(Proviso: this was written in haste and with passion... and thus without the diligence and due care of my normal post proofreading... let alone a scientific paper! I'll edit it up as I go along, but I promise to retain its primary 'essence' and honesty, for good or ill, at the core.)
I have been driven (as it were) with a desire (or rather, frustration) to post a quick blog entry elucidating my immediate thoughts with respect to the Westminster hearing that took place yesterday on Dr Mark Avery's (and 123,075 co-signers'!) petition to
ban Driven Grouse Shooting (DGS) ...as well as a more
recent counter-petition set up by the pro-shooting lobby.
Before I do though, I think it is only right to suggest that you watch the
recording in full first and perhaps also consider analysing the
additional supporting documents before you make any conclusions of your own. A conclusion that might decide whether I am making any valid points here... but, most importantly, should also define whether you believe there was a winning side in this first (shorter) half of the action... or not.
By the way, for a good while now I have wanted to write a nice, detailed, post on the case for banning DGS (which is not the same as walked-up shooting by the way), but of course, I won't be able to do any better than the 320 or so pages of Dr Avery's book,
Inglorious, which I implore anyone interested in UK conservation and (future) countryside planning to read, regardless of initial viewpoints. I also don't want to waste space writing about it in full for
this 'meeting reaction' blog post.
What I
will point out, in the interests of clarity, is that, of course, in order for there to be debate, there has to be opposition. Therefore, the position on DGS made by the
Countryside Alliance (CA),
Moorland Association (MA),
Game & Wildlife Conservation Trust (GWCT) and
British Association for Shooting Conservation (BASC) is somewhat different from Dr Avery's, and we must also factor in that of the
Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB), who (currently) take a position, arguably, of somewhere in between.
As Dr Avery has so often put it himself: you have to choose!
So, what happened yesterday?
Trying to be as succinct as possible, what happened was that Dr Avery formally presented his petition and argument (being the main name behind the petition to ban DGS) to a "party neutral" panel of MPs alongside that of Jeff Knot of the RSPB, who's organisation did not support the petition, but certainly shares some of its core concerns, namely raptor persecution, habitat degradation and flood risk.
Whereas, in full opposition, Liam Stokes of the CA and Amanda Andersen of the MA, put their case for retaining the DGS industry and protecting grouse moors and grouse shooting.
And... that's it really. This was merely a preliminary set of Q&As to the full debate, so there was no cross examination or chances for come backs. Mark and Jeff went first and Liam and Amanda went second. And that was that.
No-score draw
So, my initial thoughts were that both sides did well. At least, in the eyes of those present on the panel. I think that Mark and Jeff put their cases well, but that their 'united front' approach may have confused those MPs present as to who wanted what, and whether there was consensus on the core issues*. It may have sounded good on paper, but I feel their honest and open approach was slightly undermined by a feeling that they weren't always singing from the same hymn sheet and thus were easier to divide and conquer by the panel's subsequent questions.
Jeff made it clear the RSPB (still) favours a licencing scheme as the next attempt to address the outstanding issues, and whilst Mark admitted it would be good to have, as would having a vicarious liability law in England, it would ultimately fail because the DGS industry cannot be trusted to comply. (Don't quote me that those were his words verbatim by the way, as they were not.)
Liam and Amanda, on the other hand, seemed more content with deferring to each other's 'expertise' and using a joint-argument that banning 'their' industry would result in the loss of jobs and 'biodiversity' on Britain's upland communities. And neither wanted any changes in existing laws either. In other words, their hymn sheet was pretty much the same... almost word-for-word.
Frustration...
So, again, I won't dip too much into what was said across the two hours or so as you can all review it for yourselves. I will admit that some of Amanda's words riled me into firing off (as it were) a few angry real-time tweets as I watched, but I did try and stay calm and objective overall none-the-less.
What I will say is that I thought the MPs' panel exposed a clear bias of, admittedly openly declared, existing interests, and that the questions were all pretty standardised and without a consideration for joined-up thinking or strategy. But then again, perhaps that is all MPs are allowed to do...or capable of... or simply want to do.
Yes, I think
Angela Smith asked the best questions, and yes, no doubt the pro-shooting lobby thought
Simon Hart and
Chris Davies picked the necessary holes in the various arguments and reasons put forward for banning DGS... but what I would have really liked to see was some passion from some (inner) city MPs, asking questions without the aforementioned interests... just to see what they would ask and how they would react. But
maybe we yet will...
