new petition re driven grouse shooting (1 Viewer)

[JoanT]

I think that it is seen as extreme by a number but remember this is also an internet petition which limits the population that can participate (not everyone is internet savie enough). My father is a RSPB member follows birdguides etc. but had not heard of the petition. I found it through here and would otherwise have been oblivious.
Anti-bloodsports would be behind it 100% but birders are a more conservative, apathetic, crowd so by the nature of the petition, being extreme, shows there is quite a lot of feeling out there.

A number of RSPB membership that you are counting aren't avid birdwatchers - more casual and some overlap aswell with the hunting fraternity.

Anyway, it would be interesting how many the 'support' grouse shooting petition gets - I haven't looked.

Not everyone is on the Internet as you say

If a couple share an e-mail address only one can sign as it then says to the 2nd you have signed

If not on social media people are only just becoming aware depending if they watch the right news channel or paper

Joan

 

[Adam W]

All I can say is I simply don't agree, whichever way you look at it 114,000 people is a small minority. It may sound like a lot of people but you cant seriously expect to change laws based on what is a small minority whether you want to accept it or not.
We can argue until blue in the face but you sinply can't change the fact that 114,000 is only 0.15% of the poulation and lets be generous and say 10% of birders.
Those are the numbers its as simple as that.

 

[Farnboro John]

All I can say is I simply don't agree, whichever way you look at it 114,000 people is a small minority. It may sound like a lot of people but you cant seriously expect to change laws based on what is a small minority whether you want to accept it or not.
We can argue until blue in the face but you sinply can't change the fact that 114,000 is only 0.15% of the poulation and lets be generous and say 10% of birders.
Those are the numbers its as simple as that.

Desperate..... how much smaller are the numbers of grouse shooters and moor managers.... how can they expect to continue their outrageous criminal lifestyles in the face of this huge opposition to them? o

John

 

[Adam W]

Desperate..... how much smaller are the numbers of grouse shooters and moor managers.... how can they expect to continue their outrageous criminal lifestyles in the face of this huge opposition to them? o

John

Isn't that the point though John? As I've always said any pro/anti shooting argument is only ever two minority groups at oposite extremes whilst the vast majority couldn't care less so can we really expect the govenment to bother with issues most people don't care about.
It's worth remembering too that support for Grouse shooting doesn't just come from People involved in Grouse shooting. People actively involved in Grouse shooting only accounts for a small percentage of the 400,000+ shooters yet the majority of them would support Grouse shooting and of course there's other groups of people where support for Grouse shooting comes from even including some birders believe it or not.

 

[Mary]

All I can say is I simply don't agree, whichever way you look at it 114,000 people is a small minority. It may sound like a lot of people but you cant seriously expect to change laws based on what is a small minority whether you want to accept it or not.
We can argue until blue in the face but you sinply can't change the fact that 114,000 is only 0.15% of the poulation and lets be generous and say 10% of birders.
Those are the numbers its as simple as that.

Just reached 115,000. It's not over 'til the fat lady sings, and I ain't making a sound!
The latest Hen Harrier news just made the 6pm news, about time too.

 

[Farnboro John]

Isn't that the point though John? As I've always said any pro/anti shooting argument is only ever two minority groups at oposite extremes whilst the vast majority couldn't care less so can we really expect the govenment to bother with issues most people don't care about.
It's worth remembering too that support for Grouse shooting doesn't just come from People involved in Grouse shooting. People actively involved in Grouse shooting only accounts for a small percentage of the 400,000+ shooters yet the majority of them would support Grouse shooting and of course there's other groups of people where support for Grouse shooting comes from even including some birders believe it or not.

Its an interesting claim. Personally I think you're wrong about how many shooters would support the tainting of their hobby by a bunch of outlaws: as a former pistol shooter I know what I'm talking about! I think you will find that whether or not they are vocal about it, most shooters find the consistently high-handedly criminal grouse shooters a complete embarrassment, and a considerable risk to their own legally pursued sport. The risk is that someone will start linking shooting grouse with shooting birds in general, and the public is pretty poor at recognising shades of grey.

If I were you, I would be emphasising that your hobby is nothing to do with the criminal Establishment figures devastating upland wildlife, and that you are not, repeat not, trying to defend the indefensible....

Also, the reason the petition quotas are set where they are is so that the government, which is well aware of the difference between the size of an activist group and its opinion base, can tell what needs a response (10,000: dust-off) and what needs a debate (100,000: issue people care about). Guess where this one is going?

John

 

[Jos Stratford]

Isn't that the point though John? As I've always said any pro/anti shooting argument is only ever two minority groups at oposite extremes whilst the vast majority couldn't care less so can we really expect the govenment to bother with issues most people don't care about.

One of these minority groups isn't breaking the law. If driven grouse shooting gets banned, then the estates can only blame themselves - I can accept that there are decent law-abiiding folk involved in the grouse shooting and I can accept that conservation positives arise if the industry is conducted according to the law, but the persecution of raptors is not an isolated or occasional action, it is endemic. The blatant criminality that is running alongside the industry simply invites further actions to halt it. Nothing else has worked, the loss of raptors is continuing, so further approaches need to be taken.

Whether the vast majority of the population care or not is irrelevant - I would suggest most laws in the UK affect relatively small minorities of the population. Not attempting to necessarily say there are similarities in the level of severity, but laws on female genital mutilation, closures of tax loopholes, etc, etc, have come into force in the UK regardless of the vast majority of the population probably not knowing or caring anything about the issues.

 

[Adam W]

Fair points John, I think you know by now how opposed i am to some of the things that go on and yes many will and should feel the same but i'm not sure that means they'd support banning it though.

