The RSPB claim they are neutral regarding the ethics of driven grouse shooting. Martin Harper admits the Society has had dialogue with the grouse industry for decades, yet despite these talks laws protecting the nation’s birds of prey continue to be broken. Harper claims intolerance of any predator appears to be part of the “business model” of some driven grouse shoots, we would argue by a majority. Martin Harper tells us the RSPB are in favour of licensing scheme which will have to work. The status quo according to Harper is not an option and we cannot allow it to persist much longer.
The problem with a licensing scheme is one of enforcement, and who will fund the millions of pound needed to pay for any scheme introduced? More important where will all the hundreds if not thousands of experienced man power resources come from to monitor the moorland regions in England after any scheme has been implemented? The RSPB do not have the qualified staff to undertake this work. The upland moorlands in northern England we are talking about are huge, it would take many battalions of soldiers just to safeguard a small proportion of these remote areas on a daily basis. Raptors that predate and eat grouse all too often disappear from grouse moors without anyone being the wiser. With or without a licensing scheme these disappearances will continue as they have done since the Victorian era.
Throughout the Forest of Bowland today the persecution of species like the hen harrier, peregrine and short-eared owl is now much worst than it was 40 years ago. In the mid 1970’s the chairman of the North West Raptor Group Terry Pickford was invited by Richard Porter, a member of the RSPB species protection office, to visit RSPB headquarters at Sandy to brief the society on the widespread persecution of raptors taking place in Bowland. Following the meeting as Terry was about the leave the car park at Sandy Richard Porter assured Terry Pickford the RSPB would resolve the issue of persecuted raptors in Bowland within five years, that was over 4 decades ago.
Below are the words Martin Harper published on his blog yesterday explaining to RSPB members prior to the Society’s AGM the position the Society takes relative to Driven Grouse Shooting, we are not at all convinced by what Martin Harper had to say.
In the run up to our AGM tomorrow, there has been some debate about the RSPB’s position on driven grouse shooting. I am not surprised – this is a high profile issue and everyone has a right to have an opinion. However, I thought it would be useful to re-articulate our position.
Hawthornthwaite Fell Abbeystead Estate Lancashire. This general area has witnessed the disappearance of two territorial nesting pairs of peregrine falcons in the last 4 years.
In theory, grouse moors, in conservation terms, are not inherently a bad thing. A well managed moor could offer help for curlews, golden plover and allow birds of prey to fly free from harm. Sensitive management of semi-natural vegetation, active restoration of degraded habitats, and a welcome place for walkers and birdwatchers could be hallmarks of good grouse moors. Grouse moors could be striving for the highest standards of environmental management, adapting to new science and information on things as diverse as lead shot or habitat management practices.
But is there a driven grouse moor which does all of the above? If there is, we would love to know. As with any other land management system, there is a spectrum of intensity and not all grouse moors are the same. Some moor owners strive for the above, but it’s clear they are in a minority.
The current voluntary approach to meeting public expectations of what we want from our uplands, is quite obviously not working (see my recent update on the RSPB’s Walshaw complaint to the European Commission here), and the illegal killing of hen harriers and other raptors continues. This is leading some to call for an outright ban on driven grouse shooting. Whilst we do not yet take this stance, we can certainly see their point and the anger about ongoing persecution is shared.
The RSPB, which has always been neutral on the ethics of shooting, has had dialogue with the grouse industry for decades, but laws protecting the nation’s birds of prey continue to be broken. Intolerance of any predator appears to be part of the “business model” of some driven grouse shoots.
Over the last decade we’ve seen a significant change in the way the industry operates, with intensification of management practices, as expectations of big grouse bags have grown. These include an increase in the frequency of heather burning, often over deep peat soils, the use of grouse medication and, in some places, the culling of mountain hares in a bid to control grouse disease; and even more intensive predator control, including the widespread illegal control of protected birds and mammals.
Any responsible industry would take action to raise environmental standards and put pressure on those that tarnish the reputation of others. While there are those within the moorland community calling for reform, their voice is not loud enough or being heard. What’s worse, is that much of the grouse moor sector seem to be in denial of the impacts this intensification is having on our shared environment and wildlife. While we recognise the potentially significant benefits of grouse moor management, there is compelling and still-growing evidence that the on-the-ground reality of driven grouse shooting as currently practiced in many parts of the UK, is one where damage outweighs any benefits.
Which, if you are concerned about these things, means the status quo is not an option. You can either regulate through licensing, or ban it.
We believe that the effective regulation of grouse shooting and its associated management practices, delivered through a sensible licensing regime and effective enforcement, can deliver a grouse shooting industry fit for the 21st century. We’ve also developed and shared principles for such a scheme (here). This would complement existing legislation such as the EU Nature Directives and domestic wildlife legislation. Only time will tell if licensing is sufficient but it is the most logical next step, and long overdue. And, of course, there are many questions about how a ban on ‘driven grouse shooting’ would work in practice.
Intensive driven grouse moor management, as currently practiced in much of the UK, is environmentally unsustainable and damaging.
Licensing has the potential to deliver all of the benefits I mention at the top of the blog and more – notably healthy populations of upland wildlife of which protected birds of prey, such as hen harriers are a characteristic component. It would also set out what is expected in the wider public interest from this large scale land use in the uplands and that surely has to be a good thing.
Given the growing public profile of environmental harm associated with intensive grouse shooting, a rational industry would embrace licensing and take action to raise standards. Governments across the UK should recognise that growing intensification is incompatible with their environmental and political commitments and as a result, they need to regulate.
Failure to act will simply mean calls for a ban will intensify.
We want licensing and we want it to work.
The status quo is not an option and we cannot allow it to persist much longer.
I am somewhat heartened by what I read here. The main thrust seems to be that things cannot continue as they are. The Grouse shooting ‘industry’ as it has been for 40 years has failed. It may be a few bad apples that have not been controlled by their peers or it may be that the whole barrel is rotten. We need to find out and find out quickly. The message is now that the Shooting Industry must reform or face being banned. It is entirely up to them. Their choice.
So I see licensing as a logical first step. Step 2 is ‘act responsibly or lose your licence’. We have that with many other activities such as driving, certain forms of land use and even shooting. Why not with Grouse Moors?
Who will pay? The Licence fee of course. Just like car drivers and car owners pay for theirs. After all, they come from a sector of society that by reputation is not short of cash. If they can afford to pay for Driven Grouse with large bags they can face another overhead.
Detection and enforcement. Well not easy but then nothing is these days. Burglaries persist, drivers jump red lights and speed etc.. but that is not the issue. We cannot catch cars jumping red lights but we sure as heck can see where Raptors are being persecuted illegally. The RSPB and other protection groups have many eyes. It can be done.