• 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)

"The Peak District national park is on the point of walking away from voluntary partnerships because we are not getting the success on hen harrier nesting that we deserve."

Et tu, Brute?
 
The debate on driven Grouse shooting this afternoons in Parliament has certainly been very much in favour of driven Grouse shooting with only about 2 MP''s speaking against driven Grouse Shooting. It's very depressing indeed.
Ian.

I'm not sure the distinction between the two forms of shooting (only driven shooting for a proposed ban) were explained or realised?

It was half heartedly presented and had virtually no support.

A
 
I'm not sure the distinction between the two forms of shooting (only driven shooting for a proposed ban) were explained or realised?

It was half heartedly presented and had virtually no support.

A

I'm sure the pro side deliberately confused the two as a deliberate ploy.
 
I'm sure the pro side deliberately confused the two as a deliberate ploy.

One of the 'anti's' did try and separate the two.

The pro are also lumping the 1500 jobs into the driven grouse shooting box plus 125 days of seasonal work. Do they really think that these are 'quality' jobs in rural areas - the 'housewife' who goes beating on a weekend to make ends meet when in the breath before these jobs (the husband) are above minimum wage and national averages...
 
the 'housewife' who goes beating on a weekend to make ends meet

She was actually said to be a farmer's wife. If the farmer is not making ends meet that is where the problem lies. In any other scenario this government would be perfectly capable of telling her to go and get another job elsewhere.

The pro shooting supporters were very rude about Avery and Packham, but didn't address any specific objections. I can do cheap rhetoric too.

There were some crocodile tears about the plight of Hen Harriers, but the problem was just swept under the carpet. The RSPB was roundly criticised for walking away from the talks, but the Peak District national park is also on the point of doing the same, which speaks much more clearly than the politicians did.

Overall the debate rather gave the impression that MPs hold the electorate in contempt.
 
She was actually said to be a farmer's wife. If the farmer is not making ends meet that is where the problem lies. In any other scenario this government would be perfectly capable of telling her to go and get another job elsewhere.

The pro shooting supporters were very rude about Avery and Packham, but didn't address any specific objections. I can do cheap rhetoric too.

There were some crocodile tears about the plight of Hen Harriers, but the problem was just swept under the carpet. The RSPB was roundly criticised for walking away from the talks, but the Peak District national park is also on the point of doing the same, which speaks much more clearly than the politicians did.

Overall the debate rather gave the impression that MPs hold the electorate in contempt.

At the same time the RSPB 'sitting on the fence' has shot the campaign in the foot because it will constantly be refered to as the body that doesn't want the ban! Who are the 'lay' people going to believe - two 'fanatics' who are trying to promote their ppositions or the organisation with a million members who don't want a ban.

In short the pro-lobby did a fantastic political job on the petition and all who sails in her even to the point that the job of introducing the petition was given to a pro-shooter!!!

Whether it was house wife or farmers wife I find it outrageous that she would want or need to go out for a weekends beating to put food on the table. I would add that most farmers wife are driving around in Discoverys and are not short of a bob or two.

The gamekeepers wifes are not in the same earnings bracket and are those that perhaps don't have the cash! And yet these are the people that this industry supports and pays more than the average wage. Utter balls. Do these people really think that the children in these 'impoverished' areas want to aspire to be a 'beater' for 123 days of the year? Worse do they want to force their children to become lawbreakers/small minority of game keepers.

Why aren't there hundreds of Hen Harriers nesting at moor A which doesn't have grouse shooting? Clearly, stopping Grouse shooting will not help the HH! They clearly didn't read the book or know anything about the birds in question!

Anyway, as I said they did a job on the debate. The 'anti' were outgunned, I won't say outprepared but certainly blindsided. The 'anti' speakers did a good job but basically nothing they said was believed - there've been scientific studies etc.....

Unless the RSPB come out against driven shooting this will go nowhere!!
 
Unless the RSPB come out against driven shooting this will go nowhere!!

Sadly, I can't see that making any difference. The RSPB are already not being listened to. That is why they withdrew from the talks.

Those that feel so strongly should withdraw their RSPB memberships

What would that achieve? Any RSPB members who support shooting have no reason to quit; they are maintaining their ground very well, thank you. Those who are against shooting aren't going to help their case by doing so either.
 
