Chris Packham/Grouse Shooting - Merged Threads

[Bantam boy]

Is it just me, or has anybody else spotted the huge mistake that Mr Packham and Dr Avery have made? Their petition is not to ban grouse shooting, it is to ban Driven grouse shooting,if it ever did get banned the moor could revert to a walked up grouse shooting moor or a grouse shooting over pointers moor,these lesser known sports would still be totally legal,and the loop holes would be endless.

 

Andy

[scotslad]

Must admit for a shooting forum the lack of support for grouse shooting is quite shocking.

I could never afford to buy a day on the driven grouse but it is shooting in its purest and most defendable form.

They can only shoot the harvestable surplus each year no matter how many days are booked, and they cannot feed them or anything else all they can do is manage there habitat and predators which in turn helps s many other species.

U can add al the other benfits in like stopping wild fires, keeping heather young and more beetle resistant, carbon storage etc

 

No other form of shooting is so environmentally friendly or sustainable and helps the ecosystem so much

 

I've always wondered why grouse installs this hatred amoungst the anti's as it is the most morally defendable type of shooting there is, 100% sustainable with heaps of scientific studies showing the many wider landscape and environmental benefits, even worldwide benefits if u believe all this carbon storeage stuff.

 

I think the reason is it is so easy to label it a bunch of toff and elitieist, and stoke up the class war or jealousy, even in shooters it seems many would believe anything written on the net by any random person if it's against grouse shooting. s proved by that hoax post from a fishing forum

 

U even have some hear now claiming the grouse owners should fight the pr battle themselves, (so much for a untied front) so if there ever is any more restrictions put on wildfowling will we just leave it for the fowlers to sort out??

To be quite honest they'd be better off breaking from us and fighting there own battle, but as i've said they already have the high moral ground compared to every other type of shooting.

 

Say worst case scenerio and driven grouse shooting is banned. Next would be all driven shooting

How can u argue any positives for driven pheasant or partridge shooting, releasing thousands off non native birds released to be shot?

Even as a shooter i find it hard sometimes to morally defend it, esp on commercail levels. But that is completely hypocritical as u either release birds to shoot or u don't the number should be immaterial.

The antis don't care shoting 1 bird is too many for them but they start with the easy target the toffs anfd yuppies and work there way down to normal working men when everything else is banned

 

The simple fact wether a moor is shooting 10 brace a day or 1000 brace it is still 100% sustainable, no keeper will shoot the last pair of grouse, makes no sense. And the difference between a 10 brace or 1000 brace is a massive ammount of habitat/conservation work.

 

I doubt anyone on here will shoot a truely sustainable bird/animal (pest control or stalking being the exceptions) for sport, no matter how big or small ur days are ur relying on birds being released by someone/somewhere or birds migrating in from elsewhere

 

 

 

As for the HH, they've never really historically bred in England ever anyway, so having no nests is not a new thing, (load of info on Moorland assoc) it listed last 5 years nesting succes last year 6 succesful nests for 18 chicks fledged (2014, 4 for 16; 0 for 0; 1 for 4; 4 for 12 and 6 for 18 in 2010) so does vary quite a bit.

I'm sure from memory there were 17 nest attempts last year most abandoned or predated (quite a few potentially disturbed by offical observers, althou they will never admit it) but all 6 successful ones were on grouse moors. Pretty sure alister mitchel had an article on it in shooting times moaning about this over observing nests and how close they are. If a keeper set up a tent withing 30m's of a nest he would be done, but ok for them.

 

So it would not be a complete surprise if no succesful nests in eng this year, by all accounts a poor vole year and this poor weather also may not have helped.

Also a lot of HH don't always return from there migration either, so not just a UK problem

 

But the thing is HH are not thriving on unkeepered moors or nature resrve moors so there is absolutely no science or even atendotal evidence to back up there claims, if it was purely down to keepering/persecution then u should see hotspots away from keepered moors which is not the case. Geltsdale should be moving with them if thst was the case

Edited August 15, 2016 by scotslad

[scotslad]

Is it just me, or has anybody else spotted the huge mistake that Mr Packham and Dr Avery have made? Their petition is not to ban grouse shooting, it is to ban Driven grouse shooting,if it ever did get banned the moor could revert to a walked up grouse shooting moor or a grouse shooting over pointers moor,these lesser known sports would still be totally legal,and the loop holes would be endless.

