• Welcome to BirdForum, the internet's largest birding community with thousands of members from all over the world. The forums are dedicated to wild birds, birding, binoculars and equipment and all that goes with it.

    Please register for an account to take part in the discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.
ZEISS DTI thermal imaging cameras. For more discoveries at night, and during the day.

new petition re driven grouse shooting (1 Viewer)

You make several interesting points there John, Firstly you are right about this thin end of the wedge idea amongst hunters. Unfortunately we have a situation where there's a huge gap between both sides and too many people in the 'anti' camp who are more interested in hating people and causing trouble than they are conservation that even if I was 100% against Grouse shooting there's no way i'd sign this as I know its not in my own best interest. Before anyone says it I'm of course not suggesting that this is all about hating people or class issues etc but there's no denying that it is a factor. For example let for arguments sake say Grouse shooting got banned do you think the LACS would simply say great job done and leave it at that? of course they wouldn't they'd simply move straight on the the next group of people to hate and it wouldn't be long before that group would include me so there's noway I'm going to try and help that happen.

Secondly you say that you see no reason why any non hunter wouldn't sign well what about the fact that even given this weeks events the RSPB still do not support this campaign as they don't believe banning Grouse shooting is the best solution for conservation? I don't think we can overstate just how significant that is, the largest Bird conservation organisation we have with over a million members publicly state that they don't agree with this that's as devastating a blow as I can think of, It's pretty much the equivalent of BASC coming out in support of a ban.
Try and put yourself in a neutral position and look at the facts, even with 100,000 signatures that actually means that something like 99.85% of the population haven't signed it, The largest bird conservation group are saying no don't ban it as we don't think its the right answer and even though it's million members are free to disagree and sign it anyway 95% or more haven't. Does that really sound like grounds to change the law and ban something?
You are right though to point out that getting 100,000 signatures only means it has to be discussed which is something some people seem to have forgotten as they seem to be under the impression that if we reach the 100,000 mark we just ban Grouse shooting over night. I imagine though that any discussion would be along the lines of shall we ban Grouse shooting? Erm no, next.
I was hoping you might respond, Adam, as I find you make interesting and valued points from a different perspective from my own (always interesting!) I think there are some very particular and acute problems involving driven grouse shooting that mean a petition of this sort has a much wider currency and appeals to far more than just LACS supporters. I've never been much impressed by the 'thin end of the wedge argument'since it could (and probably was) used to defend bear/badger baiting, dog/cock fighting,hare coursing, etc. all of which are now, rightly illegal. The problem with the line you support is that far too little is being done to address the very real issues regarding driven grouse shooting. To a large degree, we are where we are entirely due to the intransigence of shooting industry. It's not the conservationists who have been unreasonable over the last few decades.

I'd agree that there is a "huge gap between both sides" but not with the rest of your analysis. The gap is between those who want to see the law obeyed and harriers (et al) flourish in a diverse environment and those who give prioritynarrow shooting interests in what is increasingly a monoculture given over to grouse. Frankly if you read the vitriolic comments about Mark Avery and Chris Packham (e.g trying to get him sacked) then hating people and causing trouble seems to come far more from aficionados of shooting (cf an abusive campaign against Bowland Brewery). With regard to the class element in the debate, it's difficult to see how this can be avoided since there is a strong (and justified) perception that great wealth and better connections confer an alarming degree of immunity from the law for certain people than is the norm for the rest of us.

With regard to the RSPB, as you well know, their charter puts them in a very delicate position since it bans an outright opposition to hunting per se. I would guess that if they came out against driven grouse shooting then they might face an expensive legal battle. Further, as you also are aware the RSPB has always advocated a 'softly, softly' approach so is always leery of taking a more activist position - even if the majority of members might well support them.

As for your comment regarding petitions, although they have their weaknesses, they remain a good way of "taking the temperature" of the public on various issues. Although imperfect, if the rival sack/not sack Chris Packham petitions are anything to go by, then far more people support intervention to stop the widespread slaughter of raptors than not ...
 
It would be interesting to hear your response to what has just been posted on raptorpersecutionscotland.wordpress.com/2016/07/27.

