E-petition to Ban Driven Grouse Shooting in England
Ivan Ellison said
Wed Oct 11 9:53 PM, 2017
Thanks , you live and learn
Steve Suttill said
Wed Oct 11 9:04 AM, 2017
Roger Baker 3 wrote:
Ivan Ellison wrote:
Can't think of anywhere within GM boundary where driven grouse shooting takes place. ..............................................................................
The moors above Stalybridge and Mossley ..... Some are owned by The Earl of Stamford & Warrington, have a long history of Grouse shooting.
Roger.
...and Saddleworth Moor - some new wooden "butts" have appeared there in the last few years, so new sections of the moor are being shot, right next to RSPB managed land.
Roger Baker 3 said
Tue Oct 10 11:18 PM, 2017
Ivan Ellison wrote:
Can't think of anywhere within GM boundary where driven grouse shooting takes place. ..............................................................................
The moors above Stalybridge and Mossley ..... Some are owned by The Earl of Stamford & Warrington, have a long history of Grouse shooting.
Roger.
David Walsh said
Tue Oct 10 10:31 PM, 2017
Ivan Ellison wrote:
Can't think of anywhere within GM boundary where driven grouse shooting takes place.
It does in the east
Ivan Ellison said
Tue Oct 10 10:28 PM, 2017
Can't think of anywhere within GM boundary where driven grouse shooting takes place.
John Watson said
Tue Oct 10 3:59 PM, 2017
Yes, last time the chairperson was pro-shooting, the pro-shooters were given more time & earlier, very little time was left for the key points anti-shooting. Very biased
And, I wouldn't hold your breath if the other side got in next election - having been out of office for some time they'll have other more fundamental things on their list of promises. Sorry to make a political point
The best things is to sign the petition, ask friends to sign it, tell your MP, tell the GM mayor (who's against hunting). Maybe Andy Burnham has authority to ban it within GM & set a precedent ?
I've done it (again), but having read the minutes of the last Parliamentary 'debate' (where the decision was as good as predecided from word one), I ask myself is it really worth it?
Yeah, it's worth it; without keeping the pressure on, nothing will ever happen. A better government, which now at least seems a possibility, and the outcome could be different.
Andy Bissitt said
Tue Oct 10 11:47 AM, 2017
I've done it (again), but having read the minutes of the last Parliamentary 'debate' (where the decision was as good as predecided from word one), I ask myself is it really worth it?
Steve Suttill said
Mon Oct 9 9:16 AM, 2017
Done!
Zoe Barrett said
Sun Oct 8 8:01 PM, 2017
For those who support the ban driven grouse shooting campaign. There is now a new petition to sign at this link:
https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/201443
There needs to be 100,000 signatures for a parliament debate and the deadline is on the 2nd April 2018.
It would be great if you could sign then share with people via facebook, twitter etc.
Thanks
Zoe
simon ghilks said
Thu Jan 26 8:50 AM, 2017
For anybody with a bit of cash to spare there is a crowdfunding effort https://www.justgiving.com/crowdfunding/BAWC01 to raise money to enable more satellite-tagging of raptors in areas of the uplands that are currently hot spots for raptor persecution. More info on Mark Averys blog here http://markavery.info/2017/01/23/bawc-crowdfunder/?platform=hootsuite After the debacle of the Ban Driven Grouse Shooting debate it is more important than ever to keep this issue alive. More evidence of raptors mysteriously disappearing on grouse moors will hopefully expose the truth of what is really happening up there.
Hope the links work but your search engine shouldn't have much trouble finding the pages if not.
Another way of bringing this to peoples attention would be to organise a boycott of all upland tourist attractions on one day in the summer. I don't know any figures but I suspect that the general tourist, day tripper, camper, hotel user, hiker, mountain biker etc would be adding much more to the economy of these areas than a few days of grouse shooting does. Informing people of the wildlife they should be seeing up there on a regular basis would surely have an effect on their conscience and cause enough to demand a change. If the protest were to a include boycott of outdoor clothing and activity equipment suppliers and manufacturers then this would start to turn heads in Westminster where the only thing that seems to matter there is the bottom line. The powers that be will straight bat this issue for ever more if we do nothing. The ball is rolling, lets keep it rolling.
Andy Bissitt said
Sat Nov 5 2:14 PM, 2016
One thing that I don't recall reading about, even as a possibility, is an attempt to disrupt shoots in some way. Peacefully marching on moorland where birds are found dead, or where suspicious activity is suspected, on 12th August. Something more proactive involving drones, flares or fireworks might also ruin a few shoots. I know this can't be advocated by any conservation body, or even a high-profile individual, but as I've said before: This is a war. The enemy is not in the least bit put-out by any mealy-mouthed words of Politicians (spit here!) and needs to be aware that we are not all grey-haired, nimby, do-gooders, but have a sense of real anger and rage that we are still living in the Victorian age as far as upland conservation goes. When we have to bow to so many rules relating to 'political correctness', it makes you sick that those with their noses buried deepest in the trough can get away with murder. 'Come the glorious day' - as Citizen Smith used to say!
Andrew Huyton said
Sat Nov 5 12:20 AM, 2016
Just a quick point re vicarious liability, whilst Scotland has the law recent losses of satellite tagged golden eagles show it is not enough. As gamekeepers work 24/7 and are able to destroy the tags and remove the evidence before those doing the monitoring are able to respond. I happen to know 2 people are currently monitoring a tagged harrier, 1 of them is retired the other works neither are able to be in the field 24/7 so the gamekeepers can just wait for the right moment. The rspb investigation team do outstanding work but are underpaid and undermanned relying too heavily on volunteers to support. I helped recently with the monties in East Yorkshire. At the same time I noticed numerous adverts for full time membership salespersons offering £30k, paid investigators role of which there was one offered £17k !!!! If I win the Euro millions I intend to fund a team of full time ex Gurkhas to work 24/7 on raptor protection so if you're a gamekeeper reading this watch out you never know who maybe watching you ! ð³
Simon Gough said
Fri Nov 4 10:55 PM, 2016
I think public pressure is the best support for the case there is, and so these Parliamentary Debate petitions are a great way to drive the issue. It is impossible for the House to ignore an issue if it is raised this way. I would expect any subsequent petition to reach 100,000 signatures more quickly in successive iterations. It is a good point to callout the vicarious liability idea, but it's a bit more subtle and I imagine isn't regarded by campaigners as having the same kind of impact. If it works well in Scotland then it might happen here anyway.
