new petition re driven grouse shooting (1 Viewer)

[rosbifs]

Great plans in ideal world, but are Estate owners likely to donate their lands for such projects. I know of only one person who uses all their personal land for conservation

I couldn't care less what they want to do with 'their' land if driven grouse shooting is banned. Doesn't make an illegal activity correct. What was it 200 years ago? Driven grouse is a fairly new 'sport' so those saying 'hundreds of years of tradition' is bull. They will still get their subsidies for maintaining moors, bogs etc. and still need to employ people using their subsidised monies potentially more. They will still have to abide by planning laws, green belt etc.

A lot of their claimed number of employees are temps, kids working for cash in hand - can't really say they are developing the local economy.

If a town dies because a new motorway or bypass is built what happens to the shops same if an out of town shopping centre is built it is considered progress. Do you feel as sorry for the mining towns or steel works towns?

 

[Farnboro John]

Mountain hares are culled because they can transmit louping ill (via tick vector) to Red grouse. Grouse can't be reared like Pheasant so unfortunately cannot release them on August 11th.
IMO Shooting estates should have a minimum number of Hen Harriers on their estates (calculated by independent ecologists). Brood management for surplus pairs

Mountain Hares have been in that position for thousands of years and surprise, surprise, both they and Red Grouse are still with us.... the real issue about louping ill is that animals debilitated by excessive infestation would normally be removed by predators but thanks the nitwit mismanagement of the upland ecosystem by the grouse shooters, that doesn't happen. The problem is of their own making.

Shooting estates should stop playing ecological Blind Man's Buff and turn their estate management over to conservation organisations. They could still shoot Red Grouse in season, just not touch the place in between times. They might even find their bags go up in some years, because this is wild animals we are talking about, they have good years and bad years. They are designed by evolution to do so. Only a fool of a human thinking like a businessman or an accountant would think they could conquer such variations if they just meddle enough.

John

 

[Sharp Shin]

If driven grouse shooting is banned, what is going to happen to the estates. Planted with conifers, sheep grazing?

I've already given half an answer this question a couple of posts back. It wasn't a full answer to the assertion that the banning of one ‘old way of managing the uplands’ would only and necessarily lead us to slide towards another ‘old way of managing the uplands’. As said, there are a range of alternative and ecologically more positive scenarios.

Some optimism about future land use stems from a growing sense that our natural environment can be usefully conceptualise in terms of ecosystem services. Ecosystem services are the processes by which the environment produces resources utilised by humans such as clean air, water, food and materials. My examples related to only one aspect of ecosystem services – cultural services, including recreation and aesthetic experiences. Of course, this isn’t the whole picture. Ecosystem services also include: supporting services, provisioning services and regulating services. In relation the management of upland moors, regulating services are probably the most relevant and these are the benefits obtained from the regulation of ecosystem processes, including air quality regulation, climate regulation, water regulation, erosion regulation, water purification, etc. When managed and regulated correctly, upland areas can provide ecosystem services of great financial benefit and this should be another significant factor in guiding future upland management and use. I’m sure that water utility companies would love to play a part in the management of uplands, because it would serve them financially in a sustainable future. (And, if you want some evidence of how water utility companies can work in conjunction with Wildlife Trusts on land use, have a look at the great results at Abberton Reservoir in Essex.) Realisation of the huge benefit of regulating services should guide, and I think will increasingly guide, government subsidises and private enterprise investment. Allow me to quote (p102) from Tony Juniper’s book ‘What Nature Does For Britain’:

“One lever society has for influencing how the land is managed is the vast amount of money paid from our taxes to upland shooting estates. From January 2015 the money handed out to moorland owners nearly doubled from £30 per hectare per year to £56. Perhaps if payments were linked with measures to improve upland habitats the public interest would be better served. Under current arrangements I fear more will be spent on new gamekeepers than it will be on bog restoration. In the meantime the sport of a privileged few will continue to be subsidised not only through our taxes but also through the water bills of the many, who pay for the colour to be removed. This is economically irrational and patently unfair. When politicians bemoan the high price of environmental standards in our water bills, it strikes me that the ones among them who shoot grouse don’t necessarily speak for those on low incomes who get water bills delivered to their rented flats.”​

Stewart

 

[rosbifs]

Here is an old quote from the rspb website:

Jon3012
20 Oct 2010 11:58 PM

As a memeber of the RSPB and a sporting shooter this sort of rubbish makes me very angry.

To address all the points here would take forever so lets just look at the facts.

The annual bird crime figure is just rubbish, Raptors are not persecuted at all, to take figures from a website called raptor politics and take them as true is just stupid. peer reviewed facts i will accept but not just anything spouted out maybe for the wrong reasons. I think Eagle owls are the problem for things such as hen harriers and now the RSPB want to cull them. What does that say about this organisation? In my opinion it is not coincidence that the Kestrel population is going down but Buzzards are shooting up. I spend all my time in the countryside you get to notice things.

For true facts try looking at the National Wildlife crime figures. Raptors are just picked out because they photo well swans are far more targeted on urban ponds but that doesn`t grab the headlines.