Seems to be the really unacceptable side of driven grouse shooting to me for a brewery supporting hen harriers through sales of a special hen harrier brew to be subjected to a hate campaign.

If you live in Bowland buy some hen harrier beer

What is really striking is the threatening and ad hominem attacks being made against the brewery, Chris Packham and Mark Avery. There's a naked viciousness about it that will do little to persuade people that these are characters ready and willing to obey the law regarding birds of prey. Compare this to the far more reasonable and measured campaign to persuade M&S to stop selling grouse.

Even if you don't live in Bowland, you can show your support by buying their beer online as I just have done.
 
With regard to the RSPB, as you well know, their charter puts them in a very delicate position since it bans an outright opposition to hunting per se. I would guess that if they came out against driven grouse shooting then they might face an expensive legal battle. Further, as you also are aware the RSPB has always advocated a 'softly, softly' approach so is always leery of taking a more activist position - even if the majority of members might well support them.

I think it also worth adding here that just because the RSPB as an organisation are in some way restricted in what they can do and say around this issue, we shouldn't assume that this is the opinion of the RSPB employees themselves, many who will have personally signed this petition to ban DGS I am sure.
 
I've never been much impressed by the 'thin end of the wedge argument'since it could (and probably was) used to defend bear/badger baiting, dog/cock fighting,hare coursing, etc. all of which are now, rightly illegal. The problem with the line you support is that far too little is being done to address the very real issues regarding driven grouse shooting. ..

It's also worth noting that the longer something bad continues unchecked, the corrective action when it is applied is more likely to be far reaching and hurt the law abiding participants.
Nipping things in the bud is always a better option.

Or you end up with "A few bad apples ruining it for the rest of us".

Anyway, looking forward to receiving a crate of real ale in the post. They will probably arrive before we see a definitive response to post #59, last sentence.
 
What is really striking is the threatening and ad hominem attacks being made against the brewery, Chris Packham and Mark Avery. There's a naked viciousness about it that will do little to persuade people that these are characters ready and willing to obey the law regarding birds of prey. Compare this to the far more reasonable and measured campaign to persuade M&S to stop selling grouse.

Even if you don't live in Bowland, you can show your support by buying their beer online as I just have done.

When my husband gets home I hope to persuade him to buy some. The brewery could do with our support.
 
I think it also worth adding here that just because the RSPB as an organisation are in some way restricted in what they can do and say around this issue, we shouldn't assume that this is the opinion of the RSPB employees themselves, many who will have personally signed this petition to ban DGS I am sure.

I am sure as you live in Bedfordshire you will know the answer to this question. Some parts of Bedfordshire has a high number of signatures for an inland lowland county


Joan
 
Parts of the Government's Response are interesting.

The raptor persecution group, led by a senior police officer, focuses on the golden eagle, goshawk, hen harrier, peregrine, red kite and white tailed eagle and is led by a senior police officer.

I wonder which other parts contain figures that are misleading, doubled or just plain incorrect? Maybe a distraction ploy?
 
So many points so I'll try and respond to a few, Firstly Robin asked me a straight forward question so I'll give a straight forward answer. I would choose Grouse shooting and the reason I say is because it isn't simply a choice between Grouse shooting or Hen Harriers it's a choice between the benefits of Grouse shooting which are well proven despite what Mr Avery and the likes would have you believe or Hen Harriers so personally I'd go with whats best for wider conservation and continue to work on the negatives which is what I believe is rightly the RSPB stance. Easier said than done I Know but I personally believe that banning Grouse shooting because of some negatives and losing the positives would be cutting off our nose to spite our face.

I take on board the points about the RSPB having their hands tied to some extent but I think that's often an easy excuse for antis who don't want to admit that the RSPB simply don't agree with them. I also take on board Robins point about its members and employees opinions differing from the official stance but if a majority of this million plus employees and members really do disagree with the official stance then it makes you wonder why such a tiny percentage have bothered to sign this petition.

Going back to Johns point about the thin end of the wedge argument, we seem to be making the same point but coming to opposite conclusions. You are right the same argument will have been used in the past over many things that have been banned but that's exactly the point I'm making, Now that all those things you mention have been banned we've already moved on the Grouse shooting. If Grouse shooting gets banned how long before there's a campaign to ban all game shooting? after that what next Wildfowling? there's not many steps left before it gets to me so why on earth would I want to help speed up that process.

