a tiny minority of folk shooting grouse whilst the government remains wilfully blind. What a surprise, not fit to govern and not fit to even represent any of us.
It is said we get the government we deserve, really. WTF did we do to deserve this shower of self serving mediocrity, whatever it was it must have been bloody terrible. Time we woke up, smelt the coffee and got rid!
There are two types of people in this country. There are millions upon millions of ordinary folk, who have a vote and who like to see birds, hear birds, feed birds in their garden and actively go out doors and watch birds. There is also a much smaller number of people who like to shoot birds for fun. One group sticks to the law the other doesn’t.
It is obvious where this is going it just takes time and pressure. We are good at pressure and we have time on our side despite the establishment having access to unlimited amounts of long grass in which to delay things. If they could look after our heather resources as well as they do long grass half the battle would be won.
We can do this.
Mike – we will do this
‘We’ voted for them and it looks like ‘we’ are again, according to today’s polls!!! It is beyond belief. At least in Scotland we have a life-raft.
https://flavible.com/politics/map/polls?sid=2267
‘A report by the UK shooting community (Public & Corporate Economic Consultants report 2014: The Value of Shooting) concludes that the overall impact of game bird shooting is positive;’
Whenever I said something stupid as a kid my mother would say ‘just listen to yourself’
Now everybody say after me, one hundred times, a report by the shooting community, a report by the shooting community, a report……..
Not only that but reports from 2014 and 2010! Nothing like the latest information to keep you informed. And it really is nothing like the latest information. Lazy.
As shocking as this Governments response is,especially in these Days of Climate Emergancy, it’s nothing we didn’t expect from a biased Tory Government,with just more than a few Members with vested interests .We must fight on .the impact of driven grouse shooting right across the board,as to be addressed,and soon ! And who knows one day when the Tories are ousted,things might suddenly change for the better.Onwards and Upwards we go.
You hit the nail on the head. The Tories need to be ousted for good. This new bunch are nothing short of vile.
Makes total sense to me. ‘Legitimate activity’ check; benefits for wildlife and habitat conservation, check; and investment in remote areas, check!
What part of the above statement is not 100% fact?….unless facts isn’t what its about? Maybe it about getting one over on the upper class? or maybe getting one over one those who hunt and kill for sport?…all because you dont like it. I dont like cycling or cats but I dont campaign to ban them…although if I was like you I’m sure I could dig deep and find all sorts of emotionally charged arguments to develop a campaign to ban them! And maybe find 100k+ poor sods who have been stuck behind a que of cyclists in the middle of the road or maybe who’s favourite Blue Tit got eaten by Tibbles next door, to sign the petition to ban them.
Just for starters
https://raptorpersecutionscotland.wordpress.com/2019/09/03/defras-incoherent-response-to-latest-ban-driven-grouse-shooting-petition/
but if you are willing yourself to be blind, sorry can’t help. For that you may need professional help.
Sorry Mark has already ripped it apart in his next blog post. The first paragraph is in shreds and i haven’t even got to the 2nd.
Have fun s.
I do sometimes wonder S ” legitimate activity” of course it currently is, if it wasn’t it would already be banned and we would be wasting our time.
“Benefits for wildlife and habitat conservation” arguable if you are any sort of predator, protected or not. It would interesting to see a full and impartial cost benefit analysis, in other than financial terms, I suspect you would loose S.
“Investment in remote areas” and the government swallows wholesale a report full of bias and paid for by the shooting industry which has already been shown to be entirely flawed with inflated profits, inflated benefits and inflated number of jobs. Basically a set of unjustified lies.
Thanks Paul,
Can I ask what your vision is for ex-grouse moors if DGS is banned and who/what will benefit and how and who will pay for it?
I ask you in particular as you seem to be very knowledgeable, and that is not intended to be sarcasm.
S
You’re boring us “S”.
If you and your pals wish to stick your fingers in your collective ears and make silly noises to drown out the facts, it’s your choice. But real conservationists don’t give a flying f*** about your your reheated twaddle.
Sorry to bore you Coop, I’m just putting the opposition side of things out there which I think you need to at least read even if you think its twaddle.
S, you misunderstand. We want to debate, we just want you to be be logical and back up arguments with facts. Or at least i do.
If you present debunked myths and avoid facts and logical conclusions then you won’t get treated with respect by many on this blog.
We know what “the opposition side of things” is. We’ve had that exact poison force-fed to us all of our lives. You need to at least understand that those with any grasp of the subject will no longer swallow it.
Coop, have you ever sat back and thought that you may be wrong and your messiah has it wrong also, trying to ban things just because you disagree with them.
The real conservationists are the people who look after our moors, there may be a few rogue ones but that’s the same in any walk of life but you will paint all with the same brush as always.
