RSPB persuade M&S to take grouse off shelves
- Thread starter Foss
- Start date
well said balance in the countryside will only be achieved with management which needs a balanced point of view to begin with.
don't need to tell me I grow my own and shop local and all my meat is either from local butcher or shot by me, I presume you mean woodcock lovely bird to shoot, watch and eat
Woodcock migrate across to Britain in late Autumn and then leave again in the spring, not many stay here all year round, so it could be that you will see significantly more by December.
countrryboy
Well-Known Member
It is shocking that 1 persons letter can result in headlines like this.
Basc, CA and others should be doing more to combat this but it doesn't make quite the same attention grabbing headlines. There is a serious lack of education/knowledge in the last 50 years folk have very quickly lost all 'counrty sense' and really have no idea or care where there food comes from
I can never get my head round why they pick on gouse shooting, it is 100% sustainable managemnet of a 100% wild bird, of all the shooting sports it is the 1 most defenceable and could be argued causing the least damage to the environment and most gains
Can only be a class thing due to the serious money involved to get out on the 12th.
Not the nicest of game birds to eat anyway, or atleast not the ways i've cooked them in the past, but fairly coming down in price now only about 3-5 quid a brace and quite often get a couple of brace as a thank u, i was told 16 quid for august grouse about 6 year ago, and that was direct of the game cart at dealer price.
My first day is 14th cannae wait, not long now
althou my fitness campign is not as far on as i would like
Basc, CA and others should be doing more to combat this but it doesn't make quite the same attention grabbing headlines. There is a serious lack of education/knowledge in the last 50 years folk have very quickly lost all 'counrty sense' and really have no idea or care where there food comes from
I can never get my head round why they pick on gouse shooting, it is 100% sustainable managemnet of a 100% wild bird, of all the shooting sports it is the 1 most defenceable and could be argued causing the least damage to the environment and most gains
Can only be a class thing due to the serious money involved to get out on the 12th.
Not the nicest of game birds to eat anyway, or atleast not the ways i've cooked them in the past, but fairly coming down in price now only about 3-5 quid a brace and quite often get a couple of brace as a thank u, i was told 16 quid for august grouse about 6 year ago, and that was direct of the game cart at dealer price.
My first day is 14th cannae wait, not long now
althou my fitness campign is not as far on as i would like
Gaz
Well-Known Member
bobthedug
Well-Known Member
Once again guys we are showing that we can distort the "facts" as well as any anti organization.
To start with the author of the letter is no longer connected with the RSPB and the very small number of stores in question ( 2 I believe) have withdrawn the grouse due to a sourcing issue rather than an ethical one.
They are still selling pheasant and partridge.
To start with the author of the letter is no longer connected with the RSPB and the very small number of stores in question ( 2 I believe) have withdrawn the grouse due to a sourcing issue rather than an ethical one.
They are still selling pheasant and partridge.
Very true indeed, but grouse are in danger from people who shoot or poison birds of prey so other people can shoot grouse.
RED-DOT
Well-Known Member
The biggest poisoners of all wildlife are farmers who spray crops and those that race pigeons but every poisoning is automatically blamed on grouse men. If it wasn't for their husbandry there wouldn't be any grouse left and during the winter months birds of prey would perish if it were not for the hill men leaving gralloch behind.
I wouldn't disagree (though I would also add on wind turbines), but grouse shooting has a PR image that automatically puts it right in the sights of the anti lobby.
Incredibly expensive = exclusivity, glorious twelfth, double guns, heather burning, bankers and royalty, peat draining, access tracks, vermin control, etc. When you whack illegal raptor persecution on top then it's surprising in many ways that it still takes place at all.
Pigeon racing, by contrast, still carries the image of the 1950's - unlikely to excite politicians, bloggers or antis.
Unless we recognise this and adapt accordingly then we only have ourselves to blame. Or we stick our heads in the sand and hope they go away....
tweedbreeks
Well-Known Member
Sorry but I have to disagree with your statement " grouse shooting has a PR image that automatically puts it right in the sights of the anti lobby". To take your points;
Expensive - well producing grouse is expensive and unpredictable it's a wild bird after all, they can't be bought for £3 a head surely a good thing.
Exclusivity - grouse shooting encompasses people from all walks of life and classes, just because their not pulling the trigger doesn't mean they aren't a vital part of the sport.
