John Cantelo
Well-known member
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.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'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 ...