I just think this is a long game and whilst it will be very painful to see the English breeding of Hen Harriers cease, if the outcome in 10 years time was the right kind of changes then a reintroduction scheme might be possible and in 50 years time we might be feeling better about it all. I do appreciate this is probably not a scenario that appeals to everyone and sorry if I sound blasé, but it is a possibility. It might have to get worse to get better.
Personally I'm still making up my mind on lots of elements of this debate as I learn about it, but I thought it was worth throwing in my view that the occurrence of the debate in itself was progress of some kind and that some continued progress ploughing that furrow looks achievable to me. Again, sorry if I sound overly blasé or complacent or whatever but this is surely not an entirely gloomy picture?
Mike Chorley said
Fri Nov 4 9:14 PM, 2016
The problem is, Simon, that there may not be time. It took over two years for this petition to garner the 100,000 signatures to trigger an automatic debate, John Armitage's previous petition having only got enough to elicit a required -and very trite - response from Defra. This is despite the fact that, as Steve Suttill has pointed out, the RSPB alone has over 1 million members. It's their tardiness, and that of similar organisations, in supporting it which is the reason why people are being critical of them, not just on here but on many other discussion threads on this topic. How many breeding Hen Harriers will be left by the time the next one hits it's target? how many by the time another petition finally gets a debate which isn't confused by adding in a counter-petition which failed to achieve anything like the same level of support and where the House doesn't have to be reminded what they're supposed to be debating one and a half hours after the debate has started? The resistance of the pro-hunting lobby may decline, but the way they're still campaigning for the repeal of fox-hunting leads me to doubt that.
Yes, it's true that there does need to be a discussion about how we manage our uplands and indeed our whole landscape, both urban and rural, but that wider discussion shouldn't be used as a means to stifle the discussion of particular, urgent aspects of that management, which is what was going on here by widening the debate out to suggest that those signing the petition were calling for a ban on grouse-shooting per se. As Kerry McCarthy pointed out the petition was quite specifically a call to ban driven grouse-shooting. You can see the Government's similar attempt to muddy the waters in Dr. Therese Coffey's reply in my earlier post and in Defra's reply to John Armitage's petition which can be read via the link to Mark Avery's blog at the start of this thread. That's why I think the response, or lack of it, from MP's who claimed to support the petition is relevant to the discussion. Ultimately enough of them need to put pressure on the Government to at least ensure that current legislation no longer fails to provide Hen Harriers and other raptors with the protection to which they have been entitled in one form or another since 1954. I'm not sure whether contacting the Chair of the Petitions Committee will help or not. I presume they must have been involved in the decision to debate both petitions, despite the second one not qualifying and also in the choice of the (clearly biased) proposer of the motion.
It may be that, having pulled out of the action plan, the RSPB will now act more quickly if another petition is drawn up but I wonder if it should be another Government website one. That cuts off at the required total. If the RSPB could get half of it's membership to support a similar petition and other interested parties, such as The League of Cruel Sports, could rally their members in support a really large petition landing on the doorstep of No. 10 might just concentrate minds enough to get something done.
Mike Passant said
Fri Nov 4 8:56 PM, 2016
Although both Barbara and I signed the petition, I wasn't really expecting any outcome other than what has actually transpired.
At the risk of banging on, repeating what I have previously said and written, (both on this thread and directly to the RSPB chief executive) I still consider that the better approach should be to launch a petition to try to have the principle of vicarious liability enacted into law in England Northern Ireland and Wales, as it presently is in Scotland. If this could be achieved it would mean of course that offending owners of grouse moors could be held to account for any criminal acts perpetrated by their employees, who in the main are (let's spell it out) their gamekeepers. With selective tracking of individual birds it is also increasingly difficult for criminal acts to go largely undetected.
The Countryside Alliance and their cohorts, their legal representatives and captive MPs and Hurrah Henrys in the House of Lords could have no objections based on logic or law, for the obvious reason that a law abiding landowner should have nothing to fear, whereas only those with criminal intent would be affected, and thereby frustrated.
Who logically could then scream out against a law which has been enacted to reinforce existing law (where this is presently being ruthlessly flaunted), and to mete out real punishment for criminal behaviour?
Grouse moor owners are generally wealthy, many have repeatedly shown arrogance and contempt for the law on the grand scale, they can afford top class legal representation, but this also is their vulnerability; they have much to lose; and in extremis, for repeat offenders, under a regime of vicarious liability they could forfeit their land and/or receive prison sentences.
Here in Co. Durham there is loads of ideal habitat for Hen Harriers but we have no breeding pairs and when I have seen one from time to time, I fear for it, and take little pleasure in the encounter as a result.
Regards,
Mike P
Simon Gough said
Fri Nov 4 6:01 PM, 2016
I agree with John that reading the debate in full is quite illuminating. For me a few key things stand out. Firstly, it is a step forward for Parliament to be debating this subject. This specific debate was never going to be the final word and as any new petition with 100,000 signatures must be debated, I imagine Mark Avery and/or others are drafting a new one now. In time I hope the resistance of the pro-hunting lobby will decline, because it should be obvious that 'the will of the people' is at odds with the narrow sectional interests that they represent. As stated below, keep the pressure on.
But there are some realities to face. Is it clear how we should manage uplands? What is the funding model for upland management going forward? How would we deal with making several hundred people in rural communities redundant? I do think that the desire to see the hunting stop in itself is a bit one-dimensional. I am more interested in seeing a model put forward that describes the way we should be running things. Dare I say it, that might include some hunting. Because the fact is that we need to be clear about what 'good' looks like for the chances to be high of progress. How do we answer the suggestion that all the upland wildlife needs gamekeepers for it to flourish?
In general it was fascinating to see the way the axis of the discussion shifted, it veered from floods to upholding the law to what a great bunch gamekeepers are. In simple terms though the defence being used by the hunting lobby is that hunting needs to exist and until this can be effectively challenged there is little point slating the RSPB. It is not feasible to expect more from them at this time than a slow trudge towards the objective. Nothing will happen overnight on this issue. I think withdrawing from the Action Plan was as daring as they can afford to be right now, in the position they're in.
