new petition re driven grouse shooting (1 Viewer)

[Nutcracker]

As a guy who lives in the Scottish Highlands, before I sign I wonder how people feel about fishing for pleasure ? , is that considered a cruel sport ?
Thanks Gordon.

Cruelty is involved, but that's not what the grouse petition is about, it was started because of the rampant illegal activity (raptor killing) closely associated with driven grouse shooting. Many, perhaps most, of the signers of the grouse petition have no problem with grouse shooting if it is carried out within the law.

Having said that, some illegal activity is associated with fishing interests, particularly the wealthier salmon fisheries: Ospreys, Cormorants, Goosanders, Otters, etc., being killed illegally on some rivers. But the problem is much less than on the grouse moors.

Illegal commercial fishing (like that done by the boat involved in the brexit demo reported here) is another matter, but I doubt a petition would have much effect in a situation like this.

 

[Sharp Shin]

As a guy who lives in the Scottish Highlands, before I sign I wonder how people feel about fishing for pleasure ? , is that considered a cruel sport ?
Thanks Gordon.

This is a very focussed campaign against one particular activity: driven grouse shooting. Interestingly, when the term 'cruelty' is used in the campaign against driven grouse shooting it usually has less to do with the plight of the Red Grouse, and more to do with the cruelty to other forms of wildlife which are systematically destroyed on grouse moors: foxes and stoats; mountain hares (by the 100s); and of course birds of prey which are killed illegally and often cruelly (through pole traps and the like). There is nothing analogous to this in fishing. Moreover, there is often a shared interest between fishermen and conservationists: conservation measures that lead to cleaner rivers and lakes will benefit fishermen. With driven grouse shooting, the converse is the case: grouse moors are managed for the sole benefit of one game bird and this is antithetical to biodiversity and conservation. (Don't be misled by the like of Ian Botham quoting a supposed BTO report that the BTO has denied ever carrying out!). And lastly, there is a whole swathe of other ill-effects of driven grouse shooting: the poor land management that contributes to flooding at low levels; the destruction of blanket bogs, which should act as carbon sink but now has led to carbon releases that make a significant contribution to global warming; and so on. These things have no parallels in the activity of fishing.

You are safe - go on Gordon, sign the petition and see how the matter is debated in parliament.

Stewart

 

[rosbifs]

This is a very focussed campaign against one particular activity: driven grouse shooting. Interestingly, when the term 'cruelty' is used in the campaign against driven grouse shooting it usually has less to do with the plight of the Red Grouse, and more to do with the cruelty to other forms of wildlife which are systematically destroyed on grouse moors: foxes and stoats; mountain hares (by the 100s); and of course birds of prey which are killed illegally and often cruelly (through pole traps and the like). There is nothing analogous to this in fishing. Moreover, there is often a shared interest between fishermen and conservationists: conservation measures that lead to cleaner rivers and lakes will benefit fishermen. With driven grouse shooting, the converse is the case: grouse moors are managed for the sole benefit of one game bird and this is antithetical to biodiversity and conservation. (Don't be misled by the like of Ian Botham quoting a supposed BTO report that the BTO has denied ever carrying out!). And lastly, there is a whole swathe of other ill-effects of driven grouse shooting: the poor land management that contributes to flooding at low levels; the destruction of blanket bogs, which should act as carbon sink but now has led to carbon releases that make a significant contribution to global warming; and so on. These things have no parallels in the activity of fishing.

You are safe - go on Gordon, sign the petition and see how the matter is debated in parliament.

Stewart

Its is also bad for the water quality which could have an adverse effect on fish and therefore fishing...

 

[John Cantelo]

I see that after the non-existent BTO survey some apologists are blaming non-existent wind farms for the loss of those eight Golden Eagles. Perhaps they have to resort to such measures because they have a non-existent case! See https://raptorpersecutionscotland.w...disappearing-eagles-in-monadhliaths/#comments

 

[Adam W]

Going back to this idea that this campaign is all very specifically about driven Grouse shooting and I as a shooter have nothing to worry about as this thin end of the wedge argument isn't valid.
Well we saw this petition reach 100,000 yesterday morning and lets not forget that's all that's happened yet nothing has actually changed but within hours I'd seen 3 different people on twitter(I only follow 203) already pushing a petition to licence all game shooting making no secret at all of the fact that they considered a petition against driven Grouse shooting as simply the first step and one lovely gentleman posting a photo of someone shooting saying and I quote ''anyone else hope the gun backfires in his face?'' to which he got reply's saying ''yes me too'' so whilst I accept that there are indeed plenty of people behind this campaign that genuinely are focused only on the specific problems within driven Grouse shooting and would have no desire to take it any further it is very clear that there is also a significant number that are quite the opposite and will not stop with these sort of campaigns until all fieldsports (or bloodsports if you prefer) are banned.
No matter how much some people might want it to be true to suggest that shooters or indeed fishermen have nothing to fear from this campaign and that it wouldn't be the start of a slippery slope it just simply isn't true.