 

Andy

 

They may have missed it but probably because it does not envoke the same class hatred as the driven stuff does.

 

The big problem u have is numbers and money, u can only shoot limited ammounts of birds walked up and birds will get wise to it pretty soon to and rise well out of gun shot. Even in Aug they can be jumpy some days.

So u could not harvest enough grouse on a well managed moor, so they would all just starve over winter anyway, so they would cut costs/sack keepers and reduce habitat/conservation work to reduce grouse density but then u very quickly lose all these side benefits for conservation, predators populations sneak up, more rank long heather etc.

 

 

Basically u would lose all the positives and benfits.

Depending on the moors but in the past scottish grouse keepers beats are/were 2-5 times larger in area than english beats its not the sole reason but a major 1 why they don't have the volume/density of grouse u get down south. Now more and more moor owners are investing large wads of cash for extra keepers more in line with the north england and the moors are improving massivily.

So u wouldn't have to lose an awful lot of keepers to start to lose a lot of the wider benefits

Edited August 15, 2016 by scotslad

[gamekeeper1960]

Done

[matone]

Must admit for a shooting forum the lack of support for grouse shooting is quite shocking.

I could never afford to buy a day on the driven grouse but it is shooting in its purest and most defendable form.

They can only shoot the harvestable surplus each year no matter how many days are booked, and they cannot feed them or anything else all they can do is manage there habitat and predators which in turn helps s many other species.

U can add al the other benfits in like stopping wild fires, keeping heather young and more beetle resistant, carbon storage etc

 

No other form of shooting is so environmentally friendly or sustainable and helps the ecosystem so much

 

I've always wondered why grouse installs this hatred amoungst the anti's as it is the most morally defendable type of shooting there is, 100% sustainable with heaps of scientific studies showing the many wider landscape and environmental benefits, even worldwide benefits if u believe all this carbon storeage stuff.

 

I think the reason is it is so easy to label it a bunch of toff and elitieist, and stoke up the class war or jealousy, even in shooters it seems many would believe anything written on the net by any random person if it's against grouse shooting. s proved by that hoax post from a fishing forum

 

U even have some hear now claiming the grouse owners should fight the pr battle themselves, (so much for a untied front) so if there ever is any more restrictions put on wildfowling will we just leave it for the fowlers to sort out??

To be quite honest they'd be better off breaking from us and fighting there own battle, but as i've said they already have the high moral ground compared to every other type of shooting.

 

Say worst case scenerio and driven grouse shooting is banned. Next would be all driven shooting

How can u argue any positives for driven pheasant or partridge shooting, releasing thousands off non native birds released to be shot?

Even as a shooter i find it hard sometimes to morally defend it, esp on commercail levels. But that is completely hypocritical as u either release birds to shoot or u don't the number should be immaterial.

The antis don't care shoting 1 bird is too many for them but they start with the easy target the toffs anfd yuppies and work there way down to normal working men when everything else is banned

 

The simple fact wether a moor is shooting 10 brace a day or 1000 brace it is still 100% sustainable, no keeper will shoot the last pair of grouse, makes no sense. And the difference between a 10 brace or 1000 brace is a massive ammount of habitat/conservation work.

 

I doubt anyone on here will shoot a truely sustainable bird/animal (pest control or stalking being the exceptions) for sport, no matter how big or small ur days are ur relying on birds being released by someone/somewhere or birds migrating in from elsewhere

 

 

 

As for the HH, they've never really historically bred in England ever anyway, so having no nests is not a new thing, (load of info on Moorland assoc) it listed last 5 years nesting succes last year 6 succesful nests for 18 chicks fledged (2014, 4 for 16; 0 for 0; 1 for 4; 4 for 12 and 6 for 18 in 2010) so does vary quite a bit.