Conservation is done on the ground not from behind a desk and a keyboard Coop, managed moorland has far more benefits than it it would left unmanaged.
And the same tired old lies, without a shred of evidence to support them. Your last sentence sums up your ignorance and brazen dishonesty…
“Conservation is done on the ground not from behind a desk and a keyboard Coop, managed moorland has far more benefits than it it would left unmanaged.”
I’m well aware where “conservation is done”, as I’m a former Countryside Ranger, and interpretation officer for a local authority.
I also know the difference between a “managed moorland”, with a healthy, functioning ecosystem, and a burnt, drained, and poisoned one, festooned with illegal traps, trays full of veterinary drugs, and a disease/parasite ridden, grossly unnatural population of a single species, maintained only by the extermination (both legal and illegal) of native, naturally occuring predators.
So kindly refrain from insulting our intelligence with your baseless drivel.
We don’t need a “messiah” to expose your pathetic, parroted garbage, “S”. All we need is published, peer-reviewed, scientific evidence…
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-019-09044-w
https://www.jstor.org/stable/2405296?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents
http://www.bou.org.uk/hen-harriers-going-going/
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1046/j.1365-2664.1999.00419.x/full
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S000632070300363X
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ibi.12356/full
https://www.nature.scot/snh-commissioned-report-982-analyses-fates-satellite-tracked-golden-eagles-scotland
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/hen-harrier-satellite-tracking-programme-results-published
https://www.leeds.ac.uk/news/article/3597/grouse_moor_burning_causes_widespread_environmental_changes
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0006320711003831
https://besjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/1365-2664.13235
S, you seem to think that the response was some kind of victory.
Strange that, since not one of their points answers the topic of the petition, which was driven grouse shooting. You did notice that didn’t you? If so, it begs the question, do you cheat at card too?
Ah more willful blindness and cherry picking of facts I see.
Yes its a legitimate activity, however it is underpinned by clear evidenced criminal behaviour as regards birds of prey and dubious activity with regards to slaughtering other wildlife some of which is erroneously labelled as “vermin”.
I take it you think that a legitimate activity is OK if it involves breaking the law to succeed?
How exactly does Driven Grouse Shooting benefit wildlife and habitat conservation? I lived for over 15 years in close proximity to a Grouse Moor, it was very good for heather but barren for wildlife, most of what I saw had been shot, trapped or otherwise disposed of. There were however plenty of Grouse. In complete contrast to a moor in the same area which wasn’t managed for Driven Grouse Shooting, though recreational shooting still took place.
But don’t take my word for it, there is plenty of scientific research that provides the facts, that moors managed for Driven Grouse shooting are not beneficial for wildlife conservation and habitat.
Yes many who signed the petition may have an emotional objection to killing animals for sport, but many including me do not and this petition is specifically about Driven Grouse Shooting, which is very different in its management and detrimental effects on wildlife and habitat to other forms of shooting (I do get a bit pissed off with the lack of cooperation by some shooters over the use of lead shot but thats another story).
As for the income derived by rural communities from the activity, again factual based research has shown the economic benefits to be wildly overstated (surprise surprise, given you seem to imply the only facts on this issue are being provided by those who support Driven Grouse Shooting) and again where I used to live, the jobs created were low income and insignificant compared to other sectors such as tourism and there was no evidence that if the activity was to stop, that there would be a significant loss to the local economy.
This isn’t an emotionally charged response, you clearly haven’t read Mark’s book Inglorious, which states the case objectively, with evidence and does not play to the emotions at all.
Your reply shows a lack of understanding of the issues, or is it a stubborn refusal to accept that the times are changing and activities that involved criminal acts and ecological vandalism and in some cases unacceptable cruelty to living things are no longer tolerated by most right thinking people?
Hi Matthew,
Can I ask what your vision is for ex-grouse moors if DGS is banned and who/what will benefit and how and who will pay for it? I asked Paul this but he didn’t answer, and no one else seems to have done either so far, including Mark.
S – read Chapter 6 in Inglorious (haven’t we done this before?) or you could listen to this http://player.lush.com/channels/times/radio/dr-mark-avery-minister-upland-ecology-one-year or read this https://markavery.info/2018/10/01/41100/ for my views.
Thanks Mark
Hi S
Well I’ve already mentioned that where I used to live there was moorland that was used for recreational shooting and has been for many years, which demonstrated that shooting and real wildlife and habitat conservation is a realistic alternative.
There are numerous other examples of moorland in various areas of the country which is not used for Driven Grouse shooting, so its not as if there aren’t alternative uses, which would see a wider biodiversity an end to wildlife persecution and very possibly more jobs through conservation and wildlife tourism, studies have shown in Scotland that there is actually more income to be gained through this than through DGS.
