[Robert Wallace]

"I don't see a clear demarcation between "Good" shooting and "Bad" shooting and don't see Sports companies or organisations behaving responsibly."

I agree about there not being a clear demarcation in the blurred centre of the spectrum of shooting. However I would suggest it is relatively easy to identify the ends. The "good" and the "bad" and the various NGOs have lots of evidence.

[davercox]

Originally Posted by Robin Edwards

Robert - I also agree and feel the time has come for RSPB and other conservation NGOs to revisit their stance on sport shooting in the UK and beyond....

The RSPB and other NGOs that I am a member of would have my support to face up to these issues more robustly than they do right now. Maybe start by supporting "Good" sustainable shooting practice and naming and shaming the "Bad" practioners.

Difficult one for the RSPB, this.
As I understand it, one of their original two objects was "to discourage the wanton destruction of birds and the wearing of feathers of any bird not killed for the purpose of food, other than the ostrich" (!).
But when in 1904 Edward VII, that well-known sportsman, granted them a royal charter, which acts as their founding document, he had the following words added : "but to take no part in the question of the killing of game birds and legitimate sport of that character".
What you suggest is surely "taking part in the question", and therefore beyond their power. There may be room for doubt in that, but it surely seems this is how the RSPB have always interpreted it. And no doubt there are many RSPB members who shoot ...

[Robin Edwards]

Originally Posted by davercox

Difficult one for the RSPB, this.
As I understand it, one of their original two objects was "to discourage the wanton destruction of birds and the wearing of feathers of any bird not killed for the purpose of food, other than the ostrich" (!).
But when in 1904 Edward VII, that well-known sportsman, granted them a royal charter, which acts as their founding document, he had the following words added : "but to take no part in the question of the killing of game birds and legitimate sport of that character".
What you suggest is surely "taking part in the question", and therefore beyond their power. There may be room for doubt in that, but it surely seems this is how the RSPB have always interpreted it. And no doubt there are many RSPB members who shoot ...

I agree Dave - not easy but after 108 years, time in my opinion to give the RSPB a refresh. I wonder how many members would leave if HM were no longer patron?

See the latter chapters of Mark Avery's book, Fighting for Birds.

[AlfArbuthnot]

Originally Posted by davercox

And no doubt there are many RSPB members who shoot ...

And many more who are happy to eat the game meat that it produces.

Originally Posted by Robin Edwards

I agree Dave - not easy but after 108 years, time in my opinion to give the RSPB a refresh. I wonder how many members would leave if HM were no longer patron?

A more pertinent question might be: how many more would join? I don't see that it's a dealbreaker either way for the vast majority of people, and it seems like a substantial and expensive change for little probable benefit (for RSPB or conservation). Imagine the rebranding costs!

If RSPB campaigned to ban sport shooting (by engaging with Edward VII's 'question'), then it would lose purely on the basis of the rural economic muscle that sport shooting has. It pays more wages (real or perceived), and garners more constituency votes, than any alternative the RSPB could realistically provide in the short to medium term. And lots of people enjoy it - millions of Pheasants requires lots of people to shoot them.

We have already seen what happens when the RSPB takes on a big industry on, largely, welfare grounds, when they campaigned for years to ban the international wild bird trade. They got almost nowhere, despite the horrific nature of that industry. Import bans only came in due to avian flu concerns. And that was an industry with purely negative conservation impacts. The shooting industry has lots of pro-conservation cards to play to support them (habitat management, predator control etc) that plays well with many people in the way that wild cagebirds never would, and the only easily-digested black mark against them, in conservation terms, is Hen Harriers in England. Everything else is arguable in the data vacuum that we currently have (yes, there are arguments about Goshawks and eagles, but there are also counter-arguments about habitat and conservation impact).

Regardless of what we Britons think, a 'Royal' prefix does often play well abroad, and the RSPB is an international conservation charity. Scrapping the Royal charter for the sake of this issue would be a very large move, and shift the RSPB more towards a welfare organisation (a la IFAW, RSPCA) rather than a conservation organisation. The Royal charter freely allows the RSPB to comment and prosecute on raptor persecution and campaign for better standards in keepering, so little would be gained.

As so often in this debate, conservation gets conflated with politics and the boring obsession with class warfare. Mark Avery himself is happy to play the 'class' card by mocking Linklater with the 'Etonian' tag. That might play well with some of his readership, but it's childish and counter-productive and, more to the point, has nothing to do with the issue. A person's attitude to conservation is not linked to the school they attended. Ask Zac Goldsmith or George Monbiot.

[AlfArbuthnot]

Originally Posted by Robert Wallace

He has some interesting things to say about shooting including a spectrum of shooting from “good” (wildfowlers) to bad (grouse shooting).

I haven't read the book, but there are plenty of blots on the copy book of wildfowlers, from the widespread illegal use of lead shot (which poisons other wild birds - look up surveys of shot used in UK-sold wildfowl), to disturbance, and the basic point of killing wild native birds (and international species - they're not even all 'ours', unlike grouse).

But wildfowlers are often perceived to be a more romantic type of 'countryman' than a grouse shooter, who is often mocked as a toff. I wonder if this has something to do with Mark Avery's distinction, given his playing of the 'old school card' with Linklater?

I find it hard that someone could think that people who shoot grouse are 'bad' whereas those who shoot Golden Plovers, Goldeneyes, or Pink-footed Geese were 'good'.

[Farnboro John]

Originally Posted by davercox

Difficult one for the RSPB, this.
As I understand it, one of their original two objects was "to discourage the wanton destruction of birds and the wearing of feathers of any bird not killed for the purpose of food, other than the ostrich" (!).
But when in 1904 Edward VII, that well-known sportsman, granted them a royal charter, which acts as their founding document, he had the following words added : "but to take no part in the question of the killing of game birds and legitimate sport of that character".
What you suggest is surely "taking part in the question", and therefore beyond their power. There may be room for doubt in that, but it surely seems this is how the RSPB have always interpreted it. And no doubt there are many RSPB members who shoot ...

One is assuming that HM would not accept that the ground has shifted since the time of Edward VII and agree to a reversion to the original wording. Alternatively, adopt a different position and challenge HM to make an issue of it.

Personally I would argue that no sport with such a record of outright lawlessness could possibly object to any position the RSPB chose to adopt, and perhaps it is time for the membership to be consulted.

One would hope that RSPB members who shoot ensure their shoots conform to the law of the land. If not perhaps they should be dunned out.

I note that in other areas of crime there is widespread enthusiasm for zero tolerance. Maybe its time for uncompromising attitudes in this one too.

John