As for the abuse from some shooters well I'm not going to defend it, It's not acceptable from either side but come on lets be honest we get more than our fair share of it from the antis(I've had plenty on here) so it's only to be expected that some will do the same back. Two wrongs don't make a right but on the other hand if you can't take it then don't dish it out either.
 
So many points so I'll try and respond to a few, Firstly Robin asked me a straight forward question so I'll give a straight forward answer. I would choose Grouse shooting and the reason I say is because it isn't simply a choice between Grouse shooting or Hen Harriers it's a choice between the benefits of Grouse shooting which are well proven despite what Mr Avery and the likes would have you believe or Hen Harriers so personally I'd go with whats best for wider conservation and continue to work on the negatives which is what I believe is rightly the RSPB stance. Easier said than done I Know but I personally believe that banning Grouse shooting because of some negatives and losing the positives would be cutting off our nose to spite our face.

I take on board the points about the RSPB having their hands tied to some extent but I think that's often an easy excuse for antis who don't want to admit that the RSPB simply don't agree with them. I also take on board Robins point about its members and employees opinions differing from the official stance but if a majority of this million plus employees and members really do disagree with the official stance then it makes you wonder why such a tiny percentage have bothered to sign this petition.

Going back to Johns point about the thin end of the wedge argument, we seem to be making the same point but coming to opposite conclusions. You are right the same argument will have been used in the past over many things that have been banned but that's exactly the point I'm making, Now that all those things you mention have been banned we've already moved on the Grouse shooting. If Grouse shooting gets banned how long before there's a campaign to ban all game shooting? after that what next Wildfowling? there's not many steps left before it gets to me so why on earth would I want to help speed up that process.

As for the abuse from some shooters well I'm not going to defend it, It's not acceptable from either side but come on lets be honest we get more than our fair share of it from the antis(I've had plenty on here) so it's only to be expected that some will do the same back. Two wrongs don't make a right but on the other hand if you can't take it then don't dish it out either.
One major point, Adam, is that it is a petition to ban Driven Grouse Shooting, not grouse shooting, per se. There is no mention, anywhere, about banning shooting, and that would include walked-up shooting.
 
One major point, Adam, is that it is a petition to ban Driven Grouse Shooting, not grouse shooting, per se. There is no mention, anywhere, about banning shooting, and that would include walked-up shooting.

Fair point Mary, although it often seems to be forgotten by a lot campainging for the ban too. That still only adds another step though. Ban driven Grouse shooting and how long before theres a petition to ban all Grouse shooting?
 
Adam

As I see it, your argument revolves around two main points. Firstly, you claim that the environmental gains from current grouse moor management exceeds the claimed losses. Secondly, you see the movement against driven grouse shooting as the beginning of a slippery slope that will lead to the banning of all hunting.

I won't address the first point here as I've done so elsewhere and the case made for the adverse environmental impact of driven grouse moor management has been well rehearsed and substantially supported. The aspect of your argument that interests me here is your 'slippery slope' proposition. To be honest, I don't get this. It is a protean argument than can be shaped to fit whatever point you want to make. Adam, if you're worried about slippery slopes then perhaps you should take up skiing lessons - it is possible stop oneself! A few centuries back, those who engaged in, and profited from, the slave trade argued that interference and attempts to stop the trading of slaves would set a principle that it is appropriate to interfere in the free trade of other commodities. Well, we now have free trade between nations and no slave trade.

Mark Avery's book constructs a case for the banning of one particular activity - driven grouse shooting. There is nothing at all in the book that makes even the beginning of an argument against hunting in general. Indeed, if you read the book closely, you will find that he has no ill words for other legal and more 'hunting- oriented' shooting. The book contains no 'emotional' appeal for the plight of the poor shot grouse. It is a well-argued, evidence-based case against one particular activity. By contrast, Adam, I find that your extraploations are not evidence-based and really not convincing. However, they are your own subjective fears so I suspect that we won't win you over.