Who will pay? As I’ve said there are other income streams, but who pays for those moors which aren’t used for that purpose? There is also a strong case for the public money in the form of subsidies that go to Moors used for DGS, to be used for direct conservation work instead.
The benefits are myriad, increased biodiversity, more wildlife more tourists a win win for local communities. I’m sure if poachers can turn gamekeepers then gamekeepers can turn into conservationists and there would still be requirement for population control of some species (e.g. deer), so still some shooting and who knows a sustainable, healthy (if lead shot is avoided) supply of food to be sold.
The issue with Driven grouse shooting and indeed over intensification of pheasant and partridge shooting enterprises is that the economic model is unsustainable, it is doing real damage to the ecology of the land that they are carried out on and the evidence suggests are underpinned by criminal activity.
Can anyone justify an activity that is reliant upon illegal activity and questionable environmental practices in order to be economically viable?
If for instance chimney sweeping was only economically viable if small boys were used, would there be a justification for continuing that practice?
Of course if those who are in charge of Driven grouse Shooting were to adopt methods that did not involve criminal activity or the wholesale slaughter of wildlife (e.g mountain hares) and could demonstrate that it truly preserved habitat and biodiversity on the moors where it takes place then there would be no need for a ban would there?
Thanks Mark and Matthew
I have read some of what Mark sent through and all of your comments Matthew. Makes for interesting reading and some really good ideas on what could be done. I feel a lot of the plans may be at the expense of farming livelihoods (at least in the short term) and also I find the thought of increasing tourism and setting up holiday parks etc as a detriment to the uplands rather than a positive but that is just my opinion.
Definitely food for thought and certainly well researched and thought about. Not something (as you may think I would have done) I would just dismiss as anti-fieldsports extremism.
One final thought is that I think the biggest fear from the shooting industry, shooting community whatever you want to call them is that the ban on DGS is just the start of a bigger drive to ban all field sports. Now I can see from reading Mark’s plan and your comments Matthew that you wouldn’t want to ban all grouse shooting or game shooting etc. but unfortunately I think a great number of the persons who sign your petitions etc. do so not because of conservation reasons but instead as part of a wider conspiracy to ban all shooting etc. Because of this, I’m afraid the defensive walls will always be up. I’d say the ‘real’ conservationists need to stop teaming up with extremists like LACS etc, this is what taints their whole argument and plan for the future.
S – building coalitions is what is always needed for political change. A ban of driven grouse shooting is favoured by animal welfare groups, environmental groupsd and wildlife groups. A complete cessation of wildlife crime might fix one of those groups but not the others. Failure to reform, over decades, is the reason why driven grosue shooting is in the spotlight. So it’s not a conspirace, it’s an alliance for a particular aim. But a pretty loose alliance for all that!
The response didn’t surprise me, but I had lived in hope. Last weekend I drove alongside Alston Moor and looked down on about 15 SUVs parked up on a moorland track. I don’t think they were there for ecological surveys of the moor. I fear that many grouse may have succumbed to the collective avarice of this group of people. For those of us who understand moorland ecology and geochemistry, it is easy to despair, but I won’t. The fight will continue.
S,
You criticise the loose coalition which is supporting the ban on DGS, yet seemingly avoid mentioning the coalition which is defending it, which is as diverse.
You mention the LACS, I could point to the BASC or the so called Countryside Alliance (I’ve lived in the country most of my life, but don’t feel remotely represented by the CA and don’t recognise their view of the Countryside).
The more intransigent the supporters of DGS are, by refusing to recognise that there needs to be change, paying lip service to the various discussion groups over the years and pushing out incorrect PR spin, then they cannot be surprised if the reaction becomes more extreme.
The point is there are extreme views on both sides of the argument, what isn’t in dispute (except from the deniers on the DGS side) is that there are serious issues over wildlife crime and ecological damage due to DGS which must be addressed.
In any debate there will be a wide range of interests that see a cause that is aligned to their own agendas one only has to look at Brexit to see that!
‘The government has responded …’
‘Basically, to reiterate, we don’t recognise any difference in this ‘driven’ grouse shooting and regular shooting. It’s just shooting. It makes money. Yes a few..
*’Just, copy and paste all that there. Yeah. From before, yeah. Ta Sheila…’ *
… a birds get occasionally, accidentally murdered I mean, killed in the process but if they choose to get in the way, what can you do ? ! You fail to recognize that, the government has no plans for banning grouse shooting…
*Sighs from readers and a chorus of ‘ It Says Driven Grouse Shooting. Aaaaaaargh !!?’ *
… So you may as well just give it up. We’re not listening…
*Yeah. Just one sweetener ta. No nearly done two minutes this one just copy and pasting. Same request again so they’ve no chance have they. Got any choccy bickies ?…’ *
… as you cannot prove anything different to the marvellous, shiny statistics and evidence, provided by the shooting industry.
Have a nice day.
The Government.