It is now over a week since the Westminster Hall parliamentary debate on the future of driven grouse shooting. I thought it would be appropriate to offer a further perspective on what the RSPB plans to do next to improve the environmental conditions of the uplands.
As many others have written, it was a deeply frustrating debate – especially to the 123,000 that called for a ban and of course those seeking reform. Our initial reaction tried to pick out some positives, but that was a real challenge. Clearly there is widespread opposition from within the driven grouse shooting community to any real reform. I think that the positioning by a majority of MPs was perhaps inevitable as it was the first proper outing of the issue in parliament. Imagine a parliamentary debate on climate change 20 years ago with lobbyists peddling their various views to MPs.
Yet, my view is that if pressure for reform remains then the quality of the parliamentary debate will inevitably improve as people won't be able to brazenly ignore the facts like some did on Monday.
Geltsdale by Chris Gomersall (rspb.images.com)
When more crimes get into the public domain it will be harder for MPs to turn a blind eye. We therefore have no intention of changing our current approach of working with local groups to deliver vital monitoring and surveillance through our Life project, and work with the police to investigate crimes. The team do a fantastic job in extremely difficult circumstances.
That is why, this week, we are raising awareness of the fate of the hen harrier Rowan, found dead in Cumbria in October, and which appears to have been shot. The fate of this bird graphically illustrates that illegal killing of hen harriers is ongoing, contrary to the impression given by some MPs in the Westminster Hall debate.
I think change will come if we can find creative and novel ways of maintaining the political and public profile of our concerns about the environmental impact of driven grouse shooting. This is not a party political issue – I am convinced that all parties want the law enforced and many want to see improved standards of land management associated with grouse shooting.
Clearly legislation is needed, as voluntary approaches have proved wholly inadequate, and Westminster is the legislature for England. That means a cross-party approach will be needed.
We will continue to keep up the pressure on these issues, and will also be talking with others to determine how best to secure reform.
In summary, we remain appalled by the environmental condition of the uplands and the ongoing illegal killing of birds of prey. Our work in the uplands remains an important strategic priority for the RSPB – we are not going to go away. We believe that licensing is the way to deliver substantial change to the way our uplands are managed and we intend to keep the pressure on to achieve that. The irony is that commitment to reform and serious discussion about licensing is the shooting industry’s best insurance against growing calls for a ban.
In Scotland, I remain hopeful that tangible reform is possible (partly in response to a petition on gamebird licensing which we supported). If change does happens north of the border, it will make it that much harder for a Westminster Government to ignore the positive direction set out in Scotland.
Our commitment is unwavering. But this won’t be a quick fight and we will take the time now to carefully consider what comes next, talking to all those with a stake in this issue.
What do you think is the next key step for delivering reform of our uplands?
It would be great to hear your views.
Whilst obviously Grouse shooting is the headline at the moment, there are far bigger issues in the uplands, especially when the future of sgricultural support is in the balance. Many upland farmers are taking home less pay than the subsidy they are being paid - if they stopped spending money keeping the sheep that have done equal, probably more, damage to our uplands than grouse shooting they would be better off - but CAP has forced a food production agenda over the past 40 years. Chris' picture of Geltsdale is particularly telling - the beautiful fringe of broadleaved trees along the streamside, now incredibly rare thanks to overgrazing. Far better would be an uplands where public money goes for public benefit - for carbon, for water, for wildlife and for beautiful landscapes. And it should be paid for goods delivered, not as subsidy - is it surprising that farmers don't farm for water when they get nothing but regulations though suddenly, downstream, that same water turns into a resource so valuable that it is captured by multi=national companies ? The same applies to peat or Hen Harriers - and the lunacy that we taxpayers are currently paying for the destruction of both.