I'm sure from memory there were 17 nest attempts last year most abandoned or predated (quite a few potentially disturbed by offical observers, althou they will never admit it) but all 6 successful ones were on grouse moors. Pretty sure alister mitchel had an article on it in shooting times moaning about this over observing nests and how close they are. If a keeper set up a tent withing 30m's of a nest he would be done, but ok for them.

 

So it would not be a complete surprise if no succesful nests in eng this year, by all accounts a poor vole year and this poor weather also may not have helped.

Also a lot of HH don't always return from there migration either, so not just a UK problem

 

But the thing is HH are not thriving on unkeepered moors or nature resrve moors so there is absolutely no science or even atendotal evidence to back up there claims, if it was purely down to keepering/persecution then u should see hotspots away from keepered moors which is not the case. Geltsdale should be moving with them if thst was the case

I did not imply that moor owners should fund the defence of driven grouse shooting themselves .My point is that given the huge collective wealth of those involved ,they could,and indeed ,should have funded a professionally orchestrated media campaign over many years.Our poorly supported countrysports orgs with all the will in the world,do not have the funding available to do so,yet have achieved much despite this lamentable situation.

This is an attack on shooting,full stop .Driven grouse shooting is the top target as the antis can stir up class hatred easily with it ,so it will always be so.

As for anyone thinking that moors will revert to walking up ,yet still be productive is a clear indication that they do not understand upland management in the least !

Anyone suggesting that I am writing this born of ignorance or malice needs to think a little more.

[JDog]

Scotslad, it seems you are passionate and knowledgeable about shooting and your posts are a credit to you.

[Brixsmaid]

Must admit for a shooting forum the lack of support for grouse shooting is quite shocking.

I could never afford to buy a day on the driven grouse but it is shooting in its purest and most defendable form.

They can only shoot the harvestable surplus each year no matter how many days are booked, and they cannot feed them or anything else all they can do is manage there habitat and predators which in turn helps s many other species.

U can add al the other benfits in like stopping wild fires, keeping heather young and more beetle resistant, carbon storage etc

 

No other form of shooting is so environmentally friendly or sustainable and helps the ecosystem so much

 

I've always wondered why grouse installs this hatred amoungst the anti's as it is the most morally defendable type of shooting there is, 100% sustainable with heaps of scientific studies showing the many wider landscape and environmental benefits, even worldwide benefits if u believe all this carbon storeage stuff.

 

I think the reason is it is so easy to label it a bunch of toff and elitieist, and stoke up the class war or jealousy, even in shooters it seems many would believe anything written on the net by any random person if it's against grouse shooting. s proved by that hoax post from a fishing forum

 

U even have some hear now claiming the grouse owners should fight the pr battle themselves, (so much for a untied front) so if there ever is any more restrictions put on wildfowling will we just leave it for the fowlers to sort out??

To be quite honest they'd be better off breaking from us and fighting there own battle, but as i've said they already have the high moral ground compared to every other type of shooting.

 

Say worst case scenerio and driven grouse shooting is banned. Next would be all driven shooting

How can u argue any positives for driven pheasant or partridge shooting, releasing thousands off non native birds released to be shot?

Even as a shooter i find it hard sometimes to morally defend it, esp on commercail levels. But that is completely hypocritical as u either release birds to shoot or u don't the number should be immaterial.

The antis don't care shoting 1 bird is too many for them but they start with the easy target the toffs anfd yuppies and work there way down to normal working men when everything else is banned

 

The simple fact wether a moor is shooting 10 brace a day or 1000 brace it is still 100% sustainable, no keeper will shoot the last pair of grouse, makes no sense. And the difference between a 10 brace or 1000 brace is a massive ammount of habitat/conservation work.

