Today’s RSPB report, Hen Harriers in the firing line, is a timely reminder ahead of Monday’s debate in the Westminster parliament on the future of driven grouse shooting that birds of prey, in this report Hen Harriers, are systematically and illegally killed on grouse moors so that the those enjoying the hobby of shooting Red Grouse for fun can shoot at as many live targets as possible.
Bird of prey persecution, involving eagles, falcons, hawks and kites, is rife in areas dominated by driven grouse shooting. Is it the local postie? The butcher, the baker and any remaining candlestick makers? No! It is upland gamekeepers, perhaps not every one of them, but enough to create holes in distribution maps and low population levels of protected wildlife.
The arguments against driven grouse shooting are many and involve protected habitats, greenhouse gas emissions, smoke pouring into cities from the moors, medication of wild birds, lead ammunition contaminating food, the suffering of legally (and sometimes illegally) killed native predators and carrion eaters (such as Foxes, Stoats, Carrion Crows, Ravens) and increased flood risk.
But the illegal killing of birds of prey is totally shocking. Not just that it exists, not just that it persists at a high level but that it has been going on, in plain view as far as its impacts are concerned, for a generation.
The Protection of Birds Act 1954 happened a few years before I was born – brought in by a Conservative MP, Lady Tweedsmuir, as a Private Member’s Bill. For the whole of my lifetime the entitled have been acting as though they are above the law.
The RSPB’s response to flagrant flouting of wildlife law is to suggest licensing.
The response of the Labour government, so far, has been meagre but a government minister will be on the spot on Monday afternoon. This is an occasion for the Labour government to fall further short on wildlife or to claw back some approval from the wildlife-loving electorate. Which shall we see?
[registration_form]
Hopefully Labour will be nudged into taking some action beyond the same old, proven ineffective approach that the previous government assured us was sufficient but I am not holding my breath. Starmer evidently doesn’t hold much concern for the protection of wildlife but, on the contrary is likely to view any action to exert more effective control on grouse moor managers as presenting an opportunity for ‘man of the people’ Farage to moan about ‘woke’ infringements of personal liberties. I hope I am wrong.
My (Labour) MP has indicated she probably wont be attending the debate. I sent her the RSPB report and hope she will at least find time to read that.
By the way; whenever I write to my MP the response is always sent from one or other of her assistants and not even signed by her. Is that what other people experience? She was previously a shadow minister but does not currently hold a front bench role in the government. I always feel a little short-changed to get a letter back from some office assistant.
Jonathan – well done for persevering.
It varies a lot. Labour MPs in opposition often didn’t reply at all – I put this down to not having the resources to run an office or the time to do it all themselves (I may be being too kind). I’d be happy to get anything that seems to be an answer to your point quite honestly! A good assistant can make any MP look human and that makes a big difference.
If they’ve read your letter then your views may well filter into the system – drip, drip drip.
They’ll do nothing – after all they sent out the Conservative’s reply unedited – not even a concession on burning – at the same time they were arguing against beavers and the natural history GCSE because they were ‘Tory legacy’. As Jonathan points out they’re not running the country – they’re running an election campaign against Farage and his dodgy cronies and they’re losing badly.
And on the letters, you don’t even get a response from proper letters to Ministers any more. Who are they working for ? Not me, I fear.
If I understand correctly, based on the various contributions to the debate on Monday, the correct way to calculate the economic value of something involves adding up the beneficial aspects and completely ignoring any costs or negative impacts. Very disappointing that seemingly the only people who bothered to show up were the, mostly Tory, friends of grouse shooting and no-one challenged their repeated assertions that somehow the grouse moors are a wildlife nirvana thanks to the benevolent ministrations of our wise and kindly gamekeepers.
It was also mysterious that, as we were told over and over, ‘everyone’ (especially all those noble countryside and shooting organisations!) deplores the illegal killing of hen harriers and yet it goes on an on!