Glorious Twelfth - celebrating the start of a season, surely a good thing we have game laws and recognise the need for seasons, just so happens grouse are the first on the calender.
Double guns - the ability to use four shots at a covey of grouse, no different to having a 5 shot magazine in your rifle.
Heather burning - can't see the problem with it myself, same as cutting your grass or felling and replanting trees. All affect carbon storage if that's what your worried about!
Bankers and royalty - both support many sports such as F1, horse racing, Wimbledon, down to personal opinion if you don't like them.
Peat Draining - government previously paid grants to drain the peat and put in hill drainage, I doubt it takes place much nowadays.
Access tracks - same people who complain about these don't mind a footpath dug into the side of a hill for the pointless practice of 'munro bagging' scarring the landscape visually for miles in some instances.
Vermin control - Vital part of game shooting, just because grouse keepers are more rigorous about it shouldn't be seen as negative the benefits to other wildlife are well known.
Illegal Raptor Persecution is a black mark against the industry and will always remain a conflict, if we can see the benefit in controlling foxes, crows, stoats etc then raptors are no different. I can't see why people think it's suprising we still have grouse shooting, take another industry like forestry, ploughing up and draining acres of peat land, putting a 2 metre high wire fence around it restricting access, building roads to extract timber, planting non native trees, acidifying soils and polluting watercourses, spraying chemicals and killing insects, killing any deer that dares threaten the existence of said trees. Has as much if not more of an impact on the environment so what's the difference?
Sorry but you can't compare pigeon racing to grouse shooting!
I doubt many people in the grouse shooting industry are sticking their heads in the sand, nearly everything the industry does has science behind it nowadays and red grouse are one of the most studied birds in history so I've been told. You just need to look at the work done by the GWCT and how professional modern day grouse keepers are becoming to see how seriously any threat to grouse shooting is being taken.
Expensive - well producing grouse is expensive and unpredictable it's a wild bird after all, they can't be bought for £3 a head surely a good thing.
Exclusivity - grouse shooting encompasses people from all walks of life and classes, just because their not pulling the trigger doesn't mean they aren't a vital part of the sport.
Glorious Twelfth - celebrating the start of a season, surely a good thing we have game laws and recognise the need for seasons, just so happens grouse are the first on the calender.
Double guns - the ability to use four shots at a covey of grouse, no different to having a 5 shot magazine in your rifle.
Heather burning - can't see the problem with it myself, same as cutting your grass or felling and replanting trees. All affect carbon storage if that's what your worried about!
Bankers and royalty - both support many sports such as F1, horse racing, Wimbledon, down to personal opinion if you don't like them.
Peat Draining - government previously paid grants to drain the peat and put in hill drainage, I doubt it takes place much nowadays.
Access tracks - same people who complain about these don't mind a footpath dug into the side of a hill for the pointless practice of 'munro bagging' scarring the landscape visually for miles in some instances.
Vermin control - Vital part of game shooting, just because grouse keepers are more rigorous about it shouldn't be seen as negative the benefits to other wildlife are well known.
Illegal Raptor Persecution is a black mark against the industry and will always remain a conflict, if we can see the benefit in controlling foxes, crows, stoats etc then raptors are no different. I can't see why people think it's suprising we still have grouse shooting, take another industry like forestry, ploughing up and draining acres of peat land, putting a 2 metre high wire fence around it restricting access, building roads to extract timber, planting non native trees, acidifying soils and polluting watercourses, spraying chemicals and killing insects, killing any deer that dares threaten the existence of said trees. Has as much if not more of an impact on the environment so what's the difference?
Sorry but you can't compare pigeon racing to grouse shooting!
I doubt many people in the grouse shooting industry are sticking their heads in the sand, nearly everything the industry does has science behind it nowadays and red grouse are one of the most studied birds in history so I've been told. You just need to look at the work done by the GWCT and how professional modern day grouse keepers are becoming to see how seriously any threat to grouse shooting is being taken.
I'd agree with pretty much everything you've written - but then why wouldn't I? I've been shooting for 30 years and the arguments are well known to me.
The problem shooting has in general, and grouse shooting in particular, is not with the shooting fraternity but with the media, the antis and the general public. Unless we recognise and address the challenges of the image it presents to them we might as well give up now, since it's them we have to convince in order to protect our sport, not fellow shooters.