 

I doubt anyone on here will shoot a truely sustainable bird/animal (pest control or stalking being the exceptions) for sport, no matter how big or small ur days are ur relying on birds being released by someone/somewhere or birds migrating in from elsewhere

 

 

 

As for the HH, they've never really historically bred in England ever anyway, so having no nests is not a new thing, (load of info on Moorland assoc) it listed last 5 years nesting succes last year 6 succesful nests for 18 chicks fledged (2014, 4 for 16; 0 for 0; 1 for 4; 4 for 12 and 6 for 18 in 2010) so does vary quite a bit.

I'm sure from memory there were 17 nest attempts last year most abandoned or predated (quite a few potentially disturbed by offical observers, althou they will never admit it) but all 6 successful ones were on grouse moors. Pretty sure alister mitchel had an article on it in shooting times moaning about this over observing nests and how close they are. If a keeper set up a tent withing 30m's of a nest he would be done, but ok for them.

 

So it would not be a complete surprise if no succesful nests in eng this year, by all accounts a poor vole year and this poor weather also may not have helped.

Also a lot of HH don't always return from there migration either, so not just a UK problem

 

But the thing is HH are not thriving on unkeepered moors or nature resrve moors so there is absolutely no science or even atendotal evidence to back up there claims, if it was purely down to keepering/persecution then u should see hotspots away from keepered moors which is not the case. Geltsdale should be moving with them if thst was the case

 

 

 

They may have missed it but probably because it does not envoke the same class hatred as the driven stuff does.

 

The big problem u have is numbers and money, u can only shoot limited ammounts of birds walked up and birds will get wise to it pretty soon to and rise well out of gun shot. Even in Aug they can be jumpy some days.

So u could not harvest enough grouse on a well managed moor, so they would all just starve over winter anyway, so they would cut costs/sack keepers and reduce habitat/conservation work to reduce grouse density but then u very quickly lose all these side benefits for conservation, predators populations sneak up, more rank long heather etc.

 

 

Basically u would lose all the positives and benfits.

Depending on the moors but in the past scottish grouse keepers beats are/were 2-5 times larger in area than english beats its not the sole reason but a major 1 why they don't have the volume/density of grouse u get down south. Now more and more moor owners are investing large wads of cash for extra keepers more in line with the north england and the moors are improving massivily.

So u wouldn't have to lose an awful lot of keepers to start to lose a lot of the wider benefits

 

So well said, must be very satisfying that you can put together such a reasoned argument for driven Grouse shooting - well done

[BrowningB525]

I know what you are saying, but getting into online slanging matches or putting a point of view across and just getting shouted down gains nothing. Nothing we say will change the anti's minds, that is unfortunately the sad truth.

We should do all that we can. Everyone who has an interest nowadays, thanks to common interest groups (like pw) suffer from confirmation bias. Every time someone counters their belief, even if they ignore it, still erodes the confirmation that they receive.

[Kalahari]

Brilliant defense of Grouse shooting. We can't afford not to support grouse shooting. If it goes we will be next. Think of that if of nothing else.

 

David.

[scolopax]

 

 

Is it just me, or has anybody else spotted the huge mistake that Mr Packham and Dr Avery have made? Their petition is not to ban grouse shooting, it is to ban Driven grouse shooting,if it ever did get banned the moor could revert to a walked up grouse shooting moor or a grouse shooting over pointers moor,these lesser known sports would still be totally legal,and the loop holes would be endless.

 

 

No, it was deliberate by Mark Avery, ex RPSB (director of conservation I think?), he is the man who is 100% behind all this. Firstly, kind of forget about Packham, it his not his campaign although he is running with it, he is just Mark Avery's mouthpiece / tame celebrity.

 

I have been following this subject for quite some time. This is Mark Avery's second or third petition on exactly the same subject, the previous one(s) failed miserably to generate enough support. This time though it has picked up real momentum.

 

As for the driven aspect. Well you have to understand the petition is nothing at all about being anti grouse shooting, it is all about the killing of hen harriers on grouse moors though.

 

Driven moors need high densities of red grouse and to achieve that, an intensive regime of predator control is required. What Avery says, along with many others for that matter, is that one of the predators killed (illegally of course9 is the Hen Harrier. And it is pretty much proven that Hen Harriers and high densities of grouse are incompatible (Langholm).