 

[DMW]

Going back to this idea that this campaign is all very specifically about driven Grouse shooting and I as a shooter have nothing to worry about as this thin end of the wedge argument isn't valid.
Well we saw this petition reach 100,000 yesterday morning and lets not forget that's all that's happened yet nothing has actually changed but within hours I'd seen 3 different people on twitter(I only follow 203) already pushing a petition to licence all game shooting making no secret at all of the fact that they considered a petition against driven Grouse shooting as simply the first step and one lovely gentleman posting a photo of someone shooting saying and I quote ''anyone else hope the gun backfires in his face?'' to which he got reply's saying ''yes me too'' so whilst I accept that there are indeed plenty of people behind this campaign that genuinely are focused only on the specific problems within driven Grouse shooting and would have no desire to take it any further it is very clear that there is also a significant number that are quite the opposite and will not stop with these sort of campaigns until all fieldsports (or bloodsports if you prefer) are banned.
No matter how much some people might want it to be true to suggest that shooters or indeed fishermen have nothing to fear from this campaign and that it wouldn't be the start of a slippery slope it just simply isn't true.

The slippery slope, thin end of the wedge, argument is a classic attempt to reframe an argument you know you can't win. The issue at hand is specifically the banning of driven grouse shooting. Nothing else.

By its own admission, the industry is not viable without systemmatic, deliberate criminality. If you support driven grouse shooting, you support the use of indiscriminate and horribly cruel spring traps and poisoned baits, and the deliberate extermination of endangered native birds and mammals.

This has nothing to do with other forms of shooting or fishing. I imagine when legislation to make it illegal to kill raptors and predators was first mooted, there were strident voices among the shooting lobby claiming that it would result in hunting being banned altogether. Didn't happen then, and won't happen now.

To argue that banning driven grouse shooting would result in the banning of fishing is simply a ridiculous attempt to frighten participants in another activitiy into thinking their pastime is under threat. I would hope that responsible fishermen find the notion of putting out bait laced with deadly poisons as reprehensible as the rest of us.

 

[rosbifs]

Going back to this idea that this campaign is all very specifically about driven Grouse shooting and I as a shooter have nothing to worry about as this thin end of the wedge argument isn't valid.
Well we saw this petition reach 100,000 yesterday morning and lets not forget that's all that's happened yet nothing has actually changed but within hours I'd seen 3 different people on twitter(I only follow 203) already pushing a petition to licence all game shooting making no secret at all of the fact that they considered a petition against driven Grouse shooting as simply the first step and one lovely gentleman posting a photo of someone shooting saying and I quote ''anyone else hope the gun backfires in his face?'' to which he got reply's saying ''yes me too'' so whilst I accept that there are indeed plenty of people behind this campaign that genuinely are focused only on the specific problems within driven Grouse shooting and would have no desire to take it any further it is very clear that there is also a significant number that are quite the opposite and will not stop with these sort of campaigns until all fieldsports (or bloodsports if you prefer) are banned.
No matter how much some people might want it to be true to suggest that shooters or indeed fishermen have nothing to fear from this campaign and that it wouldn't be the start of a slippery slope it just simply isn't true.

I think you are right Adam. There are large numbers of people who are against any form of fieldsports and that could come down to a democratic decision whether or not you or I agree with it. That has never been the position on Mark Avery or the lead in to this petition.

Clearly on a birding forum there will be more against hunting than for it.

