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.

Can't think of anywhere within GM boundary where driven grouse shooting takes place.

Andy Bissitt wrote:

---

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.

Done!

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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?

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.

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

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.

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!!!

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

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

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?

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

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!

Done, Come-on everyone if you care,Sign now

done

signed and hopefully most other people on here will take time out to sign as well