Stewart
 
Thanks for your replies. Boom, I bought "Inglorious" last night and will start to read today. Mickr, thanks for your reply - I felt that the numbers I had seen didn't really add up, and I'm sure the landowners could find other means to make money. I also wonder what might happen to the moorland if the shooting was banned. I will get on with Mark Avery's book as I'm sure it will answer many of my questions.

Yes it will
 
I would choose Grouse shooting and the reason I say is because it isn't simply a choice between Grouse shooting or Hen Harriers it's a choice between the benefits of Grouse shooting which are well proven despite what Mr Avery and the likes would have you believe

Thank you for your honesty Adam, always much appreciated.

So we have no Hen Harrier. Can you therefore point out these benefits please because in many upland Grouse moors, we can often find we have few Stoat, Weasel, Hedgehog, Fox, Mountain Hare, Peregrine, Golden Eagle, Merlin, Short-eared Owl, Common Buzzard - and more. Pardon for me saying Adam but I think you will find that the benefiting species is the species with the gun?

Furthermore - would I be right in saying you haven't read Mark Avery's book?
 
Adam

As I see it, your argument revolves around two main points. Firstly, you claim that the environmental gains from current grouse moor management exceeds the claimed losses. Secondly, you see the movement against driven grouse shooting as the beginning of a slippery slope that will lead to the banning of all hunting.

I won't address the first point here as I've done so elsewhere and the case made for the adverse environmental impact of driven grouse moor management has been well rehearsed and substantially supported. The aspect of your argument that interests me here is your 'slippery slope' proposition. To be honest, I don't get this. It is a protean argument than can be shaped to fit whatever point you want to make. Adam, if you're worried about slippery slopes then perhaps you should take up skiing lessons - it is possible stop oneself! A few centuries back, those who engaged in, and profited from, the slave trade argued that interference and attempts to stop the trading of slaves would set a principle that it is appropriate to interfere in the free trade of other commodities. Well, we now have free trade between nations and no slave trade.

Mark Avery's book constructs a case for the banning of one particular activity - driven grouse shooting. There is nothing at all in the book that makes even the beginning of an argument against hunting in general. Indeed, if you read the book closely, you will find that he has no ill words for other legal and more 'hunting- oriented' shooting. The book contains no 'emotional' appeal for the plight of the poor shot grouse. It is a well-argued, evidence-based case against one particular activity. By contrast, Adam, I find that your extraploations are not evidence-based and really not convincing. However, they are your own subjective fears so I suspect that we won't win you over.

Stewart

I was going to respond but you nicely judged and articulate response says it all. Thank you.
 
Thank you for your honesty Adam, always much appreciated.

So we have no Hen Harrier. Can you therefore point out these benefits please because in many upland Grouse moors, we can often find we have few Stoat, Weasel, Hedgehog, Fox, Mountain Hare, Peregrine, Golden Eagle, Merlin, Short-eared Owl, Common Buzzard - and more. Pardon for me saying Adam but I think you will find that the benefiting species is the species with the gun?

Furthermore - would I be right in saying you haven't read Mark Avery's book?

I agree with your first point but with regard to your last observation, I would put money Adam having read it ... he just doesn't believe it!
 
If driven grouse shooting is banned, what is going to happen to the estates. Planted with conifers, sheep grazing?

The intense management of upland areas for any one 'utility' (timber, sheep, grouse) would clearly be detrimental to required biodiversity. Where vested interests don't get in the way, there has already been some change of heart and practise on this. In upland areas, there needs to be a diversity of land use: some farming; access areas for walking, rock-climbing, and the like; some areas for re-wilding nature projects (think mixed forest and a reintroduction of beavers); some areas managed to prevent adverse climate change (no more draining of blanket bogs); and so on. What a grand landscape that would! And there would be payback for us all in terms of leisure, reduction of flooding, cleaner water, stemming carbon emissions; and of course more sky-dancing Hen Harriers for us to watch and wonder at. What's not to like?

Stewart

There are chapters in Mark Avery's book 'Inglorious' and in George Monbiot's book 'Feral' which explore the issue of alternative landscapes and usage of upland areas.
 
Argh so many points to try and reply to.

Firstly Stewart, I of course totally respect for right to you opinions and I take on board what you are saying but I simply don't agree with any of it but then you obviously feel the same about me so I think all we can do is respectfully agree to disagree.