 

[string boozel]

The whole crux of this issue was the continued illegal persecution of raptors on grouse moors and the failure of both the industry and the establishment to confront the issue. Many birders would have accepted the continuation of grouse killing if it had addressed this issue, we wanted the laws enforced not changed. Laws should not require petitions and nor should a whole industry be allowed to profit from illegal activity.

We can blame the moor owners but we should also include those within the establishment who turn a blind eye and also those shooters who want to reward the criminals for their efforts by patronising their business. People can claim that they are defending old traditions but the tradition of predator and prey living together within an ecosystem goes back much further. News of another harrier disappearance on the BBC six o'clock news shows the contempt for the law that this industry has, how many more signatures would there have been had the BBC highlighted it's existence?

James.

 

[etudiant]

I can't argue with that in principle but my point is that overall suppoet isn't there for doing so. Even amongst the target group of the birding and anti bloodsports world of something like 2 million people only about 5% have actually done anything to show that they support a ban. Can anyone give me an explanation for this if we are to believe that support for a ban really is there?

It does not matter imho whether the support for a ban is large or small, flouting public law on an ongoing basis is not sustainable. No government can accept that its laws are not applicable to everyone.
I'm frankly stunned by the blind and pigheaded behavior of the grouse moor owners, they are successfully escalating a minor land management dispute into a test of government will. To an American who remembers the outcome of similar events here in the US, their odds do not look good.

 

[silver prince]

its great to hear positive comments winning over the negative ones,for the first time in years i feel uplifted as more people become aware of what is going on ,we few we happy few we band of brothers.and i agree with the frenchman Adam .we need to make more people aware

 

[John Cantelo]

One of these minority groups isn't breaking the law. If driven grouse shooting gets banned, then the estates can only blame themselves - I can accept that there are decent law-abiiding folk involved in the grouse shooting and I can accept that conservation positives arise if the industry is conducted according to the law, but the persecution of raptors is not an isolated or occasional action, it is endemic. The blatant criminality that is running alongside the industry simply invites further actions to halt it. Nothing else has worked, the loss of raptors is continuing, so further approaches need to be taken.

Whether the vast majority of the population care or not is irrelevant - I would suggest most laws in the UK affect relatively small minorities of the population. Not attempting to necessarily similarities in the same level of severity, but laws on female genital mutilation, closures of tax loopholes, etc, etc, have come into force in the UK regardless of the vast majority of the population probably not knowing or caring anything about the issues.

Well said, Jos.

 

[pppppvvvv]

Instead of the grouse moors raising a petition, they should be saving themselves, by getting their house in order.. Then all this goes away.
If I had the choice of sorting out my own affairs, or letting others decide my fate, I know exactly what I'd do.. I'm not stupid

 

[John Cantelo]

I read elsewhere today of a birder & friends who spent pretty much all day in the Forest of Bowland today and saw one raptor, a Kestrel. An experience I'm told that can be replicated elsewhere in grouse shootin' areas. Apologists for and representatives of the grouse shooting industry are inclined to talk themselves up as having a sage-like knowledge of wildlife so they must have noticed this drought too. Yet they continue to claim it's not a big problem and is the work of a tiny minority. Well, they might fool themselves but they're not fooling anyone else.

 

[John Cantelo]

Instead of the grouse moors raising a petition, they should be saving themselves, by getting their house in order.. Then all this goes away.
If I had the choice of sorting out my own affairs, or letting others decide my fate, I know exactly what I'd do.. I'm not stupid

Trouble is, I fear, that not only do they think that their "house" is beyond the law and therefore not in need of tidying up but that nobody can do anything since they effectively own our "house" too.

 

[etudiant]

Earlier in this thread, there was comment that the moorland owners receive a government subsidy for land management.
If this subsidy is a material economic factor, it should be easy to use it to change management behavior, by slashing the payment if there is not a reasonable wildlife diversity.
If an active hen harrier nest is worth money, it will get protection. Maybe a bonus for Golden Eagles?

 

[rosbifs]

The subsidies comes in different guises - parts for areas/numbers of livestock, employing in a rural area, land set aside, managing an area of 'specific scientific interest' (peat bog, moorland) - in other words its complicated. I think John has mentioned that it is in the region of 56£ per hectare for the SSI bit but probably a chunk more when the other bits are added in.

One estate was served with legal action over there misuse of subsidies - overburning etc. but a quick chat with Benyon (enviroment minister and grouse moor owner) and the legal case (despite being watertight) went away with both sides agreeing that the moor could carry on as it pleased (and the govt picking up the expenses tab).

So the approach of cutting the subsidy didn't work but in reality should work in this manner.

 

[JoanT]

Fair points John, I think you know by now how opposed i am to some of the things that go on and yes many will and should feel the same but i'm not sure that means they'd support banning it though.

Then what is your solution to stopping the criminality of raptors and desecration of sssi etc

 

[John Cantelo]

One estate was served with legal action over there misuse of subsidies - overburning etc. but a quick chat with Benyon (enviroment minister and grouse moor owner) and the legal case (despite being watertight) went away with both sides agreeing that the moor could carry on as it pleased (and the govt picking up the expenses tab).

I think that the RSPB has taken the case to which I assume you refer to the EU for adjudication. It'll be interesting to see what transpires.

 

[Adam W]

Then what is your solution to stopping the criminality of raptors and desecration of sssi etc

Well that's the problem isn't it? I never claimed to have the answer in fact I think I already said that I don't think there'll ever really be a perfect answer. I just don't personally believe that a ban is the answer either.