A reader writes and asks…

I received the email in blue below a few days ago, but since I was looking at gentians on The Burren (I think that’s what they were) and seeing hundreds and hundreds of Whimbrel in Galway Bay (I’m sure about them), hearing my first Cuckoo of the year in Connemara (yep, that’s a positive identification) and seeing surprising (to me) numbers of Great Northern Divers, Manx Shearwaters and a few Light-bellied Brents at the same time, I have only been able to address the points now. But I’m glad to do so as the issue A Reader raises is a general one.

The blue text is what I was sent, the red text is what A Reader sent to Revive and the green text is my response.

Hi Mark,

I received an email recently from the Revive Coalition, asking me to support their stance on the Wildlife Management and Muirburn (Scotland Bill).

The reason I received it is because in the last couple of years, I’ve been following with some satisfaction the actions of Wild Justice.  This has led me to other websites on the topics covered, including recently Raptor Persecution UK, which is at times unreadable due to the horrific (although totally justifiable) content.

I felt so troubled about some of Revive’s proposals that I am being asked to agree with that I felt I had to read more about the subject.  I’ve always opposed blood sports, so hadn’t felt the need before to find out more on a subject that would only further distress me.

I bought your book ‘Inglorious’ (second hand from Amazon, I’m sorry to say) and started reading it as soon as it arrived on Friday, with the May 5^th deadline in mind.  I didn’t expect to want to read it, just to dip into it for info.  Instead, I enjoyed it thoroughly, which considering the grotesque topic, seems an odd thing to say, but I did.

I really appreciated the historical look at land ownership, the account of the first Langholm project and its conclusions and the development over time of your own opinion and the growth of public awareness of grouse shooting.

Your book made clear that grouse shooting is only sustainable financially through widespread illegality on grouse moors, that effective policing of these vast, unpopulated areas is impossible, particularly when some methods of killing Hen Harriers can be so subtle, that the management of uplands for grouse shooting has a number of adverse ecological outcomes that affect us all, all for the benefit of the tiny but powerful minority of the population who engage in this vile pastime.

I would be very grateful to know your views on the proposed Bill.  Have you covered it in your blog, and if so, could you tell me where?  I’ve enclosed below the email I’ve sent to Revive today, to try to understand their views better.

Thank you so much for your book and for all the wonderful work you do to try to end grouse shooting and other hideous activities.

With very best wishes,

A Reader.

Email to Revive

I received your email asking for support to your views on the Wildlife Management and Muirburn (Scotland Bill).

I respect the Revive Coalition and want to support your efforts, but I’m deeply troubled by the agreement you are suggesting to parts of the Bill.

Why would I agree to the legal use of any wildlife traps or snares?  Apart from any other factor, it has long been illegal to kill raptors but the law is unenforceable, in part due to huge, isolated areas that cannot be policed.  Regardless of the illegality, Hen Harriers have been killed to the verge of extinction.  Why would further legislation on traps and snares not have the same fate?

Why would I agree to the licensing of grouse shooting?  The first Langholm project in the 1990s made it clear that without illegal activity, which continues apace regardless, driven grouse shooting is not financially viable.  Grouse shooting also requires a monoculture which prevents other habitats and few non-grouse creatures from flourishing.

Why should a licence to muirburn be given for the purpose of grouse shooting?  Numerous studies have shown that it is damaging to peat, our superb natural resource against climate change, it affects the water table, increases flood risk and is detrimental to clean water.

Why are we talking about the furthering and continuation of a raft of cruel, unethical and damaging activities, which have an adverse impact on all of our citizens, to facilitate an obscene ‘sport’ for under 100,000 people throughout the UK as a whole?

Why would I sign my name to any of the above, against my own heartfelt beliefs?

 

My response

Dear A Reader,

Thank you for your kind words about Inglorious – obviously I’m glad you liked it. 

I haven’t read what Revive want but they are a very sensible bunch and I am absolutely sure that they have thought long and hard about their position.

Your dilemma is not uncommon but I think, if you’ll forgive me, that you are looking at it in the wrong way.

You are not being offered what you want – you are being offered the status quo (which you loathe) and something a bit better than the status quo (which is closer to what you want than the status quo). It seems perverse to me not to support a move away from what you loathe. This is the situation summed up, rather tritely perhaps, by ‘Don’t let the best be the enemy of the good’. 

Separately, a move to licensing is a move towards the end of grouse shooting completely because if the grouse shooters can’t control themselves and stick to the licence conditions then they will individually be stopped from shooting grouse for a while. If enough of them are stupid enough to break the licence conditions then the licensing will become more arduous still OR, and quite realistically, driven grouse shooting will be banned and the shooters will have only themselves to blame. Why withhold your support from such a step forward?

The grouse shooters would like nothing more than that you withhold support for the licensing option – they don’t want licensing at all, you are (in a way) voting with them!  How bonkers would that be?

To support the current proposals is not to betray your beliefs, it is to move things, slowly, in the direction of your beliefs.  Maybe I’ve been worn down over the years to my position of pragmatism, but I don’t think so. I think the Revive coalition in Scotland (and others) have done a fine job in getting this range of positive measures within our grasp – we should thank Revive and support the measures. I think that my book, about which you were so very kind, published in 2015 helped to kick off the changes that are on offer in Scotland now – that’s progress and I’m pleased to have played a part in changing people’s minds.  I wish those same measures were on offer in England – they should be – and they quite possibly will be if enough people vote the Tories down in our next general election. If so, I’ll certainly support such changes as the next step forward. 

 

[registration_form]