Government comes out in support of grouse shooting.

Co1

Well-Known Member
Off the back of recent petitions, the debate in Parliament concluded in favour of grouse shooting.
Grouse shooting is a legitimate activity that provides economic benefits, jobs and investment in some of our most remote areas and can offer important benefits for wildlife and habitat conservation.
A report by the UK shooting community (Public & Corporate Economic Consultants report 2014: The Value of Shooting) concludes that the overall environmental and economic impact of game bird shooting is positive; the industry has estimated that £250 million per year is spent on management activities substantially benefiting conservation. For grouse shooting in particular, according to the Moorland Association, estates in England and Wales spent £52.5 million on managing 149 grouse moors for shooting in 2010. Scottish landowners manage a further 150 moors for shooting grouse. The industry also supports 1,520 full time equivalent jobs and is worth £97.7 million across Great Britain.
Grouse shooting takes place in upland areas, which are important for delivering a range of valuable “ecosystem services”, including food and fibre, water regulation, carbon storage, biodiversity and recreational opportunities for health and wellbeing. The Government is committed to helping create a more sustainable future for the English uplands, including by protecting peatlands through measures such as the Peatland Code.
The Government welcomes the proactive approach taken by game keeping organisations to ensure a sustainable, mutually beneficial relationship between shooting and conservation, for example through the British Association for Shooting and Conservation’s green shoots initiative.
The Government recognises the benefits that grouse shooting, and shooting more widely, bring to individuals, the environment and the rural economy. It is for these reasons that the Government believes shooting and other country pursuits such as hunting and fishing should be protected.
Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
 
Great news ! Thank goodness they have seen sense. Well done to all who provided supporting information for the debate.
 
I think that this response was to the petition to "Protect Grouse moors and Grouse shooting" petition, not the more direct petition from Messrs Packham & Avery to ban driven grouse shooting, that one is scheduled for a parliamentary debate unless Im mistaken? MP's are hearing evidence on the 18th Oct before a debate
Obviously this is response is positive but as others have said, its not the end of the matter!
 
Sorry to rain on the parade, but unless I've missed something, there has not yet been the debate in response to the anti driven grouse shooting petition. Apparently, it will occur some time after 18 Oct. I know that the government can be 'efficient' but, unless we've appointed Mr Mugabe as head of DEFRA, announcing the result of a debate before it has been conducted is rather unusual.

Co1 - where did you get that text from?

Whilst it would be good for parliment to decide to reject the petition (as it likely will - these sorts of things are basically sops so that 'something is seen to be done'), I hope that the concluding statement will not be quite as blase as this one. Sure, all those facts may well apply, but even from the perspective of one who DOES NOT WANT grouse or any other shooting to be banned, I'd like to see a warning shot put across the bows of SOME of the moor owners. OVer the past few years there have been a surprisingly high number of raptors disappearing from areas where grouse shooting occurs. I have radiotracked hundreds (yes - literally) of birds and the rates of natural tag failure are low, so if a tag vanishes it is likely to have been tampered with. Either it is 'antis' who are deliberately killing raptors in order to pile pressure on shooting interests, in which case keepers should be out there keeping a closer eye on their land, because a single instance of this would completely destroy the case (but I think this is a bit too conspiracy theoryesque to be true). Or keepers are deliberately killing protected raptors. Which is illegal. I know the arguements about how a raptor can wreck a drive, a day or even a season, and I don't dispute them. However, it is still the law, agree with it or not. Killing raptors just draws adverse attention to shooting and in the end will lead to further restrictions or bans on all kinds of shooting. So whilst it may suit a single moorland keeper to kill off their own problem raptor, it's going to wreck things for everyone else. My advice would be obey the current law, remove a target for the anti's to attack, emphasise and demonstrate the positives from moorland management and campaign for a change if necessary.

A whitewash by DEFRA/Parliment will just give grist to the anti mill and reinforce their perception that 'the establishment' is out to get them and it's all so unfair and will serve as a recruiting flag.... Think of what the ban on hunting did to galvanise hunt participation.

If the anti's concern is purely driven by worries over raptor numbers, then removing this legitimate targets of complaint effectively shoots their fox (oh, the irony). If they are just trying to ban shooting in general, removing a legitimate target forces them to focus on more spurious areas (effects on other wildlife, muirburn, class war etc) which are much easier for us to defend. Pick your battles carefully.
 
If the anti's concern is purely driven by worries over raptor numbers, then removing this legitimate targets of complaint effectively shoots their fox (oh, the irony). If they are just trying to ban shooting in general, removing a legitimate target forces them to focus on more spurious areas (effects on other wildlife, muirburn, class war etc) which are much easier for us to defend. Pick your battles carefully.

you make some very valid points there Tamar, personally I thinks its vital that the shooting community keeps its house in order and follows the letter of the law on this issue. Putting aside the unproven cases, even one proven instance of persecution puts shooting in a bad light and is very difficult to argue against. It also provides convincing arguments for many who may not be full blown anti, but occupy the middle ground, and theres an awful lot of those people out there!
 
After he has just finished reading this report I can almost see our old friend Mr Packham making the following statement:- "This weport is compwetely inacuwate and doesn't contain one cowect word or statement! When will people wealise that I am always wight and evweeone else in the world is always wong. It's time people and enviwonmentalists wealised that all shooters are just a load of cold bwooded mass murdewers. Don't they know that I am next in line to take over fwom God and I will wule the world?"
 
Back
Top