They're not going to read GWCT's research, care about the fact that rich bankers also support F1 and horse racing, hear about the people in the beating line or worry about the damage other industries do to the environment. Come August they will see an image of privilege and exclusivity that the media, including our own sporting press, are happy to perpetuate. An activity whose focus is killing birds for sport. An activity that has had, and possibly still has, a problem with illegal raptor persecution.
That's not what I'd call the makings for positive PR. Let's hope I'm wrong.
The problem shooting has in general, and grouse shooting in particular, is not with the shooting fraternity but with the media, the antis and the general public. Unless we recognise and address the challenges of the image it presents to them we might as well give up now, since it's them we have to convince in order to protect our sport, not fellow shooters.
They're not going to read GWCT's research, care about the fact that rich bankers also support F1 and horse racing, hear about the people in the beating line or worry about the damage other industries do to the environment. Come August they will see an image of privilege and exclusivity that the media, including our own sporting press, are happy to perpetuate. An activity whose focus is killing birds for sport. An activity that has had, and possibly still has, a problem with illegal raptor persecution.
That's not what I'd call the makings for positive PR. Let's hope I'm wrong.
What would make for positive PR, WG? And even then, do you think the mainstream media would report it?
Tweedbreeks,
An excellent post, and it saved me from questioning whether WG's description of grouse shooting reflected his own perspective or merely sought to summarise that of the once-proverbial man on the Clapham omnibus.
As for peat draining. You're right in saying that the government promoted it. But it hasn't simply stopped since the incentives were removed. Instead moorland managers have realised that peat bog is a vital part of the underpinnings of a habitat that creates a harvestable surplus of grouse.
The contrasts you draw with forestry and hill-walking are all valid ones, and worth making, but as I see it positive progress will only come from showing that managing uplands for grouse benefits upland ecosystems more than any other use; not that it damages them less.
Postscript. Avian predator control is obviously a thorny subject, but I don't think it can be easily equated with the control of 4-legged predators. Everything possible is done to eradicate the latter, something that simply would not be acceptable if applied to the former. There is a need, however, for some sort of conflict management, because the situation as it stands, where the existing provision for legal control is flouted by the bodies that are supposed to administer it, has no value. Moreover, the fact that the law in this area criminalises otherwise justifiable acts and leads those wronged by it into criminality is itself proof of the need for liberal reform. More's the pity then that the only realistic reaction to such a proposal is "fat chance!"
Last edited:
Mr Gain
Because I raise questions about grouse shooting doesn't mean I don't support it. I've always believed that inherent in defeating your opponents is first understanding their mindset. If we just assume our critics will listen to and accept the validity of our nicely constructed arguments then we're sadly mistaken. Just look at what happened to foxhunting, pistol shooting, lead shot et al. We can go around being self-congratulatory about the wonderful work we do for the environment, but what's the point if all we're doing is preaching to the choir? Pure logic, sadly, does not win these type of arguments....though I'm happy to hear anyone cite examples from the world of fieldsports that prove otherwise.
As for what I think would be good PR, that's probably even more contentious.
Pine Marten
Well-Known Member
Oh PLEASE can we have a new thread on this point? It's just that I reckon I'd have some contentious input too, but if we're going to ruffle people's feathers, let's not hijack someone else's thread...
WG,
sorry if I've got hold of the wrong end of the stick, or the wrong stick altogether, but if the critical views expressed in your previous post were not yours, I'm not sure what questions you are raising.
I do however take your point about the impermeability of media prejudice, especially in the face of good news, but this just brings me back to the challenge of identifying the right kind of positive PR.
I'd take PM's wise suggestion and start a thread on the matter, but unfortunately I'm an impractical reasoned-argument sort of person, which means I haven't got a bloody clue about other possible approaches to the problem. Not perhaps the best way to kick off a new thread...
I was trying to respond to the question raised as to why grouse shooting in particular has a bad image, whether from the RSPB, bloggers, the media, etc. Without understanding how that image is formed - however much we might disagree with it - we are never going to be able to change people's minds or protect the future of the sport.
We can go on ad infinitum about how shooting is 100% sustainable, good for the environment, etc, etc, but these are not at the heart of the reasons why people object to shooting in general and grouse shooting in particular. The problem with that approach is that it suggests we are trying to avoid, or we don't have answers to, the real reasons.
Those reasons may be uncomfortable, but we ignore them at our peril.