So I appreciate it might sound mental but I was quite encouraged by what I read, in the sense that although the debate was irritating on a certain level, the fact it happened and similar debates should happen in the future is something to build on in my opinion.
John Watson said
Fri Nov 4 2:18 PM, 2016
Probably best to keep things relevant to the issue, rather than broader concerns about political parties, democracy or aristocracy, etc
My particular gripe about the debate is that it addressed 2 petitions, the other being from the hunting lobby, and which did not receive enough signatures to warrant discussion in parliament. Despite that, pro-hunting supporters dominated the debate and the case for banning driven grouse shooting was rushed through right at the end. The actual proposition was not really debated very much at all, and the topic was intentionally obfuscated
It's worth spending a few minutes looking through the transcript
The petitions committee has an email address petitionscommittee@parliament.uk and I'm sure they'd welcome objective, informed feedback
The Chair of the Petitions Select Committee is Helen Jones MP (Labour, Warrington North) who is a former lawyer & a very fair person - that's why she's got the job. I guess she should be contacted in this context via that email adddress
Mike Chorley said
Thu Nov 3 9:33 PM, 2016
It says something about the attitudes of the Opposition when even some of the pro-shooting politicians taking part in the debate were surprised by their poor showing. Something to remember when THEY want OUR support, perhaps? Mind you, I've had a pretty poor opinion of our elected representatives of every ilk since my student days in the 1970's when some friends and I sat in the Strangers' Gallery for the end of a debate and watched a handful of MP's (including a front-bencher slouched with his feet on the dispatch box) debate in a rather bored way, then watched the tide come flooding back in as the division bell rang and they all proceeded to vote. NOT the way we were taught to conduct a debate in our General Studies classes.
Pressure on the RSPB might have some effect (it's clear some of the pro-shooters weren't happy about them being more political) but any response from them will probably be treated with the same contempt directed at those of us who chose to email our MP's rather than turn up at a constituency surgery. Still, it may not matter much by the end of next week! Let's hope the Cockroaches (and the Chiffchaffs) make a better job of it after the Apocalypse
Shannon Llewellyn said
Thu Nov 3 10:41 AM, 2016
JOHN TYMON wrote:
That wasn't a debate even the person chairing the debate was an obvious pro shooting person and the whole debate turned into Party Political Broadcast on behalf of the Countryside Alliance. Where did all the MP'S disappear to, who were supposedly supporting the petition? Probably sat in some bar in Whitehall, quaffing wine, and claiming their daily allowance for attending the debate, which is more than my weekly and possibly monthly wage. Unfortunately has in the Monty Python sketch we know our place The petition was always doomed ,has the country is run by too many public schoolboys who are so removed from normal life of the hardworking man that they don't care or understand has long has they can get out with their guns on the Glorious 12th .
-- Edited by JOHN TYMON on Thursday 3rd of November 2016 07:41:44 AM
That's true, and I feel there's very little (nothing? Marriage equality is the only genuinely positive thing I can think of that's happened recently) to be hopeful about anything that's been happening in this country for the last decade or so, but it does count for something that this has got to Parliament, even if the outcome was a non-debate. As Mark Avery said on his blog, due to that, driven grouse shooting won't be thought of in the same way again, and, let's be honest, this petition was never going to bring about a ban, not with this government, and it's all transcribed, where it can seen quite clearly for anyone who wants to see that a clique of Tory MPs (the ones who took the 'o' out of 'countryside') are acting purely on the behalf of themselves, their own personal financial interests, and those of a tiny minority, and not for the many.
What the cause really needs is a champion in Parliament, which it doesn't have at the moment; very disappointed in the lack of Labour and Lib Dem MPs speaking out, but then, Labour is a party only capable of opposing itself, seemingly, so I don't really expect anything from them any more.
Agree completely about pressurising the RSPB, their stance in this has been shameful, frankly, and whilst I understand their need for pragmatism due to having to deal with these land owners, compromise doesn't work, because many of them have no notion of the word, and are laws unto themselves.
Keep fighting, keep pressurising, don't let them rest, keep exposing their lies and the damage their grotesque activities have on the environment.
Steve Suttill said
Thu Nov 3 9:26 AM, 2016
simon ghilks wrote:
So, no Hen Harriers it is then!! What next? do we just touch our caps and bow as we shuffle out of the chamber backwards?
There must be something we can do!
There are 1 million + RSPB members and we must pressurise the RSPB to get tough and stop suggesting pathetic compromises.
No self-respecting birder should buy the Daily Mail which is owned by a tax-dodger, edited by a grouse moor owner and backs idiots like Ian Botham in his attacks on the RSPB.
Don't buy any products from companies who own grouse moors.
Any other suggestions?
JOHN TYMON said
Thu Nov 3 7:39 AM, 2016
That wasn't a debate even the person chairing the debate was an obvious pro shooting person and the whole debate turned into Party Political Broadcast on behalf of the Countryside Alliance. Where did all the MP'S disappear to, who were supposedly supporting the petition? Probably sat in some bar in Whitehall, quaffing wine, and claiming their daily allowance for attending the debate, which is more than my weekly and possibly monthly wage. Unfortunately has in the Monty Python sketch we know our place The petition was always doomed ,has the country is run by too many public schoolboys who are so removed from normal life of the hardworking man that they don't care or understand has long has they can get out with their guns on the Glorious 12th .
-- Edited by JOHN TYMON on Thursday 3rd of November 2016 07:41:44 AM
Andrew Huyton said
Thu Nov 3 3:09 AM, 2016
Started to read but became very angry and disillusioned by it all but one thing stood out and that is the constant referrals to Berwyn Special Protection Area, North Wales 1983-2002â what does anyone know of this? Very surprised that Mark Avery allegedly knew little of it !
R.I.P. Hen Harrier
I could hear the vintage champagne corks popping like volleys of shotguns in every hunting lodge across the land as I read the transcript.
Little has changed since the days of Barons, Earls and Lords except the methods used to control us so called peasants.
Craig Higson said
Wed Nov 2 9:27 PM, 2016
Very disappointing Mike. I wonder if many of those in support came along because they had vested interests or because their constituents asked them to support grouse shooting.