Fishing is the biggest pastime in the country (or used to be) so its difficult to see how that could be attacked...

run out of time

 

[Sharp Shin]

Going back to this idea that this campaign is all very specifically about driven Grouse shooting and I as a shooter have nothing to worry about as this thin end of the wedge argument isn't valid.
Well we saw this petition reach 100,000 yesterday morning and lets not forget that's all that's happened yet nothing has actually changed but within hours I'd seen 3 different people on twitter(I only follow 203) already pushing a petition to licence all game shooting making no secret at all of the fact that they considered a petition against driven Grouse shooting as simply the first step and one lovely gentleman posting a photo of someone shooting saying and I quote ''anyone else hope the gun backfires in his face?'' to which he got reply's saying ''yes me too'' so whilst I accept that there are indeed plenty of people behind this campaign that genuinely are focused only on the specific problems within driven Grouse shooting and would have no desire to take it any further it is very clear that there is also a significant number that are quite the opposite and will not stop with these sort of campaigns until all fieldsports (or bloodsports if you prefer) are banned.
No matter how much some people might want it to be true to suggest that shooters or indeed fishermen have nothing to fear from this campaign and that it wouldn't be the start of a slippery slope it just simply isn't true.

Adam

I have tried my very best on this extended thread to spell out the rational and evidence-based case against driven grouse shooting; and that alone. Many others have done the same and well-over 100,000 people have signed the petition so that this issue can be debated in parliament. This is good old democracy at work. In response to this you cite 'three people on twitter'. Like the (now discredited) 'evidence' that Ian Botham puts forward, I don't really think that is anyway near statistically valid evidence to support some 'slippery slope' argument. Indeed, given the trash on much of Twitter, you could find anything you want out there to 'support' any conspiracy theory you want.

I had a quick look at the epetitions of the Government's website and I don't see the petition to licence all game shooting that you refer to. (There is some old petition of that ilk, but it's closed and only got 390 signatures.) There already exist laws governing the licencing of firearms and there are laws about which birds you can shoot and can't shoot. There will continue to be some debate about the strength of this licensing, and debate about which birds should be protected. That is as it should be in a democratic society. But, one more time, this is not what is being talked about in the important and focussed campaign to ban driven grouse shooting.

Stewart

 

[speyghillie]

Hi Nutcracker and everybody else,
Having said that, some illegal activity is associated with fishing interests, particularly the wealthier salmon fisheries: Ospreys, Cormorants, Goosanders, Otters, etc., being killed illegally on some rivers. But the problem is much less than on the grouse moors.

I have to say this statement worries me, can some one point me to the evidence that wealthy Salmon fisheries illegally kill Ospreys, if is very rare to see Cormorants on the rivers, only a few in winter, Goosanders are shot under license, I guide to wildlife and have never heard of Ospreys being shot ?
And while I do know foxes are killed on Grouse moors, I know the RSPB also kill masses of foxes, the water is a little muddier than some people think, and I have to say I do think its the short end of the wedge which is a shame.
The real thing that will stop the Grouse shooting is the new money owners who want it to be something different than the old Victorian hunting, shooting brigade, those days are gone on more and more Highland Estates.
Thanks Gordon.

 

[IAN JAMES THOMPSON]

Going back to this idea that this campaign is all very specifically about driven Grouse shooting and I as a shooter have nothing to worry about as this thin end of the wedge argument isn't valid.
Well we saw this petition reach 100,000 yesterday morning and lets not forget that's all that's happened yet nothing has actually changed but within hours I'd seen 3 different people on twitter(I only follow 203) already pushing a petition to licence all game shooting making no secret at all of the fact that they considered a petition against driven Grouse shooting as simply the first step and one lovely gentleman posting a photo of someone shooting saying and I quote ''anyone else hope the gun backfires in his face?'' to which he got reply's saying ''yes me too'' so whilst I accept that there are indeed plenty of people behind this campaign that genuinely are focused only on the specific problems within driven Grouse shooting and would have no desire to take it any further it is very clear that there is also a significant number that are quite the opposite and will not stop with these sort of campaigns until all fieldsports (or bloodsports if you prefer) are banned.
No matter how much some people might want it to be true to suggest that shooters or indeed fishermen have nothing to fear from this campaign and that it wouldn't be the start of a slippery slope it just simply isn't true.

I must asked you Adam a very simple question. Do you actually love the birdlife and other wildlife around you or do you enjoy shooting Game Birds that you keep defending more than protection for other type of wildlife and birdlife?
Ian.

 

[Sharp Shin]

I must asked you Adam a very simple question. Do you actually love the birdlife and other wildlife around you or do you enjoy shooting Game Birds that you keep defending more than protection for other type of wildlife and birdlife?
Ian.

Ian

With respect, I think that Adam's personal opinion on this isn't directly relevant to the subject thread. As DMW pointed out in post 166, those against driven grouse shooting would love to reframe the issue, because these no answer to it. It doesn't help to assist that reframing.