Now Robin, you list a number of species that clearly don't benefit from grouse shooting but I suspect you know that you could have equally listed a number that do benefit such as a variety of Waders not to mention Grouse themselves of course and what about Black Grouse that are thriving in Durham in the exact same areas where people keep complaining about the negatives of Grouse shooting. You mention species like Fox and Stoat suffering from Grouse shooting but many people including the RSPB and plenty of non shooting birders happily acknowledge the conservation benefits of legal predator control.
Only the other day I read a comment from a local birder who spent the day on the Durham Grouse moors delighted to be surrounded by Curlew,Redshank,Lapwing,Snipe and Golden Plover but not a Crow or magpie in sight now its not rocket science to see there's a link there but you might choose to pick out only the part about the negative impact on Corvids.
It's really pretty easy to make a strong case either for or against Grouse shooting by simply picking out the right facts that fit and ignoring the rest it just depends which side you are on and what your personal opinions are.
One point I'd make about raptors and Hen Harriers in particular is yes of course you are quite right that Grouse shooting has a negative impact on them but only because they are illegally killed its not the very idea of Grouse shooting or the habitat that is created and manged for Grouse shooting that's the problem its only the illegal persecution part.
This idea that seems to have recently come about largely due to Mark Avery that managing the land for Grouse shooting is the root of all evil and the cause of every problem known to man is nonsense. The reason we have such a conflict between Grouse shooting and Hen Harriers isn't because managing the land for Grouse shooting destroys the habitat,quite the opposite it actually creates the perfect habitat for Hen Harriers rich in prey low in predators that as a ground nesting bird Hen Harriers themselves could easily fall victim to.
Any raptor species found on Grouse moors benefit from how the land is managed for Grouse provided they aren't then killed and this is the reason that I and many people like the RSPB believe that the best option is to keep Grouse shooting for its positives and keep trying to work towards finding a way to eliminate the negatives.

Lastly as for Mark's book well no I haven't read and and no I wouldn't take much notice of it I I did. Now I know you'll all say typical ignorant shooter ignoring the facts etc but think of it the other way round there's plenty of books written by shooters telling you all about how great Grouse shooting is and backing it up with selectively chosen facts but do you really think Mark will be reading them and accepting the facts and changing his opinion? I very much doubt so why would I be any different.
 
Well, I for one would be interested to read a book (or books) by a "shooter" that contains a science-based, data-supported analysis of driven grouse shooting that shows how the activity and the associated intense management of grouse moors has a beneficial impact on biodiversity, upland flood management, retaining carbon sinks, enhancing and broadening outdoor activities; as well as providing an effective strategy for preventing illegal persecution of birds of prey. I'm always ready to broaden my viewpoint, so if you could give me a title or two of those books that contain the above, I'll send off a request for them. But please, I don't want to waste my time on anything anecdotal ("I was talking to a birdwatcher the other day") or selective (talking a lot about Curlews, but omitting to talk about the range of other wildlife). Thanks Adam.

PS I've just re-read your final paragraph. Perhaps you are saying that such books only contain selective facts. Oh well!
 
Last edited:
Lastly as for Mark's book well no I haven't read and and no I wouldn't take much notice of it I I did. Now I know you'll all say typical ignorant shooter ignoring the facts etc but think of it the other way round there's plenty of books written by shooters telling you all about how great Grouse shooting is and backing it up with selectively chosen facts but do you really think Mark will be reading them and accepting the facts and changing his opinion? I very much doubt so why would I be any different.

Maybe Adam, just maybe if you were to open your mind just a tad and read that Mark references peer-reviewed science for each argument he calls out. I haven't seen such a book based on such from a shooting perspective. If I had, I would love to read. Facts can be called facts by anyone who so chooses but subjection is much different from science based evidence.
There would once have been a time where people could not embrace the thought that their world could be spherical - it's just a matter of time where those people become such a tiny minority that the notion disappears completely.

PS - I knew that you hadn't bothered to read the book Adam but I didn't want to dampen John's optimism.
 
Warning! This thread is more than 7 years ago old.
It's likely that no further discussion is required, in which case we recommend starting a new thread. If however you feel your response is required you can still do so.

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top