It may be worth while reading the

"Objects of the Society", especially the last paragraph in page 2. Then read the rest.

http://www.rspb.org.uk/Images/charter-and-statutes_tcm9-382216.pdf

For convenience I've posted the relevant section of the charter below:-

3 The Objects shall be:
1) To promote the conservation of biological diversity and the natural environment for the public benefit, in particular but not exclusively by:
a) conserving wild birds and other wildlife, and the environment on which they depend;
b) protecting, restoring and re-creating habitats. And, in furtherance of that primary objective, to raise public understanding and awareness
of, and to provide information on, such matters.
2) To advance education of the public in conservation of the natural environment. In pursuing these Objects the Society shall:
a) undertake activities in Our United Kingdom, in the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man, the UK Overseas Territories and anywhere else in the world; and
b) by so doing seek to persuade the public not only that the beauty of birds and nature enriches the lives of many people but also that nature conservation is fundamental to a healthy environment upon which the survival of the human race depends.
The Society shall take no part in the question of the killing of game birds and legitimate sport of that character except when such practices have an impact on the Objects.

Shooting interests are quick to claim that the first part of the final sentence debars the RSPB from opposing game shooting but the second part (which I've highlighted) is a significant loophole. The widespread practices of driven grouse shooting put it clearly in breach of the objectives.
 
Sadly, I can't see that making any difference. The RSPB are already not being listened to. That is why they withdrew from the talks.



What would that achieve? Any RSPB members who support shooting have no reason to quit; they are maintaining their ground very well, thank you. Those who are against shooting aren't going to help their case by doing so either.

However frustrating it may be, resigning from the RSPB is playing into the hands of the DGS lobby. Better we all join the Hawk & Owl Trust ...
 
do not loose heart ,over this torys will never ban driven grouse shooting.but the very fact this has been debated in westminstedr is a major triumph, rome wasn't built in a day and all that.the fact that they know the tide is turning,the rspb are doing great things especially with satellite tagging this is not going to be easy,but if i was the owner of a grouse moor ,i would want to be verry careful.
 
Thought I would re-visit this and see what the press have said - not a lot from what I can find. It seems a masterstroke from the shooting industry - they have portrayed everybody as the 'anti-brigade' who know nothing about the countryside - and now the debate has gone most 'journals' have kept it quiet. The 'anti' can't possibly understand the countryside and its needs and the pro should be left in charge - it was clear that they didn't understand the petition and what it was asking for.

The Field said this before and nothing since:
Deputy Editor Alexandra Henton says:

The petition to protect grouse moors and grouse shooting is not only for those who shoot grouse. It should be signed by anyone who takes their gun into the field, follows hounds or wades into a river rod in hand. It is vital that the countryside community stand together in the face of anti-activity, whatever form that activity may take. In this case it is Mr Avery’s highly-strung petition.


Read more at http://www.thefield.co.uk/news/sign...grouse-shooting-[/I]37708#FSXA1iWCvwX4cFjB.99

I found a great article on the web which brilliantly summed up the debate - yes there were some minor errors in the text:
http://wildlifearticles.co.uk/mps-discuss-driven-grouse-shooting/

Also Findley (aged 14) had some very interesting observations - he was there:
http://wildeaboutbirds.blogspot.fr/2016/11/dont-dismissthe-public-ngo.html

His, very valid, intitial point was that Double who introduced the petition was a pro - what complete balls. One of my observations was why was Langholm bought up - it failed, ended early because I don't think the results were going to help the funders (govt and the pro) - it was used to muddy the waters - look we did this project and blah blah (opposite of what actually happened).

All I can say is stitched. At least, and I doubt I'm the first to voice it/think it, the lines have been drawn and the pro arguments out in the open. I don't know what the next stage is though so a little bit frustrated...
 
Another interesting article and one that almost sounds anti-shooting!

http://www.thefield.co.uk/gundogs/day-without-peg-dog-38535

It does give an small insight into the changing world of shooting over the last 40 years. It is sad that even the 'old' school are turning their backs on the modern method - and it also goes some way to expalining why there are bin bags full of dead pheasants dotted around the country (another thread)...
 
Another interesting article and one that almost sounds anti-shooting!

http://www.thefield.co.uk/gundogs/day-without-peg-dog-38535

It does give an small insight into the changing world of shooting over the last 40 years. It is sad that even the 'old' school are turning their backs on the modern method - and it also goes some way to expalining why there are bin bags full of dead pheasants dotted around the country (another thread)...

Yes, a most interesting and revealing commentary. I think fewer birdwatchers would have such strong reservations about game shooting if it was carried on in the manner that David Tomlinson (the author of the article) describes. David's perspective is different from most shooters as he's also a keen and expert birdwatcher(which I'm sure many will be aware of).
 
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