(When I say 'with respect' Ian, I do mean it. I do sincerely respect your views, but here and now is not the right place.)

Stewart

 

[Jos Stratford]

I must asked you Adam a very simple question. Do you actually love the birdlife and other wildlife around you or do you enjoy shooting Game Birds that you keep defending more than protection for other type of wildlife and birdlife?

Regardless of Adam's stance on shooting, this question does not need to be asked - simply read his many posts on local patch birding etc, and you will be able to answer for yourself.

 

[string boozel]

I am against the shooting of live targets but I recognise the legal right of people to do so if they want to. It's a lack of respect for the law that appears to have brought a growing number of people into conflict with the driven grouse industry. The inability of the industry to police itself and the constant attempts to deflect any criticism away by smearing people or organisations is disgraceful.

People always seem to point out the benefits of grouse shooting with regards to the local economies and almost accept the criminal activities associated with it. I wonder how much money small scale drug dealing puts into the economy of deprived urban areas? Should we be content to ignore that too? After all the customers for that particular enterprise willingly buy the product even though they know the illegal nature of it just as people pay to shoot on estates where persecution has been proven. It's this two tier approach to crime that disgusts me, the illegal activities of moor owners almost tolerated. If the criminals involved were called Wayne and had a fondness for leisurewear and blacked out car windows would people be so accepting?

The grouse shooting industry must accept that it does not exist in it's own little bubble, that laws must be obeyed and not ignored. Rather than wasting time smearing opponents either directly or through some bogus organisation they should address the issues that could threaten the industry.

I've signed this and all the other petitions but I hate the fact that we have to resort to a petition at all in order to see the law enforced.

James.

 

[Sharp Shin]

The real thing that will stop the Grouse shooting is the new money owners who want it to be something different than the old Victorian hunting, shooting brigade, those days are gone on more and more Highland Estates.
Thanks Gordon.

This is an interesting point Gordon, but it might be worth your while scanning over the article that is given as a link in post#159 above. Here we have a great example of how this activity can continue to be branded and re-branded to appeal to those who want that something 'special' and 'elite' that most others can't afford. Have a look at the images in the pictures for a start, they are saying to the 'new money': "hey look, for only $96,000 a day you too could be part of this old, tweedy, lord-and-lady Britain." Is this what they call 'retro chic', or is it perhaps just snobbery wrapped up as a commodity? Anyway, the point is that some old money think they can give just the right image and style that will appeal to new money!

Stewart

 

[Mayo Corncrake]

This is a very focussed campaign against one particular activity: driven grouse shooting. Interestingly, when the term 'cruelty' is used in the campaign against driven grouse shooting it usually has less to do with the plight of the Red Grouse, and more to do with the cruelty to other forms of wildlife which are systematically destroyed on grouse moors: foxes and stoats; mountain hares (by the 100s); and of course birds of prey which are killed illegally and often cruelly (through pole traps and the like). There is nothing analogous to this in fishing. Moreover, there is often a shared interest between fishermen and conservationists: conservation measures that lead to cleaner rivers and lakes will benefit fishermen. With driven grouse shooting, the converse is the case: grouse moors are managed for the sole benefit of one game bird and this is antithetical to biodiversity and conservation. (Don't be misled by the like of Ian Botham quoting a supposed BTO report that the BTO has denied ever carrying out!). And lastly, there is a whole swathe of other ill-effects of driven grouse shooting: the poor land management that contributes to flooding at low levels; the destruction of blanket bogs, which should act as carbon sink but now has led to carbon releases that make a significant contribution to global warming; and so on. These things have no parallels in the activity of fishing.

You are safe - go on Gordon, sign the petition and see how the matter is debated in parliament.

Stewart

Breeding waders like red-listed curlew breed in significant numbers on grouse moors. If driven grouse moors are banned I would fear for the existence of curlew in Great Britain.

 

[Farnboro John]

As a guy who lives in the Scottish Highlands, before I sign I wonder how people feel about fishing for pleasure ? , is that considered a cruel sport ?
Thanks Gordon.

As a guy who lives in Southern England where every canal, river, gravel pit and lake is surrounded by anglers, mostly not elite ones paying enormous sums for fly fishing of salmon but eking out their leisure funds for local patch coarse fishing, I wonder why you think your location might add to, rather than detract from, your case.

