Red Grouse

I am somewhat confused at the RSPB's lack of support for the ban on driven grouse shooting.  Apart from the criminality and environmental destruction associated with driven grouse shooting, there is the simple fact that every year hundreds of thousands of red grouse, a native, endemic, species are killed for no good reason.

Some may be eaten but the vast majority are just wasted, as is the case with large scale pheasant and partridge shoots.  As the RSPB is frequently assailed by the forces behind these unsustainable, anachronistic practises that are underpinned by massive criminality, I do not understand why you are not more pro-active in supporting the measures to get it banned.  That three individuals, under the incorporated name WildJustice, have done more to highlight the criminality (ironically, often using the information produced by the magnificent RSPB Investigations team) and their implacable opposition to it and have, arguably, done more make the general public aware of the issue than the RSPB, is surely an embarrassment?

Why not put your massive support behind the latest petition to get it banned?   The shooting industry already hate you, so what have you got to lose? You are losing members who are unhappy at your perceived ambivalence to the campaign, perhaps you could persuade them to change their minds?

Simon Tucker

  • Check the RSPB’s royal charter and the RSPB along with the staff have to be neutral publicly in the question of shooting game-birds as long as it’s done legally within the law of the UK.

    Regards,

    Ian.

  • The RSPB changed their charter, without reference to the membership, to become the Royal Society for the Protection of Biodiversity (even if they didn't actually change the name) so why can't they make another change to be opposed to any activity that is underpinned by a significant level of criminality, persecution of protected species and environmental destruction?

    At the very least they should / could mention the petition at every opportunity and make their members aware, rather than ignoring it completely. It is news: and putting reference to it on their website can be a neutral act but ignoring it is, in itself, a political decision that is annoying large numbers of birders sick of the industry and the perceived ambivalence of the RSPB.

    Simon Tucker

  • Thomo - you mention the charter every year. I provided you with the exact wording, but you still keep referring to it inaccurately.
  • Simon Tucker said:

    I am somewhat confused at the RSPB's lack of support for the ban on driven grouse shooting.  Apart from the criminality and environmental destruction associated with driven grouse shooting, there is the simple fact that every year hundreds of thousands of red grouse, a native, endemic, species are killed for no good reason.

    Some may be eaten but the vast majority are just wasted, as is the case with large scale pheasant and partridge shoots.  As the RSPB is frequently assailed by the forces behind these unsustainable, anachronistic practises that are underpinned by massive criminality, I do not understand why you are not more pro-active in supporting the measures to get it banned.  That three individuals, under the incorporated name WildJustice, have done more to highlight the criminality (ironically, often using the information produced by the magnificent RSPB Investigations team) and their implacable opposition to it and have, arguably, done more make the general public aware of the issue than the RSPB, is surely an embarrassment?

    Why not put your massive support behind the latest petition to get it banned?   The shooting industry already hate you, so what have you got to lose? You are losing members who are unhappy at your perceived ambivalence to the campaign, perhaps you could persuade them to change their minds?

    While I don't disagree with what you have said and I realise that you are addressing the RSPB hierarchy, I presume that you have noticed that many of the members on these Fora have provided links to the Petition and as a result many members have signed it. If ou have been a member of this Community for any length of time you will also be aware that nothing posted on these Fora is ever read by any of the hierarchy. However, it will be interesting to see whether your comment on Martin Harper's blog earn a response. 

    ----------

    Cheers,

    Bob

    My Flickr: https://www.flickr.com/photos/bobs_retired_now/

  • In reply to Bobs_Still_Retired:

    Yes Bob - I attend this community infrequently, what with having my own birding / ringing activities to carry out, Ringing Group blog to maintain (and, to be honest, write 95% of it) and lots of other reporting on my activities for the landowners in between my job as an IT consultant, you can have enough of computers. Whilst I take your point: how many members take part in this community?

    The key thing is that the RSPB should be doing more to make people aware - whether they advocate for it or not.

    Simon Tucker

  • I wonder how many organisations are/have to be neutral on DGS ?..I saw on twitter the other day the BTO have to be neutral too.

    My Flickr photos

  • In reply to Alan.:

    The BTO are definitely neutral, and have to be. They are a data gathering, surveying and analysis scientific organisation, not a campaigning organisation. If they start taking a stance on particular issues they will lose their reputation for impartiality and then their science, data and analysis will be open to question.

    You only have to look at what has happened to both Natural England and GWCT to see how devastating it would be to a science-based organisation if they were shown to be partisan. Nobody, except their funders / invested parties trust either NE's or GWCT's science any more. This would be a tragedy for bird conservation if that were to happen to the BTO.

    Others, as part of the war on Chris Packham, have tried that trick (anyone remember the nonentity that briefly managed to get some air time, Louise Mensch? She tried it) but have failed because the BTO are resolutely neutral.

    Simon Tucker

  • Here, again, is the relevant part of the RSPB charter. Please read the second half of the sentence as it is just as relevant as the first half.

    "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".

    That sentence is unambiguous.
  • In reply to Alan.:

    The RSPB doesn't have to be and aren't. They are in favour of licensing.
  • In reply to Robbo:

    So, Robbo, the Society's neutral stance on the current petition is in contradiction with the passages in the Objects that refer explicitly to (i) the public benefit, and (ii) the raising of public understanding and the provision of information, or?

    I'm asking because the sentence itself is unambiguous, but 'impact on the Objects' might be interpretted in more than one way.

    Dave