Mike Chorley said
Wed Nov 2 8:34 PM, 2016
For anyone who hasn't had it here's the link to Hansard's depressing record of the Party Political Broadcast on behalf of the Countryside Alliance
Interesting to note the paucity of MP's speaking in support of the petition to ban (they must all have had prior appointments as mine did) and the declared interests of many of those speaking against including the person apparently proposing the petition.
Shannon Llewellyn said
Wed Nov 2 5:13 PM, 2016
You're never going to get a positive outcome with this government, that runs the country solely for the benefit of a tiny few and whose only concern for the environment is how much short-term profit can be squeezed out of it, but until a more sympathetic (and yes, democratic) administration takes office, then getting the issues out into the public domain is the best that can be hoped for.
This country's gone to the dogs.
simon ghilks said
Wed Nov 2 5:06 PM, 2016
So, no Hen Harriers it is then!! What next? do we just touch our caps and bow as we shuffle out of the chamber backwards?
I feel really disappointed for the many people that have invested so much time and effort into this and have just been slapped in the face by our so called "democracy". Scandalous!!!
Andrew Huyton said
Tue Oct 25 4:08 AM, 2016
Thought I'd share this submission to parliament on the issue from my good friend Steve Downing.
http://data.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/committeeevidence.svc/evidencedocument/petitions-committee/grouse-shooting/written/40051.html
John Watson said
Sat Oct 22 11:17 PM, 2016
Good for McMahon for supporting the ban
Not so good for Coffey, who seems to have supplied a stock answer to this, and with very little understanding. According to Wikipedia, she has some unusual ideas. I don't think I would vote for her if she came back to this area
Mike Chorley said
Sat Oct 22 9:44 PM, 2016
Messaged my M.P. (Jim McMahon - Oldham West & Royton) to ask him to attend the October 31st debate. Unfortunately his diary means he's unlikely to attend but he did forward a reply he'd had from DEFRA when he'd raised the matter with them in September. This is the reply from Therese Coffey
"Dear Jim
Thank you for your letter of 7 September on behalf of a number of your constituents about driven grouse shooting.
Grouse shooting is a legitimate activity and in addition to its significant economic contribution. providing jobs and investment in some of our most remote areas, it can offer important benefits for wildlife and habitat conservation. The Government's position is that people should be free to undertake lawful activities should they wish to do so. However, all those involved are encouraged to follow best practice.
Grouse shooting takes place in upland areas, which are important for delivering a range of valuable "ecosystem services", including food and fibre, water regulation, carbon storage, biodiversity, and recreational opportunities for health and wellbeing. The Government is committed to helping create a more sustainable future for the English uplands, including protecting peatlands through measures such as the Peatland Code.
Yours sincerely
DR THERESE COFFEY MP"
I'm not sure what the Peatland Code has to do with anything ( unless there's a clause about not killing protected species in it) but as my M.P. said in his covering letter the Government appears to believe that grouse shooting is good for the countryside per se and doesn't recognize that there are different practices which have different impacts. As for encouraging all those involved 'to follow best practice', a hefty kick in the coffers seems to concentrate business minds best!
Ivan Ellison said
Thu Aug 18 8:30 PM, 2016
Have thought about this long and hard over many years. Have now signed petition as am sick and tired of young harriers, goshawks , Eagles and other raptors being shot out of the skies. Have passed it on to my family to also sign and send out to friends.
-- Edited by Ivan Ellison on Thursday 18th of August 2016 08:31:00 PM
Paul Risley said
Fri Aug 12 9:59 PM, 2016
E petition closing in on 100,000. many thanks to all those who have signed, one day we might see Hen Harriers and Merlins nesting on our moors and Goshawks in our forests. if you have not signed please consider doing so.
cheers Paul
Zoe Barrett said
Tue Aug 9 1:14 AM, 2016
Does anyone have any photos of Hen harriers i could use for creating leaflets about the Grouse shooting petition? Has anyone done any leaflet distribution in Gm?
Steve Suttill said
Wed Jul 27 9:35 AM, 2016
The RSPB has withdrawn its support of the controversial Hen Harrier management plan:
Sad to see some of the comments levelled at him for doing so and several organisations complaining to the bbc about him taking part in these videos, nice to see a couple of Manc birders sticking up for him though well done guys
Ian McKerchar said
Wed Jul 20 12:48 PM, 2016
The following was taken from an email I received from Mark Avery:
My e-petition is approaching 54,000 signatures and needs to get to 100,000 by 20 September to trigger a debate on this subject in the Westminster parliament. I think we can do it. Really - I do.
The average number of signatures by constituency across the country is, today, 83. Greater Manchester constituencies are providing below-average support for this e-petition - as are most city constituencies and particularly Labour-held ones. Here are a few examples of the signature totals for Greater Manchester (you can find them all here):
Manchester Withington Jeff Smith MP 106 signatures Bury South Ivan Lewis MP 82 signatures Altrincham and Sale West Graham Brady MP 58 signatures Rochdale Simon Danczuk 48 signatures Bolton South East Yasmin Qureshi 37 signatures
And, below, is an article which explains why this issue is important to every birder, naturalist and environmentalist in the country.
many thanks
Mark Avery
My grouse with driven grouse shooting
Driven grouse shooting is an unsporting and pointless sport that damages the ecology of our hills and depends on illegal killing of protected wildlife. Some say birdwatching is an odd hobby, but compare it with driven grouse shooting and we all seem completely normal. In driven grouse shooting, a line of people with shotguns wait for a line of people with flags and whistles to drive Red Grouse past them so that they can shoot at them as they fly over. There is no hunting involved in this – it’s merely using wildlife as living targets. An individual may pay upwards of £5,000 for a day of such ‘sport’.
The record ‘bag’ for a day of such shooting is 2929 birds, shot by eight guns in the Trough of Bowland in Lancashire on 12 August 1915. That’s over 350 birds/gun that day. Modern bags are approaching such levels again.
To generate such high densities of Red Grouse, to justify such high prices; heather moorland is burned into a patchwork of long and short vegetation; Foxes, Stoats, Carrion Crows etc are killed in large numbers; Mountain Hares are killed off too (because they carry a tick which can transmit a virus to the grouse); the moorland is drained and medicated grit is provided to kill intestinal worms. Red Grouse are not reared and released (like Pheasants), but driven grouse shooting depends on intensive management of the prey, their predators and their habitat.
