Over the past week I have been contacted by many people through a variety of media about the RSPB’s position on grouse shooting.
It’s fair to say that I have had a mixed response – some offering full support (which is much appreciated), while others wishing we would back the call for a ban (these are also appreciated, especially the polite ones). A flavour of the critique is captured in the comments on Friday's blog but some of the criticisms that we have received (usually via twitter) have been, let’s say, more blunt.
So, I thought that it would be useful to share a few insights into our position.
The RSPB is an evidence-based organisation but also one with values. Our values reflect our charitable objectives to undertake conservation for the public good.
For example, we are supportive of renewable energy in the fight against climate change, but we oppose developments that will impact on wildlife populations and important habitats. On the other hand, we are against airport expansion unless or until it can be demonstrated that a growth in capacity will be consistent with obligations to greenhouse gas reduction targets.
Equally, we are neither for or against organic or farming that uses pesticides or even GM crops. We care about the impact that those farming practices have on the natural environment and we work with any farming system to help recover farmland wildlife populations.
We are also neutral on the ethics of shooting but we do care about the environmental consequences of that activity.
And the growing evidence of the environmental impact of ever intensive driven grouse shooting led us in 2012 to conclude that self-regulation of this industry had failed and so we would advocate a licensing system designed to reduce the negative impacts.
Others, including two of the RSPB’s Vice-Presidents and my predecessor, Mark Avery, would like us to go further and are calling for a ban on driven grouse shooting.
I have doubts as to the viability of such a proposition but I respect their position, even though I disagree with it. What I do not respect, is the drip-drip of scorn that is levelled at the RSPB about our position and our wider work to protect birds of prey.
On this issue and in this job, I have learnt not to get riled by comments but when people have implied over the past week that we do not have the courage to support a ban on grouse shooting, I take exception.
To me, courage is staying up all night protect a hen harrier nest. Courage is managing a nature reserve next to an intensively managed grouse shoot, where the gamekeepers of the neighbouring estate patrol the borders, yes with guns. Courage is installing cameras on estates where bird of prey crime is thought to happen in the hope of catching the criminals in the act. Courage is appearing in a witness stand in the face of a defence lawyer who attacks both the evidence and the character of the person providing it.
This is the courage that RSPB staff and volunteers demonstrate again and again. And I will go further and suggest that courage is looking your friends at Natural England in the eye and telling them that they were wrong to enter into an ill-conceived management agreement with Walshaw Moor Estate and that this would trigger a legal challenge.
It also takes courage when members of the shooting community speak out against others who need to improve the way their shooting estates are managed.
I think that change is coming. In Scotland, the Government is seriously considering whether to introduce a licensing system for driven grouse shooting. This is long overdue but would be a welcome step.
Given our neutrality on the ethics of shooting, we do not make a judgement about the rights or wrongs of people driving red grouse across a moor to be shot (provided it does not affect the conservation status of red grouse). We focus our efforts on the environmental damage caused by grouse shooting: the peatlands that are damaged by burning, the water that is polluted, the predators that are illegal killed. We believe that a licensing system, a reformed approach to consenting burning on peatlands, restoration of these special sites coupled with better enforcement and tougher penalties for wildlife crime can address these issues. And we will work with anyone to make this happen and give credit when and where it is due.
As I have written previously, if the economics of any business – including grouse shooting – was dependent on environmentally unsustainable practices, then I would argue that it was time for that business to change.
I do not expect that this blog will change the minds of those that support a ban – indeed, that is not my motivation. To those that do not like our position because you want us to support a ban, I at least ask you to respect our position. To those that do not like it because it challenges your sport, I ask that you look at the growing public concern associated with your sport and encourage you to seek reform from within the shooting community.
If you have any comments on this blog, as ever, it would be great to hear your views.
Martin,
I am interested in your interpretation of the RSPB's Charter, in which it is stated that "The Society shall take no part in the question of the killing of game birds and legitimate sport of that character except when such practices have an impact on the Objects." This wording is ambiguous; what question does the charter refer to? The question of legality or the question of ethics?
In your blog you say that RSPB is "neutral on the ethics of shooting", and you have used that phrase in other blogs, but it is not the wording used in the Charter. I had always understood the RSPB's charter as saying that RSPB was neutral on the legality of shooting per se. But legality and ethics are not the same thing. While I have long understood and accepted that RSPB is neutral regarding whether sport shooting should be legal or not, I am not convinced that it should avoid engaging with ethical questions regarding those practices. To raise ethical questions would not undermine RSPB's neutrality on the legality of shooting.
As an example, last summer I walked across an area of moorland where, rather than being managed for red grouse, large numbers of red-legged partridges are released for shooting. That activity is of course legal. Checking the Estate's website, I noted that it advertised '500 bird days' in September. I am skeptical that for a party, perhaps of just half a dozen people, to aspire to shoot 500 birds in one day is ethical. However, at the same time I can accept that shooting red-legged partridges is legal.
Martin. I understand your position and tricky line you tread (I know the feeling!) The blend of evidence-base, values and public good (benefit) is an extremely complex mix - especially as public benefit and public opinion are arguably not the same thing.
Albeit public opinion might be against shooting, a well-run grouse moor or lowland shoot arguably delivers more public benefit (wildlife, landscape etc) by not being converted into a low biodiversity sheep pasture or intensive arable farm. A catch-all over-regulated licence system could lose some of that benefit.
When we ask to ban something, stop a scheme, prevent a development etc - we must also explore the outcome as to what will then happen - both the foreseeable and unforeseeable.
There is some experience on this. Langholm Moor Demonstration Project and the 7 years of work between RSPB, GWCT, Natural England, SNH and the landowner has just entered a new phase of stopping keepering of the moor www.langholmproject.com - the outcome of which will be nervously watched by all partners. Will foxes return to reduce grouse and wipe out harriers - the EU could then hold SNH to account for the loss of raptors on a designed Special Protection Area? What impact on the waders such as curlews? With no controlled burning, will the heather be a risk from wildfire from the public road crossing the moor?
I'm aware this detail is all far too inconvenient for a 'twitter-inflamed issue' but this is not a war to win, but a peace treaty to search for. There is too much anger with too much at stake www.thefield.co.uk/.../conservation-conflict-ending-conflict-32001
Space and trust are in serious shortage. Without the first, it is very hard to build on the second. Let us hope the HH Action Plan finds both.
Best
Rob
www.robyorke.co.uk
As an evidence based organisation, what evidence do you have that - "a reformed approach to consenting burning on peatlands, restoration of these special sites coupled with better enforcement and tougher penalties for wildlife crime can address these issues", will actually work? Hope? We had Hope, but was her fate?
The belief that this will deliver seems to be based on trusting the people who continue to kill raptors, burn peatlands against the rules, campaign to legalise culling protected species and actively support the few who get caught.
I do believe that RSPB staff are very courageous, I want their courage to be rewarded with enviromental progress.
Martin, I think this is very fair comment and explanation as to where the RSPB is coming from.
There is a lot of anger in this debate. It isn't caused by the RSPB but by those who wish to put commerce above the natural environment.
Many people are calling for legal changes but before that can happen you need to know exactly what it is you are legislating for. That is why this debate needs to be finalised and I have signed Mark's petition for that reason. At that point any legislation changes need to be thought through or else you could end up with an Act of Parliament that is not strong enough (take hunting as an example).
I very strongly suspect that at the end of this I will support Licensing as being the stronger means of dealing with this issue. However at this stage is there anything that the RSPB can do to improve the perception that it is not offering its members the information that might help them decide whether to add their name to this petition.
The Cotswold Water park sightings website
My Flicker page