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.
The RSPB and I agree that the management regimes associated with driven grouse shooting are damaging wildlife habitats - the Moorland Association doesn't agree (although of course all three accounts were written before the Leeds University study was published last week which further documented the environmental harm from heather burning associated with grouse shoots).
The Moorland Association says that all they do is consented already (clearly not the illegal bird of prey killing that is carried out to boost grouse bags) and that therefore they are already heavily regulated. To some extent they are, but the current state of affairs shows that regulation isn't working.
The Moorland Association is essentially a trade union for moorland managers - it is not keen on change. Their comments above, and their approach to the problems of the uplands over the last few decades, indicate that they are resistant to change. There is little sign that the Moorland Association's members will budge an inch unless they are forced to do so by the public or government.
There is too much wrong with grouse moor management for it to be tackled by a bit of a tightening of the system - that's why after many years and much thought I think we should simply ban this outmoded and unnecessary, and environmentally damaging, activity. I hope that when RSPB members read the account in Nature's Home magazine they will add their names to the 18,000 signatures already calling on the next government to ban driven grouse shooting in England. We would never regret it.
A love of the natural world demonstrates that a person is a cultured inhabitant of planet Earth.
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
Thanks for engaging in the debate - I am pleased that over the past few months, the focus has moved on from defining the problem to exploring the solution. And, Bob - I understand your inability to comment on an unpublished plan! Thanks also for highlighting today's news from SNH. I had heard that this was on the cards and am pleased that progress has been made.
Do we now have some movement in this area.
www.birdguides.com/.../article.asp
SNH has made a good move here although I am a bit uncertain how you monitor general licences and how you restrict them.
The Cotswold Water park sightings website
My Flicker page
As someone who has lived, worked and spent my spare time in the uplands of England and Scotland for all of my adult life I have spent a very considerable time walking on and exploring the wildlife of moorlands, including many grouse moors. As far as I am concerned the status quo is completely untenable - it has clearly not worked, and does not now work, for the habitats, wildlife, birds of prey and the public interest generally of these upland areas.
I used to consider that a licensing scheme was the best way forward but after considerable thought, much of it whilst walking in the uplands, have come to the conclusion that the future well-being of grouse moors, their habitats, wildlife, birds of prey and the public interest generally, will best be achieved by a complete ban on driven grouse shooting.