Many raptors are illegally killed because they are unsporting enough to include Red Grouse in their diet, eg Golden Eagle, Goshawk, Peregrine and Hen Harrier. This year is a survey year for Hen Harrier – the last, in 2010, found c650 UK pairs whereas the science shows that there should be c2600 pairs. English uplands should hold around 300 of those 2600 pairs, and yet in recent years, breeding numbers have rarely reached double figures.
A scientific study on a grouse moor in Scotland in the 1990s showed that when birds of prey are properly protected, as the law requires, then their numbers will rise and they can remove much of the ‘shootable surplus’ of birds on which driven grouse shooting depends. There is a real conflict, you can’t have protection of birds of prey and massive grouse bags. You have to choose! What is your choice?
The grouse shooters say that it’s only a few bad apples that kill raptors, but they don’t deny the massive impacts that bad apples (I believe there are more than a few) have on protected wildlife. So you do have to choose whether you want an unsporting sport to continue or whether you want the legal protection given to birds of prey to be real. I choose legality and birds of prey over criminality and a pointless ‘sport’!
Grouse shooters contend that other ground-nesting birds benefit from grouse moor management (some do, it’s true, but not all), that the hills would be covered with conifers, sheep and windfarms if grouse shooting were stopped (they wouldn’t – it’s environmental legislation that controls these activities not grouse shooters) and that all those people paying for grouse shooting are delivering wealth to the economy (economists say the figures are greatly inflated and do not take everything into account anyway). You must choose who you believe.
All that intensive management for grouse, the burning and the drainage, have other important ecological impacts. Grouse moors shed water more quickly than moorland not managed for grouse shooting - and this increases flood risks for masses of people downstream, people who never go grouse shooting and have never heard of a Hen Harrier. Greenhouse gas emissions are higher from grouse moors where burning occurs on peatlands; grouse moor management was criticised by the Committee on Climate Change last year. Water companies spend more money on water treatment in catchments dominated by grouse shooting and those costs go to the customer not the grouse shooter. And aquatic biodiversity is lower in watercourses draining managed moorlands too. Intensive grouse moor management that imposes big costs on the rest of society. And so, again, you have to choose – grouse shooting or sustainable uplands?
Over the years of wrestling with these issues my views have hardened. I used to think that grouse shooting was a bit odd but if only we could reduce the moderate levels of wildlife crime then it wasn’t a high priority. As time has passed I have realised that our uplands are the scenes of unrelenting wildlife crime, and all for a hobby (sport, pastime) that is enjoyed by the few and which imposes costs on the many.
I’ve made my choice and it is that we should do away with driven grouse shooting which is why I have launched a number of e-petitions to ban this sport. The current e-petition has far surpassed the total signatures of the previous two and runs until 20 September. If it reaches 100,000 signatures by then this whole issue will be debated in Parliament and that will flush out the arguments and put them even more strongly in the public domain. If you are keen on wrecked uplands and wildlife crime then please don’t sign my e-petition, but if you choose change in the uplands, even if you don’t favour a total ban (and I think you should!) then please sign because this is the strongest way you can make your voice heard. It really is your choice!
Sign the e-petition for a debate in parliament here https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/125003 . Every signature counts so please give yours now. For more information then check out my blog at www.markavery.info/blog/ and/or read my book Inglorious – conflict in the uplands for the 100,000 word version of the case against driven grouse shooting. But thank you for letting me have 1000 words here.
Dr Mark Avery is an author, blogger, birder and campaigner. He worked for the RSPB for 25 years until 2011 and for 13 of them was the RSPB Conservation Director.
Mike Passant said
Fri Jun 13 2:55 PM, 2014
Done x 2; (Mike and Barbara).
Paul Richardson said
Tue Jun 10 10:36 PM, 2014
Done!
MJKeating said
Thu Jun 5 8:13 AM, 2014
Done.
Charles Coutts said
Thu Jun 5 7:42 AM, 2014
Done, Come-on everyone if you care,Sign now
Tanmay Dixit said
Wed Jun 4 11:21 AM, 2014
Done
JOHN TYMON said
Wed Jun 4 10:11 AM, 2014
done
pete berry said
Wed Jun 4 9:18 AM, 2014
YES Couldn't click on the link to bring up the e.petition,but if you put e.petition and the number in google(other search engines are avaidable)then it takes you straight to the petition IF YOU HAVEN'T SIGNED IT YET--DO IT NOW
Paul Risley said
Tue Jun 3 11:38 PM, 2014
signed and hopefully most other people on here will take time out to sign as well
Ian Woosey said
Mon Jun 2 9:08 AM, 2014
Link taken from Dr Mark Avery`s Blog site:
http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/65627
Here is a link to the relevant posting, explaining the petition: http://markavery.info/2014/06/02/epetition-ban-driven-grouse-shooting/
-- Edited by Ian Woosey on Monday 2nd of June 2014 09:20:24 AM
...and Saddleworth Moor - some new wooden "butts" have appeared there in the last few years, so new sections of the moor are being shot, right next to RSPB managed land.
Ivan Ellison wrote:
Can't think of anywhere within GM boundary where driven grouse shooting takes place.
..............................................................................
The moors above Stalybridge and Mossley ..... Some are owned by The Earl of Stamford & Warrington, have a long history of Grouse shooting.
Roger.
It does in the east
And, I wouldn't hold your breath if the other side got in next election - having been out of office for some time they'll have other more fundamental things on their list of promises. Sorry to make a political point
The best things is to sign the petition, ask friends to sign it, tell your MP, tell the GM mayor (who's against hunting). Maybe Andy Burnham has authority to ban it within GM & set a precedent ?
https://www.theyworkforyou.com/mp/10766/andy_burnham/leigh/votes
Yeah, it's worth it; without keeping the pressure on, nothing will ever happen. A better government, which now at least seems a possibility, and the outcome could be different.
I've done it (again), but having read the minutes of the last Parliamentary 'debate' (where the decision was as good as predecided from word one), I ask myself is it really worth it?
https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/201443
There needs to be 100,000 signatures for a parliament debate and the deadline is on the 2nd April 2018.
It would be great if you could sign then share with people via facebook, twitter etc.
Thanks
Zoe
After the debacle of the Ban Driven Grouse Shooting debate it is more important than ever to keep this issue alive. More evidence of raptors mysteriously disappearing on grouse moors will hopefully expose the truth of what is really happening up there.