On the subject of traffic accidents because of released birds. try looking at the figures of accidents for Deer and Badgers.

On the drop in Butterfly numbers, woods that have been coppiced for the use as sporting woods can support far more moth and butterfly numbers than a non managed woodland and if the game shooting wasn`t there then it wouldn`t get done.

My final point is that on the shoot i mainly go on we supply the birds(Pheasants, Grey Partridge, Red Legged Partridge) with tons, and i mean tons of grain every year, evey song bird in the area comes to feed on that grain making for a tremendous mix in wildlife. I can honestly say i would take someone round the shoot with pleasure to show them all the good we do. You only have to compare the bird count on RSPB moors to moors used for shooting to show you what predator control does for ground nesting birds.

Dear M Avery, if you keep on turning out this rubbish then i will have to part company with the RSPB as it is not doing as it should, Birdcrime was a nonsense and the agenda to take down game shooting is underhanded and to be quite honest not in your remit.


Absolutely hilarious (read sad) - raptors are not persecuted at all......

 

[mudman]

All this talk of stopping the driven grouse shooting but continuing to use agri environmental funds to continue management for the benefit of the curlew and other species.

Do you know what this management would be to match the breeding success for curlews, other wader and black grouse currently seen on grouse moors ??

Your recently employed goverment funded upland wader conservation officer(s) would have to kill stuff, lots and lots of stuff, with our tax money. That is why the waders thrive on the keepered ground, because of the trapping, shooting and snaring by the privately funded gamekeepers which results in a habitat that has very very few foxes, stoats and carrion crows...the big three upland predators.

The other thing I you need to mention is that many grouse moors are lucky to turn a profit, some have been managed for years, employing full time fully waged gamekeepers and have yet to shoot a single driven grouse.

Grouse shooting is one of those things in life that is not about the money, yes you generally require a lot of money to do it, and certainly be very wealthy to be an owner. But many grouse shoots are not a business and certainly as a whole not an industry as most would understand it, for many owners breaking even would be a pleasant aside, profits can be made but so can large losses. If losses are made the owners carry on, they can afford to.

The owners get their pleasure from owning and managing a moor, and seeing their friends and guests, some of whom may pay for the privilege, enjoying good sport. It is not about making money.

 

[rosbifs]

All this talk of stopping the driven grouse shooting but continuing to use agri environmental funds to continue management for the benefit of the curlew and other species.

Do you know what this management would be to match the breeding success for curlews, other wader and black grouse currently seen on grouse moors ??

Your recently employed goverment funded upland wader conservation officer(s) would have to kill stuff, lots and lots of stuff, with our tax money. That is why the waders thrive on the keepered ground, because of the trapping, shooting and snaring by the privately funded gamekeepers which results in a habitat that has very very few foxes, stoats and carrion crows...the big three upland predators.

The other thing I you need to mention is that many grouse moors are lucky to turn a profit, some have been managed for years, employing full time fully waged gamekeepers and have yet to shoot a single driven grouse.

Grouse shooting is one of those things in life that is not about the money, yes you generally require a lot of money to do it, and certainly be very wealthy to be an owner. But many grouse shoots are not a business and certainly as a whole not an industry as most would understand it, for many owners breaking even would be a pleasant aside, profits can be made but so can large losses. If losses are made the owners carry on, they can afford to.

The owners get their pleasure from owning and managing a moor, and seeing their friends and guests, some of whom may pay for the privilege, enjoying good sport. It is not about making money.

The point is whether the price we all pay for this 'luxury' sport is worth 'it'. Whilst some are saying ban shooting the majority just want an end to the erradication of protected species.

Under moors management the gamekeepers would still be employed and still need to control certain predators. The subsidies that you contribute to would just be directed or used in a different way. In short the estates would still need managing.

The shooters consider raptors to be vermin and have a carte blanche to treat them as such.

This is just one element of the argument - a lot more are covered here and a lot more elsewhere but banning driven grouse shooting will not be an end of the moorlands, peat bogs etc.

It has been proven that shooting moors cannot exist (as a financially viable entity) without the wholesale removal of predators - legal and illegal - but under no circumstances should we condone illegal activity.

Its like saying the columbian drug barons should be left alone because they provide jobs for otherwise unemployable people!!! Their activites are illegal FULL STOP. But 'its only a few birds of prey' doesn't wash.

The shooting fraternity are now blaming reduced numbers of grouse on the buzzard and overwintering HH (Langholm 2). In reality the weather had a massive effect on breeding stocks meaning that in a number of estates an acceptable 'shootable' surplus wasn't achieved. So now the buzzards stand in the crosshairs because you can't shoot the weather just the weatherman and he's just the messenger....

ps should point out that the article about grouse numbers suffering due to general bad weather in scotland and then buzzards being probable cause of fewer grouse numbers is on the same page of the field - couldn't write it better

 

[Sharp Shin]

The owners get their pleasure from owning and managing a moor, and seeing their friends and guests, some of whom may pay for the privilege, enjoying good sport.

Reassuring to know this.