 

If a moor gets lots of Hen Harriers breeding, grouse numbers will slide away, Hen Harriers are specialists at taking small prey off the ground, there will be some grouse which dodge the talons, but not enough for driven shooting. So this is where the driven part of the petition title comes in, a moor with breeding Hen Harriers should have enough grouse surviving to allow small bag walked up shooting, but not enough to allow driven shooting.

Edited August 16, 2016 by scolopax

[ShootingEgg]

Is there any hard evidence of keepers removing the harriers?

[bjlfishing]

Thank you Sir Ian Botham :

"The facts speak for themselves. British Trust for Ornithology ringers have just conducted a survey of a grouse moor in the Pennines. They found 800 pairs of lapwing, 400 curlews and 100 golden plover on one estate. There were 89 species 21 of them endangered red list birds. Another grouse moor in Scotland has 81 species. This is bird heaven.

The RSPBs scientists admit that grouse moors are the best breeding grounds for birds, saying that there are up to five times more endangered birds on grouse moors than on other moors. So if the activists who run the RSPB had their way and forced grouse moors to shut down it would be devastating for Britains endangered birds."

 

Touche Chris Packam.

[scolopax]

Thank you Sir Ian Botham :

"The facts speak for themselves. British Trust for Ornithology ringers have just conducted a survey of a grouse moor in the Pennines. They found 800 pairs of lapwing, 400 curlews and 100 golden plover on one estate. There were 89 species 21 of them endangered red list birds. Another grouse moor in Scotland has 81 species. This is bird heaven.

The RSPBs scientists admit that grouse moors are the best breeding grounds for birds, saying that there are up to five times more endangered birds on grouse moors than on other moors. So if the activists who run the RSPB had their way and forced grouse moors to shut down it would be devastating for Britains endangered birds."

 

Touche Chris Packam.

 

and the BTO replied with the fact they have conducted no such study on a grouse moor

 

But do not forget it is only, entirely, about one species, Hen Harriers. There could be 2000 pairs of Curlews churning out 10,000 fledged chicks on a moor and Mark Avery will only care about the fact that there are no nesting Hen Harriers at on the same moor

Edited August 16, 2016 by scolopax

[scolopax]

And who the heck started the "Protect grouse shooting and grouse moors" petition !!! ? ? ?!!!

 

it is so badly worded you would think an anti had started to make us lot look foolish and uneducated.

 

ie Stone curlews and Countryside Alienation (should have been Countryside Alliance)

Edited August 16, 2016 by scolopax

[felly100]

I've just had a look,that is embarrassing isn't it.

[bjlfishing]

Hen harriers are a contentious subject as with all ground nesting birds they are at a higher risk of predation from foxes etc also weather , ticks , etc etc also once fledged group roosting birds can be very quickly become fox food and effectively wiping out a whole population in seconds

[scotslad]

 

 

No, it was deliberate by Mark Avery, ex RPSB (director of conservation I think?), he is the man who is 100% behind all this. Firstly, kind of forget about Packham, it his not his campaign although he is running with it, he is just Mark Avery's mouthpiece / tame celebrity.

 

I have been following this subject for quite some time. This is Mark Avery's second or third petition on exactly the same subject, the previous one(s) failed miserably to generate enough support. This time though it has picked up real momentum.

 

As for the driven aspect. Well you have to understand the petition is nothing at all about being anti grouse shooting, it is all about the killing of hen harriers on grouse moors though.

 

Driven moors need high densities of red grouse and to achieve that, an intensive regime of predator control is required. What Avery says, along with many others for that matter, is that one of the predators killed (illegally of course9 is the Hen Harrier. And it is pretty much proven that Hen Harriers and high densities of grouse are incompatible (Langholm).

 

If a moor gets lots of Hen Harriers breeding, grouse numbers will slide away, Hen Harriers are specialists at taking small prey off the ground, there will be some grouse which dodge the talons, but not enough for driven shooting. So this is where the driven part of the petition title comes in, a moor with breeding Hen Harriers should have enough grouse surviving to allow small bag walked up shooting, but not enough to allow driven shooting.

