The debate to ban driven grouse shooting

After listening to the full debate I was left very depressed and it did nothing to dissuade me that this is not the beginning of the end for shooting. All of the fine arguments of biodiversity, employment and rural economic sustainability will not sway or influence the majority of ban supporters or stop that support growing whilst illegal raptor persecution continues. I think we are years away from a ban but unless the shooting industry radically changes I believe a ban is inevitable.

The shooting industry has the power to stamp out illegal killing. If they don’t I think the support for a ban will just keep relentlessly growing especially as technical advances and increase in public awareness will lead to more reporting and discovery of persecution.  Eventually like fox hunting the numbers will grow sufficiently to start possibly influencing a few marginals and when that happens it is curtains for shooting. I believe if the shooting industry wishes to survive it must stop killing raptors and mountain hares.

One of the arguments expressed is that the antis do not understand the countryside and this is probably true, but they do understand the concept of illegal persecution and  many will just see this as another example of  the law turning a blind eye to criminal behaviour by the rich or on behalf of the rich.

It was also touching to see all these Tory MPs suddenly become so concerned with the employment needs of the rural working class! In many rural areas there is no shortage of jobs especially low paid jobs, but a shortage of people to do those jobs because of a lack of affordable housing and public transport plus a higher cost of living, it would be nice if those MP also turned their attention to these problems.

 

2 thoughts on “The debate to ban driven grouse shooting”

  1. It appears to me that the shooting community have become increasingly complacent to public opinion and continue to expect the public to overlook their shortcomings. It is obvious that there are at least small parts of the shooting community who still habitually break the law without any fear of prosecution. Their behaviour is now increasingly reported and is capable of tainting all of who maintain land for shooting. This situation is now attracting adverse publicity. The community now needs to provide some form of rigorous in-house procedures to prevent the control of non-game species, and these must include substantial penalties for those who choose to ignore these rules.
    The only way that they can provide some form of reassurance to the public is to demonstrate that they can manage this issue. So far, the public perception is often that this community believe themselves to be above the law. This is not a healthy situation and needs to be addressed at its roots. If the trend in public opinion continues there will eventually come a time when legislation which is averse to shooting is introduced.
    Because of the increasing adverse public opinion to this subject, there is a diminishing belief in the claims that managing grouse moors are beneficial to the environment. The worst case scenario is that all shooting will stop and that these areas will then become totally unmanaged.
    The only solution is to stop this problem of adverse public opinion before it becomes critical. This requires some substantial leadership and so far nothing has been seen to be effective.

    1. Thank you for your comment I agree with everything you say. I fear the leadership will not happen because of a misguided belief that to do so would be to “side with the enemy”

Comments are closed.