Following yesterday's blog, I thought it might be useful to expand on the three different perspectives regarding the future of grouse shooting.
Here are the quotes will appear in this autumn's issue of Nature's Home magazine. They offer three different way forward. I encourage you to read the full article when/if the magazine arrives on your doorstep.
Dr Mark Avery, Wildlife writer and organiser of the Hen Harrier Day event in the Peak District
Driven grouse shooting has been a peculiarly British pastime for only about 200 years and we’d be better off without it. Banning it would mean more wildlife, better water quality, more soil carbon and fewer floods. Grouse shooting is an intransigent industry and licensing would be costly and ineffective. It is time to ban driven grouse shooting; if you agree, please sign atepetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/65627
James Robinson, Head of Nature Policy, RSPB
Important wildlife sites are being damaged or destroyed by the poor management of many driven grouse moors, and birds of prey continue to be disturbed and persecuted. Self regulation has failed, so the RSPB is asking for a robust licensing system. Those who breached conditions would have their licenses removed. Law-abiding grouse shoots would benefit from improved public confidence. You can follow RSPB policy at rspb.org.uk/martinharper
Amanda Anderson, Director, the Moorland Association
Grouse moor managers work hard to protect our uplands. Careful burning is vital for biodiversity, and we are involved in innovative techniques to restore healthy deep peat. We are also committed to sustainable growth in harrier numbers as part of Defra’s Hen Harrier Joint Recovery Plan (epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/67527). Many moors are designated as protected areas, so everything we do is under consent already. Further red tape could stifle our recent progress.
What do you think about these three perspectives?
It would be great to hear your views.
When people make promises or well intention statements one must always ask oneself can they deliver on thoses promises and is it within their power to do so. Well intention as Amanda Anderson may be herself all the evidence points to the fact that there are apparently a significant number of people associated with grouse moors and upland areas intent on breaking the law when it come to birds of prey. So the conclsion must be that her statment is not a viable when it come to protecting birds of prey and that therefore much improved regulation is badly needed.
Personally I would very much like to see the banning of driven grouse shooting and Mark Avery's perspective is my prefered one. However one has to be politically realistic as to what can be achived and therefore James Robinson's perspective is probably the more likely solution, of the two. although it would have significant policing and monitoring problems. For the time being I see no reason for not pursuing both objectives.
redkite