Red Grouse

  • No. The RSPB is not neutral re the petition. They are against a ban. They are in favour of licensing. There is no contradiction.
  • Ah. So, assuming that your answer is directed at me, Robbo, thank you. I didn't know that the Society is against a ban. So it's opposition to a ban is in contradiction of its Objects (point i of my previous post) and if it's not actively placing the pros and (particularly, given that it's against a ban) cons of th present petition before the public, its actions are in contradiction of its objects (point ii of my previous post).

    Does that make more sense?


  • No. Why would it be in contradiction?
  • Ah... I think I see now. The Society is taking a part in this question as it's against a ban. I just find it hard to reconcile non-opposition to Grouse shooting with 'To promote the conservationof biological diversity and the natural environment for the public benefit' (from the Objects) (emphasis mine).

    Re my second point, if Simon Tucker is right and the RSPB is proving ambivalent regarding the petition, I would have thought---as a simple layman trying to understand what is a complex issue, I'm sure---that this wouldn't sit well with 'to raise public understanding and awareness of, and to provide information on, such matters' (from the Objects).

    Contradiction? No contradiction?


  • In reply to Dave - CH:

    Dave - CH said:

    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.


    Yes Robbo nearly always disagrees with me. I interpret the sentence that Robbo quotes from the RSPB’s royal charter, much different to what Robbo interprets it as!



  • There is no contradiction. The RSPB is not ambivalent to the petition. It is against it as it is against a ban.

    You are confusing being against a ban with being in favour of driven grouse shooting. There is no contradiction as RSPB's solution to current driven grouse shooting issues is to introduce a licensing scheme. That is their opinion and solution. (not mine). There is no contradiction or ambivalence.

    The Royal Charter is clear. The RSPB position is clear.
  • In reply to Dave - CH:

    Hi Dave

    I didn't say ambivalent: it is the fact that they have not made any statement about it that I think is at issue. If their position is that they oppose the petition, they should say so and explain why, given the intransigence of the shooting industry regarding criminal behaviour and environmental destruction and the haplessness, bordering on negligence of DEFRA and Natural England, they think licensing is the better option: if that is, indeed, their position.

    It is the silence that is deafening!

    Simon Tucker

  • In reply to THOMO:

    Ian, There is no interpretation needed. The words speak for themselves.

    I disagree with you that I nearly always disagree with you too! ;-)

    On this though, I will always disagree with you as you aren't taking notice of the second half of the sentence I referred to earlier. If you want to tell people RSPB's position on the shooting industry, as a matter of fairness, you need to be accurate.
  • In reply to Robbo:

    Well looking at that sentence you quote from the Royal Charter, it makes it very clear that the RSPB have to be neutral on shooting game birds, as long as that is done legally and within the law. And yet again I have to disagree with you.



  • In reply to THOMO:

    No it doesn't. That is why they aren't.

    What does, ".....except when such practices have an impact on the Objects" mean? Why are you ignoring it?