Red Grouse

  • The word objects could mean lots of things, but not shooting game birds. It probably means when gamekeepers are allegedly accused of killing birds of prey on moorlands to protect the red grouse such as Hen Harriers. I did mention in one of my earlier posts that RSPB are neutral except when such practices have an impact on the object such as in my opinion killing Hen Harriers allegedly on Moors as well as other items illegally and not shooting game birds as long as it’s done legally and within the law, as I did mention earlier in one of my posts.

    Regards,

    Ian.

  • In reply to Robbo:

    Which means that the RSPB has responded to the petition by informing the public of its position vis-à-vis a ban and the of the fact that it supports an alternative (licensing). Thank you for clearing that up for me Robbo.

    Dave
  • In reply to Simon Tucker:

    Hi Simon.
    First, thanks for bringing this up.
    Second, didn't you write the following: 'You are losing members who are unhappy at your perceived ambivalence to the campaign'? Or am I misquoting you?

    Dave
  • In reply to THOMO:

    Hello Ian,
    I would say that the 'Objects' refers uniquely to, well, the Objects, available at www.rspb.org.uk/.../charter-and-statutes-feb-19-and-bye-laws-march-19.pdf.

    Dave
  • In reply to Dave - CH:

    Dave - CH said:
    Hello Ian,
    I would say that the 'Objects' refers uniquely to, well, the Objects, available at www.rspb.org.uk/.../charter-and-statutes-feb-19-and-bye-laws-march-19.pdf.

    Dave

    Ive seen the objects time after time and I’ve just checked again and nothing there suggests that the RSPB have to support one way or another of the questing of shooting game birds for or against and it still appears to be the situation that the RSPB have to be neutral on the question of shooting of gamebirds and the RSPB or it's members can’t automatically change the Royal Charter themselves, as the final decision about any changes has to be from the Privy Council.

    Regards,

    Ian.

  • Hello Ian,

    So, we're fairly clear then what the Objects are then.

    To sum up a confusing (to me) discussion, here's what I understand.

    The Charter (from one of Robbo's posts): "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".

    The Objects (from the RSPB's own website):

    'The Objects shall be:

    1) To promote the conservationof biological diversity and the natural environment for the public benefit, in particular but not exclusively by:

    a. conserving wild birds and other wildlife, and the environment on which they depend;

    b. protecting, restoring and re-creating habitats.

    And, in furtherance of that primary objective, to raise public understanding and awareness of, and to provide information on, such matters.

    2) To advance education of the public in conservation of the natural environment.

    From Robbo once more, the RSPB is engaged with the question. It's against a ban and pro-licensing.

    Here's what I'd expect (based on the above) in the current circumstances: that, based on the references in the Objects to raising public awareness and understanding, to providing information, and to advancing education of the public, the Society clearly communicates its opposition to the current petition and reiterates its position on licensing.

    What Robbo has posted implies, to me at least, they it has done this. What Simon has posted states that it hasn't (deafening silence?)

    Personally, I'd review my support of any organisation that didn't, in the current circumstances, engage in some form of explanatory reiteration of its position. Failing to do so would, to my mind, be in contradiction of that organisation's stated Objects, and not what I'd, personally, like to see in anything related to animal welfare.

    On a personal note, I hope that anyone who shoots animals for their own pleasure and amusement will one day be diagnosed as mentally ill, and given appropriate treatment (but not before being banned from any contact with animals---and vulnerable or impressionable individuals---for life).

    Dave

  • In reply to Dave - CH:

    Dave - CH said:

    Hello Ian,

    So, we're fairly clear then what the Objects are then.

    To sum up a confusing (to me) discussion, here's what I understand.

    The Charter (from one of Robbo's posts): "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".

    The Objects (from the RSPB's own website):

    'The Objects shall be:

    1) To promote the conservationof biological diversity and the natural environment for the public benefit, in particular but not exclusively by:

    a. conserving wild birds and other wildlife, and the environment on which they depend;

    b. protecting, restoring and re-creating habitats.

    And, in furtherance of that primary objective, to raise public understanding and awareness of, and to provide information on, such matters.

    2) To advance education of the public in conservation of the natural environment.

    From Robbo once more, the RSPB is engaged with the question. It's against a ban and pro-licensing.

    Here's what I'd expect (based on the above) in the current circumstances: that, based on the references in the Objects to raising public awareness and understanding, to providing information, and to advancing education of the public, the Society clearly communicates its opposition to the current petition and reiterates its position on licensing.

    What Robbo has posted implies, to me at least, they it has done this. What Simon has posted states that it hasn't (deafening silence?)

    Personally, I'd review my support of any organisation that didn't, in the current circumstances, engage in some form of explanatory reiteration of its position. Failing to do so would, to my mind, be in contradiction of that organisation's stated Objects, and not what I'd, personally, like to see in anything related to animal welfare.

    On a personal note, I hope that anyone who shoots animals for their own pleasure and amusement will one day be diagnosed as mentally ill, and given appropriate treatment (but not before being banned from any contact with animals---and vulnerable or impressionable individuals---for life).

    Dave

    Not a very nice thing to say or wish about anyone in your very last sentence above. And you don’t know if anyone on this forum suffers from that what you say above, including myself. As I’ve got health problems personally myself,, but I’ll say no more about that.

    Regards,

    Ian.

  • I'm sorry Ian, but really you've misunderstood me there. Probably my fault.

    I'm not saying anything about people with mental health problems. I don't know about yours (if you have had them); you don't know about mine (if I have).

    I'm saying that shooting animals for fun is sign that one has them, and that one should be helped with appropriate treatment. Like anyone with short- or long-term mental health issues should be, in a civilised world.

    That's not meant unkindly. The opposite in fact. I'm saying that people who shoot animals for fun need help. And that I hope that one day they'll get the help they need. And that animals be protected from them. And that vulnerable and impressionable individuals be protected from them too.

    I do, sincerely, hope that this makes more sense to you now.

    All the best -
    Dave
  • I agree with your summary post Dave, and to just clarify also my opinion that RSPB has repeatedly (and against my opinion) supported a licensing scheme. It has done so many times. It has had high profile characters disagreeing with that stance. It therefore hasn't been silent in its preference of a licensing scheme rather than ban.

    I am afraid I can't explain that Charter sentence anymore, Ian. A good compromise is instead of you giving your interpretation of it to contributors (especially new ones), it is better for you to give the actual sentence so anyone wanting to know what it says in the charter, can see it after you provide it. That way, they will get an accurate quote rather than, as I say, one person's interpretation.

    To sum up the situation now.....RSPB is in favour of a licensing scheme for driven grouse shooting.......that in itself isn't neutral is it!?!

  • One of my infrequent returns to this community, interesting to see how the discussion developed. With the, almost certainly criminal, destruction of three of the harriers from the ridiculous brood meddling scheme surely these are the "objects" mentioned in the RSPB charter?

    Simon Tucker