 

[Sharp Shin]

This article in today's Guardian exposes some of the shenanigans going on by those who support (or are paid to support) the embattled driven grouse shooters.

 

[string boozel]

The weather is responsible for low grouse numbers, my god they'll be shooting clouds next!

James.

 

[ProwlingBoy]

Another harrier down, one of this years fledglings.

Another satellite tagged bird of prey disappears in the Monadhliath Mountains

 

[Adam W]

The point is whether the price we all pay for this 'luxury' sport is worth 'it'. Whilst some are saying ban shooting the majority just want an end to the erradication of protected species.

I think this pretty much sums up the whole situation, I think the vast majority of people would accept that Grouse shooting has both positives and negatives and as long as that's the case then there isn't really a right answer it's just a case of which you think out weighs the other and fairly obviously shooters and birders will mainly be on opposite sides.

You also make the very important point that the majority don't actually want a ban just an end to illegal persecution. It's okay shouting it from the roof tops what huge support this campaign has had but the reality is that even amongst the group that you would fully expect to be the most anti Grouse shooting of all only a small minority have got behind this campaign,Now surely that speaks volumes.

 

[etudiant]

You also make the very important point that the majority don't actually want a ban just an end to illegal persecution. It's okay shouting it from the roof tops what huge support this campaign has had but the reality is that even amongst the group that you would fully expect to be the most anti Grouse shooting of all only a small minority have got behind this campaign,Now surely that speaks volumes.

This may be true, but the unrelenting nature of the illegal persecution suggests that the laws are being systematically flouted.
Hence the conclusion that a ban is necessary in order to stop that persecution.

 

[silver prince]

sharpshins article in the guardian, sums it all up for me ,showing the corruption involved from ian Botham, editors of newspapers. and the government's refusal to have the vicarious law brought in .please responsible shooters distance yourself from them speak up and be responsible, if not then you will anger more and more ,and the will of the people wlll decide, just like brexit who ever thought social media, could be a powerful tool.

 

[Adam W]

This may be true, but the unrelenting nature of the illegal persecution suggests that the laws are being systematically flouted.
Hence the conclusion that a ban is necessary in order to stop that persecution.

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?

 

[rosbifs]

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?

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.

 

[Adam W]

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.

I take all of that on board and dont dissagree with it but I still can't see how adding all of that together accounts for such small support from what should be the areas where most support would be expected to come from.
As for a pro Grouse shooting petition well I very much doubt that it would get much support because as Ive mentioned before the internet plays a very small role in the shooting world compared to the massive part it plays in the birding world and no matter how much some people might like to think otherwise the shooting world generally does not feel at all threatened by the a fact that 0.15% of the population have signed an online petition, certainly not enough to feel the need to respond infact thinking about it I would be fairly certain that I am the only shooter I know that is even aware of this campaign and thats only because i'm also a birder.

 

[Robin Edwards]

Does anyone recall the situation in the 1980s where football hooliganism from a small core attending football matches, spoilt the games for many more and then a decision was made to make stadia seat only and improved segregation.
Now at the time, I recall supporters being up in arms that the changes would spoil for everyone and thin-end of the wedge being used as a response to change. Well things changed and I don't hear people harking back to those good old days.
Now had there been Internet voting facility in those times, would we have expected everyone to vote for change? No of course not.
So my point here is that bringing about change is not fast and not easy because human beings are generally averse to change. In business, it's the hardest thing to do in my opinion and doesn't become easier over time.
The key factor in this debate on DGS is simply that a commercial business is being allowed to flout the law underpinned by the UK establishment. Making money whilst playing the card that it's a tradition or that they are conserving something that they're not but relying on mr joe public being ignorant of the true facts of the matter.
This will change and eventually good will prevail - the die has been cast.

 

[John Cantelo]

.... only a small minority have got behind this campaign, Now surely that speaks volumes.

Let's not play down the significance of the size that the petition has now reached. I don't think that you can dismiss the figure of 114,000 signatories so lightly and, as parliament set the 100,000 threshold, it doesn't look like they think so either. However limited and flawed the process might be it is clear that such votes represent a much higher level of support and sympathy than the simple numerical total.

 

[Farnboro John]

Let's not play down the significance of the size that the petition has now reached. I don't think that you can dismiss the figure of 114,000 signatories so lightly and, as parliament set the 100,000 threshold, it doesn't look like they think so either. However limited and flawed the process might be it is clear that such votes represent a much higher level of support and sympathy than the simple numerical total.

Adam is out of ammo. All he can do now is belittle the campaign numbers.

John

 

[Robin Edwards]

Let's not play down the significance of the size that the petition has now reached. I don't think that you can dismiss the figure of 114,000 signatories so lightly and, as parliament set the 100,000 threshold, it doesn't look like they think so either. However limited and flawed the process might be it is clear that such votes represent a much higher level of support and sympathy than the simple numerical total.

Well said John.
And the notion that there might be millions of people who haven't signed doesn't equate to them all being happy that DGS and Hen Harrier extirpation from UK is what they all want. That notion would be a clutching of straws.