 

A pretty good post scolopax, so apologies for knit picking from it.

Must admit i'm like urself and try to keep reading about it and do have a passion for it.

 

U can have driven grouse moors with harriers on them, langholm is not always the best example (seemingly the vegetation means higher than normal vole numbers) so can someties support very large numbers of HH short term, or long term if keepering continues with no grouse.

 

Pre the original Joint Raptor group study, back in the 80's langholm was 1off if not the most productive moor in scotland and had 2-4 pairs of nesting harriers usually fledging young, throughout the productive years (althou it tended to be on a longer boom/bust cycle as the HH would keep grouse number lower longer in the bust years), when the study started the HH multiplied to around 25 odd breeding pair, obviously shooting was no longer vaible, keepering stopped, 5 keepers lost there jobs and all the local businesses lost the trade, hotels food drink etc.

In modern terms u'd be talking about millions of quid a year put into a rural area and crappy hill ground (althou Langholms not really as remote as many grouse areas)

Within 3 years almost all the HH were gone the few returning pairs hardly ever nested succesfully as no food and too much vermin.

Even the shepherds who had sheep on the hill rarely seen or heard grouse numbers were so low, but also hardly any other bird life either and all the heather got old and rank, no good for man nor beast.

 

The new study ws a much needed step in the right direction but is almost a total failure, despite spending 10 million quid they still have no grouse to shoot.

The only positive is diversonary feeding does seem to work and very few grouse chicks are predated on by the HH, but it is time consuming feeding all the nests.

 

Langholms big problem now is the massive number of buzzards, most of the grouse losses are over winter when HH aren't even there. There was no buzzards back in the old days.

Some of the count densities have not been far off driven numbers but there losing far too many over winter, they won't/can't admit its buzzards but are studying them now.

 

 

The biggest problem u have with HH and driven grouse or walked up/pointed is the grouse really hate them and just 1 or 2 HH (or any other large wing spanned predator) quartering a moor will empty it in no time.

I have often seen a HH hunting over a drive and very few birds come out it, do same drive next time and full of birds. Is esp noticably on return drives as u generally have a good idea wot flew into it plus the residents of that drive.

 

 

The HH recovery programe is a step in the right direction with brood management, most moors could cope with HH somewhere in the area as long as they get the population right, a sort of quota type system.

Keepers may be more keen to actively encourage them if they knew they were not opening the floodgates.

 

 

It all seems to be very much a class war orientated, and makes no sense scientifically. U have 1 bird the HH which while uncommon in eng has never been common and the type of area it ives in will always have large territories so low populations, but it numbers are still rising in UK and it is not threatened in any country

Whereas u have handfuls of red and amber listed birds all thriving on moors, the only place there now thriving, in other places they have declined by 70-80 odd %.

If driven shooting was banned all these red and amber listed species would be in an even worse place and HH wouldn't thrive either as no food for them and too many predators.

 

HH's actually need keepering to survive, by the time there chicks are ready to fledge there nest will resemble a keepers midden (piles of dead animals) to attract foxes/stoats/badgers

Edited August 16, 2016 by scotslad

[scolopax]

Thanks for your reply,

 

the whole problem about Langholm was that it left us with very little defence with regards the Hen harrier and the persecution question.

 

Our opponents say 25 pairs..fantastic.....but why was there not the same number before ? and why did they build up so quickly if they were not being killed beforehand. And like wise, why are there not the same kind of numbers on similar habitat, ie grouse moors, when Langholm showed just how quickly Hen Harriers numbers built up on keepered ground??

[Scully]

Is it just me, or has anybody else spotted the huge mistake that Mr Packham and Dr Avery have made? Their petition is not to ban grouse shooting, it is to ban Driven grouse shooting,if it ever did get banned the moor could revert to a walked up grouse shooting moor or a grouse shooting over pointers moor,these lesser known sports would still be totally legal,and the loop holes would be endless.