Hope the links work but your search engine shouldn't have much trouble finding the pages if not.
Another way of bringing this to peoples attention would be to organise a boycott of all upland tourist attractions on one day in the summer. I don't know any figures but I suspect that the general tourist, day tripper, camper, hotel user, hiker, mountain biker etc would be adding much more to the economy of these areas than a few days of grouse shooting does. Informing people of the wildlife they should be seeing up there on a regular basis would surely have an effect on their conscience and cause enough to demand a change. If the protest were to a include boycott of outdoor clothing and activity equipment suppliers and manufacturers then this would start to turn heads in Westminster where the only thing that seems to matter there is the bottom line.
The powers that be will straight bat this issue for ever more if we do nothing. The ball is rolling, lets keep it rolling.
One thing that I don't recall reading about, even as a possibility, is an attempt to disrupt shoots in some way. Peacefully marching on moorland where birds are found dead, or where suspicious activity is suspected, on 12th August. Something more proactive involving drones, flares or fireworks might also ruin a few shoots. I know this can't be advocated by any conservation body, or even a high-profile individual, but as I've said before: This is a war. The enemy is not in the least bit put-out by any mealy-mouthed words of Politicians (spit here!) and needs to be aware that we are not all grey-haired, nimby, do-gooders, but have a sense of real anger and rage that we are still living in the Victorian age as far as upland conservation goes. When we have to bow to so many rules relating to 'political correctness', it makes you sick that those with their noses buried deepest in the trough can get away with murder. 'Come the glorious day' - as Citizen Smith used to say!
I just think this is a long game and whilst it will be very painful to see the English breeding of Hen Harriers cease, if the outcome in 10 years time was the right kind of changes then a reintroduction scheme might be possible and in 50 years time we might be feeling better about it all. I do appreciate this is probably not a scenario that appeals to everyone and sorry if I sound blasé, but it is a possibility. It might have to get worse to get better.
Personally I'm still making up my mind on lots of elements of this debate as I learn about it, but I thought it was worth throwing in my view that the occurrence of the debate in itself was progress of some kind and that some continued progress ploughing that furrow looks achievable to me. Again, sorry if I sound overly blasé or complacent or whatever but this is surely not an entirely gloomy picture?
Yes, it's true that there does need to be a discussion about how we manage our uplands and indeed our whole landscape, both urban and rural, but that wider discussion shouldn't be used as a means to stifle the discussion of particular, urgent aspects of that management, which is what was going on here by widening the debate out to suggest that those signing the petition were calling for a ban on grouse-shooting per se. As Kerry McCarthy pointed out the petition was quite specifically a call to ban driven grouse-shooting. You can see the Government's similar attempt to muddy the waters in Dr. Therese Coffey's reply in my earlier post and in Defra's reply to John Armitage's petition which can be read via the link to Mark Avery's blog at the start of this thread. That's why I think the response, or lack of it, from MP's who claimed to support the petition is relevant to the discussion. Ultimately enough of them need to put pressure on the Government to at least ensure that current legislation no longer fails to provide Hen Harriers and other raptors with the protection to which they have been entitled in one form or another since 1954. I'm not sure whether contacting the Chair of the Petitions Committee will help or not. I presume they must have been involved in the decision to debate both petitions, despite the second one not qualifying and also in the choice of the (clearly biased) proposer of the motion.
It may be that, having pulled out of the action plan, the RSPB will now act more quickly if another petition is drawn up but I wonder if it should be another Government website one. That cuts off at the required total. If the RSPB could get half of it's membership to support a similar petition and other interested parties, such as The League of Cruel Sports, could rally their members in support a really large petition landing on the doorstep of No. 10 might just concentrate minds enough to get something done.
Although both Barbara and I signed the petition, I wasn't really expecting any outcome other than what has actually transpired.
At the risk of banging on, repeating what I have previously said and written, (both on this thread and directly to the RSPB chief executive) I still consider that the better approach should be to launch a petition to try to have the principle of vicarious liability enacted into law in England Northern Ireland and Wales, as it presently is in Scotland. If this could be achieved it would mean of course that offending owners of grouse moors could be held to account for any criminal acts perpetrated by their employees, who in the main are (let's spell it out) their gamekeepers. With selective tracking of individual birds it is also increasingly difficult for criminal acts to go largely undetected.
The Countryside Alliance and their cohorts, their legal representatives and captive MPs and Hurrah Henrys in the House of Lords could have no objections based on logic or law, for the obvious reason that a law abiding landowner should have nothing to fear, whereas only those with criminal intent would be affected, and thereby frustrated.
Who logically could then scream out against a law which has been enacted to reinforce existing law (where this is presently being ruthlessly flaunted), and to mete out real punishment for criminal behaviour?
Grouse moor owners are generally wealthy, many have repeatedly shown arrogance and contempt for the law on the grand scale, they can afford top class legal representation, but this also is their vulnerability; they have much to lose; and in extremis, for repeat offenders, under a regime of vicarious liability they could forfeit their land and/or receive prison sentences.
Here in Co. Durham there is loads of ideal habitat for Hen Harriers but we have no breeding pairs and when I have seen one from time to time, I fear for it, and take little pleasure in the encounter as a result.
Regards,
Mike P
But there are some realities to face. Is it clear how we should manage uplands? What is the funding model for upland management going forward? How would we deal with making several hundred people in rural communities redundant? I do think that the desire to see the hunting stop in itself is a bit one-dimensional. I am more interested in seeing a model put forward that describes the way we should be running things. Dare I say it, that might include some hunting. Because the fact is that we need to be clear about what 'good' looks like for the chances to be high of progress. How do we answer the suggestion that all the upland wildlife needs gamekeepers for it to flourish?
In general it was fascinating to see the way the axis of the discussion shifted, it veered from floods to upholding the law to what a great bunch gamekeepers are. In simple terms though the defence being used by the hunting lobby is that hunting needs to exist and until this can be effectively challenged there is little point slating the RSPB. It is not feasible to expect more from them at this time than a slow trudge towards the objective. Nothing will happen overnight on this issue. I think withdrawing from the Action Plan was as daring as they can afford to be right now, in the position they're in.