Anyway, as a guy who lives in Southern England, isn't elitist and is quite content for field sports to be pursued within the law, if you want to fish, fish: but don't leave hooks and floats and lines caught up in vegetation: stop fishing if there is any risk of a bird taking a hook: don't patronise places that stock aliens such as rainbow trout, and accept that wild animals have at least as much right to your quarry as you. That of course includes predatory fish, so electro-fishing of e.g. Pike out of fishing waters should be anathema to any angler who understands the word "ecosystem". Anglers who don't understand the word "ecosystem", should be ignored as a matter of course: or perhaps stunned electrically and then dispatched by - sorry, with - a priest.

I don't see that as much of a limitation.

John

 

[Sharp Shin]

Breeding waders like red-listed curlew breed in significant numbers on grouse moors. If driven grouse moors are banned I would fear for the existence of curlew in Great Britain.

Nobody is in doubt that Curlew do pretty well on moorland currently used for grouse shooting. What is in question though is that the conditions created by very intensive driven grouse moor management are necessary for breeding Curlews? There are a number of questions worth pondering upon which might put this matter into perspective: firstly, how did Curlew, long before they became 'red-listed' manage to breed in these areas before the land was managed for driven grouse shooting?; secondly, doesn't the recent success stories for loads of threatened birds - such as Bittern, Avocet, Stone Curlew, Crane, etc - on land by managed or helped by organisations such as Wildlife Trusts and the RSPB show that there are alternative methods of ensuring the success of red-listed species?; thirdly, and given the second point I make, can we condone illegal persecution of protected birds of prey by balancing this with another bird species?; and lastly, can we ignore the ecological lessons we have learnt about biodiversity by falsely assuming that if we eradicate natural predators (such as Hen Harriers or Golden Eagles) we will end up with a more sustainable natural environment?

I am aware that citing the presumed plight of the Curlew or the Lapwing has become totemic and part of a PR spin for the owners and managers of driven grouse shooting moors, but it doesn't withstand close questioning. Moreover, as we now know from the BTO's rejection of the statistics spouted by Ian Botham and his PR friends, the foundation of even this sliver of a case for driven grouse shooting looks shaky.

Stewart

 

[Nutcracker]

Hi Nutcracker and everybody else,
Having said that, some illegal activity is associated with fishing interests, particularly the wealthier salmon fisheries: Ospreys, Cormorants, Goosanders, Otters, etc., being killed illegally on some rivers. But the problem is much less than on the grouse moors.

I have to say this statement worries me, can some one point me to the evidence that wealthy Salmon fisheries illegally kill Ospreys, if is very rare to see Cormorants on the rivers, only a few in winter, Goosanders are shot under license, I guide to wildlife and have never heard of Ospreys being shot ?

There have been a couple of cases of summering Ospreys disappearing "in suspicious circumstances" in Northumberland over the last 15-20 years at times when one wouldn't expect them to be moving, and Goosander are certainly being shot without license here (unlike Scotland, Goosander is fully protected in England). But as I mentioned, these instances are much less than on the grouse moors; it is one or two 'bad apples', compared to the whole barrel being full of advanced decay that characterises the grouse moors.

 

[Nutcracker]

Nobody is in doubt that Curlew do pretty well on moorland currently used for grouse shooting.

I don't think that's true. Curlew numbers, as well as those of most other breeding waders, have dropped markedly in Northumbs in recent years, and one major change has been increased drainage on moorland denying them the wet patches the newly hatched chicks require. Reseeding and fertilising of upland pastures doesn't help, but that's a separate issue.

 

[ProwlingBoy]

I am aware that citing the presumed plight of the Curlew or the Lapwing has become totemic and part of a PR spin for the owners and managers of driven grouse shooting moors, but it doesn't withstand close questioning. Moreover, as we now know from the BTO's rejection of the statistics spouted by Ian Botham and his PR friends, the foundation of even this sliver of a case for driven grouse shooting looks shaky.

Stewart

It does amuse me when the shooting lobby tout their conservationist credentials by citing the increased breeding success of Curlew and Golden Plover on grouse moors, when it is an unintended consequence of moor management.

In addition Golden Plover are still shot by wildfowlers, albeit in probably small numbers. And as recently as 2010 the BASC and the Countryside Alliance fought hard to prevent Curlew being removed from the quarry list in Northern Ireland. They claimed that shooting didn't make any significant difference to Curlew numbers, maybe not "significant" but it can hardly have helped. In England too shooters fought its inclusion in the 1981 Wildlife and Countryside Act and some still claim it could be killed in England without problems.