 

Andy

It wasn't a mistake, or overlooked. Avery has often stated it isn't his intention to ban walked up grouse, just driven grouse.

[scotslad]

I think langholm is a strange 1 and does beg a few of the questions u asked. I don't think its just as simple as that, but to be honest it does look that way from surface

But for some reason it does seem to attract and hold quite a high population of them.

 

As an aside some of the langholm folk (keepers and researchers) have came down to our wildlife trusts evening talks a couple of times now, pretty good intresting talks even for the non shooters.

I tried to organise a club outing which they sometimes have up to langholm but no one was interested as the HH weren't 'sky dancing' and no one was intrested in seeing any off the other birds or any of the other habitat work they have done.

And thats from committee members and folk with a genuine interest and knowledege of wildlife so wot chance do we have with the rest of the population.

Sad fact many are not interrested in the LBJ's or other once common birds

[Scully]

Must admit for a shooting forum the lack of support for grouse shooting is quite shocking.

I could never afford to buy a day on the driven grouse but it is shooting in its purest and most defendable form. So you've said before, but from a moral point of view, they are still being killed for fun, or as Avery put it 'It's a hobby'.

They can only shoot the harvestable surplus each year no matter how many days are booked, and they cannot feed them or anything else all they can do is manage there habitat and predators which in turn helps s many other species.

U can add al the other benfits in like stopping wild fires, keeping heather young and more beetle resistant, carbon storage etc

 

No other form of shooting is so environmentally friendly or sustainable and helps the ecosystem so much

 

I've always wondered why grouse installs this hatred amoungst the anti's as it is the most morally defendable type of shooting there is, 100% sustainable with heaps of scientific studies showing the many wider landscape and environmental benefits, even worldwide benefits if u believe all this carbon storeage stuff. You answer this question yourself further down, and the part about a carbon footprint depends on who you talk to; both Packham and Avery claim it is the heather burning which adds to carbon emissions.

 

I think the reason is it is so easy to label it a bunch of toff and elitieist, and stoke up the class war or jealousy, even in shooters it seems many would believe anything written on the net by any random person if it's against grouse shooting. s proved by that hoax post from a fishing forum

There you go. The reason it is perceived as elitist for a bunch of toffs is quite possibly because you're average working man can't afford to participate. When was the last time you saw an obviously comprehensive school educated bloke being interviewed about grouse shooting? You and me may both know it isn't always the case, but the image is there and it's consistently there.

 

U even have some hear now claiming the grouse owners should fight the pr battle themselves, (so much for a untied front) so if there ever is any more restrictions put on wildfowling will we just leave it for the fowlers to sort out?? This is a PR fight the grouse moor owners ARE going to have to fund if they want to continue. I don't mind chipping in even though I have never shot grouse, but I don't have the money to front the sort of PR campaign that is needed, and I doubt anyone on this forum has.

The vast majority of British shooters have never cared two jots about a united front, and the wildfowler's had their own organisation which turned into BASC, and from there split many other factions into going their own way due to a lack of representation. Where was the united front' then? It doesn't exist unfortunately, but I have to ask, why on earth should some bloke on 350 quid a week feel obliged to give financial support to someone who can afford a grouse moor?

To be quite honest they'd be better off breaking from us and fighting there own battle, What happened to the united front you were so keen on? They can't break from us because we aren't joined. but as i've said they already have the high moral ground compared to every other type of shooting.No, they don't have the moral high ground at all. You can dress it up anyway you like; they are killing for no other reason than enjoyment.

I'm all for grouse shooting believe me, but it is attitudes such as yours which makes me wonder that maybe you deserve all you get.

 

Say worst case scenerio and driven grouse shooting is banned. Next would be all driven shooting It would certainly be on the agenda, yes.

How can u argue any positives for driven pheasant or partridge shooting, releasing thousands off non native birds released to be shot? Driven pheasant shooting attracts just as much criticism and outrage as does grouse shooting ( do you never have a look at the websites of those who oppose us?) and the same thing which keeps driven grouse shooting alive is the same which keeps driven pheasant shooting alive.....money. Both attract huge amounts of revenue for local economies in very similar ways, and both species are nurtured for one reason and one reason only.

