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 said:
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.
My Flickr: https://www.flickr.com/photos/bobs_retired_now/
In reply to Bobs_Still_Retired:
My Flickr photos
In reply to Alan.:
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.
We spend 90% of net income on conservation, public education and advocacy
The RSPB is a member of BirdLife International. Find out more about the partnership
© The Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB) is a registered charity: England and Wales no. 207076, Scotland no. SC037654