So I appreciate it might sound mental but I was quite encouraged by what I read, in the sense that although the debate was irritating on a certain level, the fact it happened and similar debates should happen in the future is something to build on in my opinion.
My particular gripe about the debate is that it addressed 2 petitions, the other being from the hunting lobby, and which did not receive enough signatures to warrant discussion in parliament. Despite that, pro-hunting supporters dominated the debate and the case for banning driven grouse shooting was rushed through right at the end. The actual proposition was not really debated very much at all, and the topic was intentionally obfuscated
It's worth spending a few minutes looking through the transcript
The petitions committee has an email address petitionscommittee@parliament.uk and I'm sure they'd welcome objective, informed feedback
The Chair of the Petitions Select Committee is Helen Jones MP (Labour, Warrington North) who is a former lawyer & a very fair person - that's why she's got the job. I guess she should be contacted in this context via that email adddress
Pressure on the RSPB might have some effect (it's clear some of the pro-shooters weren't happy about them being more political) but any response from them will probably be treated with the same contempt directed at those of us who chose to email our MP's rather than turn up at a constituency surgery. Still, it may not matter much by the end of next week! Let's hope the Cockroaches (and the Chiffchaffs) make a better job of it after the Apocalypse
That's true, and I feel there's very little (nothing? Marriage equality is the only genuinely positive thing I can think of that's happened recently) to be hopeful about anything that's been happening in this country for the last decade or so, but it does count for something that this has got to Parliament, even if the outcome was a non-debate. As Mark Avery said on his blog, due to that, driven grouse shooting won't be thought of in the same way again, and, let's be honest, this petition was never going to bring about a ban, not with this government, and it's all transcribed, where it can seen quite clearly for anyone who wants to see that a clique of Tory MPs (the ones who took the 'o' out of 'countryside') are acting purely on the behalf of themselves, their own personal financial interests, and those of a tiny minority, and not for the many.
What the cause really needs is a champion in Parliament, which it doesn't have at the moment; very disappointed in the lack of Labour and Lib Dem MPs speaking out, but then, Labour is a party only capable of opposing itself, seemingly, so I don't really expect anything from them any more.
Agree completely about pressurising the RSPB, their stance in this has been shameful, frankly, and whilst I understand their need for pragmatism due to having to deal with these land owners, compromise doesn't work, because many of them have no notion of the word, and are laws unto themselves.
Keep fighting, keep pressurising, don't let them rest, keep exposing their lies and the damage their grotesque activities have on the environment.
There must be something we can do!
There are 1 million + RSPB members and we must pressurise the RSPB to get tough and stop suggesting pathetic compromises.
No self-respecting birder should buy the Daily Mail which is owned by a tax-dodger, edited by a grouse moor owner and backs idiots like Ian Botham in his attacks on the RSPB.
Don't buy any products from companies who own grouse moors.
Any other suggestions?
That wasn't a debate even the person chairing the debate was an obvious pro shooting person and the whole debate turned into Party Political Broadcast on behalf of the Countryside Alliance. Where did all the MP'S disappear to, who were supposedly supporting the petition? Probably sat in some bar in Whitehall, quaffing wine, and claiming their daily allowance for attending the debate, which is more than my weekly and possibly monthly wage. Unfortunately has in the Monty Python sketch we know our place
The petition was always doomed ,has the country is run by too many public schoolboys who are so removed from normal life of the hardworking man that they don't care or understand has long has they can get out with their guns on the Glorious 12th . 
-- Edited by JOHN TYMON on Thursday 3rd of November 2016 07:41:44 AM
https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2016-10-31/debates/06472E95-10EC-49A0-BF93-84CAD2BE4191/DrivenGrouseShooting
Interesting to note the paucity of MP's speaking in support of the petition to ban (they must all have had prior appointments as mine did) and the declared interests of many of those speaking against including the person apparently proposing the petition.
This country's gone to the dogs.
I feel really disappointed for the many people that have invested so much time and effort into this and have just been slapped in the face by our so called "democracy". Scandalous!!!
Not so good for Coffey, who seems to have supplied a stock answer to this, and with very little understanding. According to Wikipedia, she has some unusual ideas. I don't think I would vote for her if she came back to this area
"Dear Jim
Thank you for your letter of 7 September on behalf of a number of your constituents about driven grouse shooting.
Grouse shooting is a legitimate activity and in addition to its significant economic contribution. providing jobs and investment in some of our most remote areas, it can offer important benefits for wildlife and habitat conservation. The Government's position is that people should be free to undertake lawful activities should they wish to do so. However, all those involved are encouraged to follow best practice.
Grouse shooting takes place in upland areas, which are important for delivering a range of valuable "ecosystem services", including food and fibre, water regulation, carbon storage, biodiversity, and recreational opportunities for health and wellbeing. The Government is committed to helping create a more sustainable future for the English uplands, including protecting peatlands through measures such as the Peatland Code.
Yours sincerely
DR THERESE COFFEY MP"
I'm not sure what the Peatland Code has to do with anything ( unless there's a clause about not killing protected species in it) but as my M.P. said in his covering letter the Government appears to believe that grouse shooting is good for the countryside per se and doesn't recognize that there are different practices which have different impacts. As for encouraging all those involved 'to follow best practice', a hefty kick in the coffers seems to concentrate business minds best!
-- Edited by Ivan Ellison on Thursday 18th of August 2016 08:31:00 PM
E petition closing in on 100,000. many thanks to all those who have signed, one day we might see Hen Harriers and Merlins nesting on our moors and Goshawks in our forests. if you have not signed please consider doing so.
cheers Paul
http://www.rspb.org.uk/community/ourwork/b/martinharper/archive/2016/07/25/withdrawal-from-the-hhap.aspx
You probably know about this,....A protest to highlight the illegal killing of Hen Harriers on Grouse moors in northern England
Hen Harrier Day 7th August the Village Green 10-30 am
Dunsop Bridge
Clitheroe
Lancashire
BB7 3BB
several LOS members and friends will be going
up to 62,552 now, Chris Packham has done a couple of video's on the subject that are available on you tube.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P8YjOa0xVJk
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wHAzbAvr8Xg
Sad to see some of the comments levelled at him for doing so and several organisations complaining to the bbc about him taking part in these videos, nice to see a couple of Manc birders sticking up for him though well done guys
The following was taken from an email I received from Mark Avery:
My e-petition is approaching 54,000 signatures and needs to get to 100,000 by 20 September to trigger a debate on this subject in the Westminster parliament. I think we can do it. Really - I do.