Even as a shooter i find it hard sometimes to morally defend it, esp on commercial levels.​ I don't feel I have to defend it; why should i? You will never defend your own sport by criticising that of others.....no wonder we don't have a 'united front'. But that is completely hypocritical as u either release birds to shoot or u don't the number should be immaterial.

The antis don't care shoting 1 bird is too many for them but they start with the easy target the toffs and yuppies You are contradicting yourself here; as it would appear earlier in this post you were critical of labelling grouse shooters as 'toffs' and 'elitist', yet you've just declared the 'toffs and yuppies' involved in grouse shooting as 'easy targets'. If they are easy targets it's because they have allowed themselves to become so. and work there way down to normal working men when everything else is banned

 

The simple fact wether a moor is shooting 10 brace a day or 1000 brace it is still 100% sustainable, no keeper will shoot the last pair of grouse, makes no sense. And the difference between a 10 brace or 1000 brace is a massive ammount of habitat/conservation work.

 

I doubt anyone on here will shoot a truely sustainable bird/animal (pest control or stalking being the exceptions) for sport, no matter how big or small ur days are ur relying on birds being released by someone/somewhere or birds migrating in from elsewhere

 

 

 

As for the HH, they've never really historically bred in England ever anyway, so having no nests is not a new thing, (load of info on Moorland assoc) it listed last 5 years nesting succes last year 6 succesful nests for 18 chicks fledged (2014, 4 for 16; 0 for 0; 1 for 4; 4 for 12 and 6 for 18 in 2010) so does vary quite a bit.

I'm sure from memory there were 17 nest attempts last year most abandoned or predated (quite a few potentially disturbed by offical observers, althou they will never admit it) but all 6 successful ones were on grouse moors. Pretty sure alister mitchel had an article on it in shooting times moaning about this over observing nests and how close they are. If a keeper set up a tent withing 30m's of a nest he would be done, but ok for them.

 

So it would not be a complete surprise if no succesful nests in eng this year, by all accounts a poor vole year and this poor weather also may not have helped.

Also a lot of HH don't always return from there migration either, so not just a UK problem

 

But the thing is HH are not thriving on unkeepered moors or nature resrve moors so there is absolutely no science or even atendotal evidence to back up there claims, if it was purely down to keepering/persecution then u should see hotspots away from keepered moors which is not the case. Geltsdale should be moving with them if thst was the case

[Scully]

Scully

 

You may also wish to point out and question why has the RSPB walked away from the DEFRA Hen Harrier joint action plan having pushed so hard for government action.

 

I had already done so CT, asking exactly that and stating that I thought they would have had better effect fighting their corner from within, and that their attitude smacked of a childish sulk. I received this earlier today:

Hello Scully

Thank you for your email. Rather than a childish sulk as you put it, please note that this decision was not taken lightly and we decided to withdraw from this project for a number of practical reasons.We tried very hard with this project, but after only a few breeding pairs emerged, it was clear that the (sic) was not going to 100% succeed. Asa result of this we are now keen to set out a positive and progressive case for grouse shoot licensing. Driven grouse shooting must change if it can have a future.

Kind regards

Claire Thomas

It then links to a blog regarding their decision.

[ShootingEgg]

Scully, do they say how it should change to have a future?

[Scully]

Scully, do they say how it should change to have a future?

 

There may be an answer on their blog.

I wrote to M&S on Monday also and asked why they weren't stocking grouse this season. I haven't yet received a reply other than an automated acknowledgement that they have received my email.

Edited August 16, 2016 by Scully

[ben0850]

Have to say there are some very well informed, factual and rational posts on this subject so far. It's a pleasure to read a decent discussion, playing devils advocate I would suggest we need as a community to take the initiative away from Avery etc.

In an ideal world one of the more wealthy moor owners (eg Gunnerside estate) should actively set up a HH programme (blow the cost) and take the wind out of the antis sails..