The average number of signatures by constituency across the country is, today, 83. Greater Manchester constituencies are providing below-average support for this e-petition - as are most city constituencies and particularly Labour-held ones. Here are a few examples of the signature totals for Greater Manchester (you can find them all here):
Manchester Withington Jeff Smith MP 106 signatures
Bury South Ivan Lewis MP 82 signatures
Altrincham and Sale West Graham Brady MP 58 signatures
Rochdale Simon Danczuk 48 signatures
Bolton South East Yasmin Qureshi 37 signatures
So - quite a variation! But the more the better - so could you please forward this email to anyone, particularly birders who might be interested in signing the e-petition to get a debate on the future of driven grouse shooting?
And, below, is an article which explains why this issue is important to every birder, naturalist and environmentalist in the country.
many thanks
Mark Avery
My grouse with driven grouse shooting
Driven grouse shooting is an unsporting and pointless sport that damages the ecology of our hills and depends on illegal killing of protected wildlife.
Some say birdwatching is an odd hobby, but compare it with driven grouse shooting and we all seem completely normal. In driven grouse shooting, a line of people with shotguns wait for a line of people with flags and whistles to drive Red Grouse past them so that they can shoot at them as they fly over. There is no hunting involved in this – it’s merely using wildlife as living targets. An individual may pay upwards of £5,000 for a day of such ‘sport’.
The record ‘bag’ for a day of such shooting is 2929 birds, shot by eight guns in the Trough of Bowland in Lancashire on 12 August 1915. That’s over 350 birds/gun that day. Modern bags are approaching such levels again.
To generate such high densities of Red Grouse, to justify such high prices; heather moorland is burned into a patchwork of long and short vegetation; Foxes, Stoats, Carrion Crows etc are killed in large numbers; Mountain Hares are killed off too (because they carry a tick which can transmit a virus to the grouse); the moorland is drained and medicated grit is provided to kill intestinal worms. Red Grouse are not reared and released (like Pheasants), but driven grouse shooting depends on intensive management of the prey, their predators and their habitat.
Many raptors are illegally killed because they are unsporting enough to include Red Grouse in their diet, eg Golden Eagle, Goshawk, Peregrine and Hen Harrier. This year is a survey year for Hen Harrier – the last, in 2010, found c650 UK pairs whereas the science shows that there should be c2600 pairs. English uplands should hold around 300 of those 2600 pairs, and yet in recent years, breeding numbers have rarely reached double figures.
A scientific study on a grouse moor in Scotland in the 1990s showed that when birds of prey are properly protected, as the law requires, then their numbers will rise and they can remove much of the ‘shootable surplus’ of birds on which driven grouse shooting depends. There is a real conflict, you can’t have protection of birds of prey and massive grouse bags. You have to choose! What is your choice?
The grouse shooters say that it’s only a few bad apples that kill raptors, but they don’t deny the massive impacts that bad apples (I believe there are more than a few) have on protected wildlife. So you do have to choose whether you want an unsporting sport to continue or whether you want the legal protection given to birds of prey to be real. I choose legality and birds of prey over criminality and a pointless ‘sport’!
Grouse shooters contend that other ground-nesting birds benefit from grouse moor management (some do, it’s true, but not all), that the hills would be covered with conifers, sheep and windfarms if grouse shooting were stopped (they wouldn’t – it’s environmental legislation that controls these activities not grouse shooters) and that all those people paying for grouse shooting are delivering wealth to the economy (economists say the figures are greatly inflated and do not take everything into account anyway). You must choose who you believe.
All that intensive management for grouse, the burning and the drainage, have other important ecological impacts. Grouse moors shed water more quickly than moorland not managed for grouse shooting - and this increases flood risks for masses of people downstream, people who never go grouse shooting and have never heard of a Hen Harrier. Greenhouse gas emissions are higher from grouse moors where burning occurs on peatlands; grouse moor management was criticised by the Committee on Climate Change last year. Water companies spend more money on water treatment in catchments dominated by grouse shooting and those costs go to the customer not the grouse shooter. And aquatic biodiversity is lower in watercourses draining managed moorlands too. Intensive grouse moor management that imposes big costs on the rest of society. And so, again, you have to choose – grouse shooting or sustainable uplands?
Over the years of wrestling with these issues my views have hardened. I used to think that grouse shooting was a bit odd but if only we could reduce the moderate levels of wildlife crime then it wasn’t a high priority. As time has passed I have realised that our uplands are the scenes of unrelenting wildlife crime, and all for a hobby (sport, pastime) that is enjoyed by the few and which imposes costs on the many.
I’ve made my choice and it is that we should do away with driven grouse shooting which is why I have launched a number of e-petitions to ban this sport. The current e-petition has far surpassed the total signatures of the previous two and runs until 20 September. If it reaches 100,000 signatures by then this whole issue will be debated in Parliament and that will flush out the arguments and put them even more strongly in the public domain. If you are keen on wrecked uplands and wildlife crime then please don’t sign my e-petition, but if you choose change in the uplands, even if you don’t favour a total ban (and I think you should!) then please sign because this is the strongest way you can make your voice heard. It really is your choice!
Sign the e-petition for a debate in parliament here https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/125003 . Every signature counts so please give yours now. For more information then check out my blog at www.markavery.info/blog/ and/or read my book Inglorious – conflict in the uplands for the 100,000 word version of the case against driven grouse shooting. But thank you for letting me have 1000 words here.
Dr Mark Avery is an author, blogger, birder and campaigner. He worked for the RSPB for 25 years until 2011 and for 13 of them was the RSPB Conservation Director.
Done x 2; (Mike and Barbara).
YES
Couldn't click on the link to bring up the e.petition,but if you put e.petition and the number in google(other search engines are avaidable)then it takes you straight to the petition IF YOU HAVEN'T SIGNED IT YET--DO IT NOW
http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/65627
Here is a link to the relevant posting, explaining the petition: http://markavery.info/2014/06/02/epetition-ban-driven-grouse-shooting/
-- Edited by Ian Woosey on Monday 2nd of June 2014 09:20:24 AM