Joined-up thinking
The presentation by Mark and Jeff, if one could argue at all that it got clogged up, was a little stalled by the claims of 'Science'. Whilst the evidence is there that
flooding, just for example, is exacerbated by DGS land management (and it was highlighted), there was just as much chatter (and agreement) around it about where scientists and their reports oft contradict each other... and whether more work was needed to highlight what is going on on a wider scale. Considering the rather linear (as opposed to holistic) thinking of the average MP, that kind of talk and peripheral uncertainty didn't help I think.
After all, there is good science and bad science.... and I find
opinion pieces like this, pardoning the pun, just muddy the waters.
I think it would have been nice, for example, for a short, even prepared, summary to be allowed to be read out at the end of each presentation. But perhaps that
can happen for the longer, Round No. 2?
But what I thought didn't come out well
at all was a consideration about how this all ties in with a Post-Brexit Future Britain, and what will happen when the
CAP ends, and how UK taxpayers will react to the general needs of farming across the UK... in the short term, mid-term and long term.
Amanda Andersen tried to paint a picture of how upland communities are fragile and that losing DGS will mean an end to traditions and the qualified people who help maintain the land, and Liam Stokes seemed obsessed with asking what the true alternatives there were to replacing what 'good' DGS currently provides.**
And, in all honesty, I think these are good points to make, and they were well made.
But I would also counter by saying that they are easy points to make.
And what I would also like to add is that we have to start thinking about the bigger picture
one day. Farming as a whole only employs about 2% or so of the nation's workforce, and DGS is hardly a speck on that statistic, no matter how wide you cast the net of influence. So, with respect to just aiming at banning DGS initially, we mustn't mix up the needs - and problems - of, say, upland sheep farming, or start plucking the heartstrings by suggesting communities would be broken by losing DGS... if, as by the CA's own admission (when it suits them), these communities are
already broken. You can't have it both ways, surely?
But it does make sense to me to at least have a quick, and FAR wider, look at the picture (and possible future) beyond DGS, and to, just out of interest, consider what getting rid of all UK bloodsports AND even the
meat-for-food industry as a whole, could actually result in. Getting rid of the sheep industry... and
cattle farming... and so on as we approach a future where we can no longer rely on meat to provide for our growing populations seems inevitable in my mind. None of the aforementioned parties are looking at this right now... and why would they: it doesn't affect what they currently stand for. The MA wants to protect heather-dominant moorland, the CA wants to protect current and historic 'country' interests (not undermine them), and Mark wants to focus on ridding the country of a specific form of hunting in order to give the #BanGS3 campaign focus. Talking about banning the meat industry in the context of the proposal to ban DGS would be
debate suicide. Only the Green Party seems to have the (meat-free) guts to hint at such issues in their
policy portfolios; the rest of us seem to have our heads stuck in the bog.
In a way then, it's just the RSPB who are knocking on this door out of the main protagonists highlighted at the beginning of this post. Whilst they want to give 'Nature a Voice', they are actively looking into how to do this
without undermining our farming and food production needs.
Am I going too far talking about a meat-free future? For this post... perhaps, it's way off-track from the task at hand. And it's not as if Dr Avery is not blogging about it. But what I would say is that you should try replacing DGS with fox hunting... or badger baiting in this debate, and then ask yourself the same questions about whether you (would then) want to ban it. Would you ban badger baiting if it still employed lots of people and maintained well-established traditions and a unique type of land management?
Pro-shooters would no doubt immediately argue that badger baiting, or even fox hunting, are not the same thing here as grouse are eaten... and looking after the wild Red Grouse habitat is necessary because it is a meat (food) industry. Well, perhaps... but I ask you, without bias, how many of you
ever see grouse in your local shops, let alone then buy it and eat it? It is not a (food) industry that, if lost, would affect many people. As a sport and country pursuit? Maybe... so let's just admit that!
In my eyes, the
75% or so of the World's Upland Heather Moorland that we have in the UK (that the CA and MA continually love to highlight)
is too much, Yes, it is a lovely-looking landscape and of value to (some) eyes and (some... not much) wildlife, but I say we could do with getting rid of a good deal of it.
Simply put, I believe we need more native forestry in this country. And I think our uplands - including sheep pasture AND heather moorland are good places to put it, rather in our lowlands, where farming of a more practical nature takes place. To summarise (simply, in a rather
Leadsom-like fashion), let's use the flat lands for crops, and the sloped lands for trees!
Getting rid of DGS will help birds of prey, mountain hares, reptiles, water quality, the climate... and will also put a well overdue debate over land ownership on the agenda, but it WILL undoubtedly also get rid of (some) jobs. And Governments don't like getting rid of jobs as a general rule... but it's not as if they haven't done this kind of thing before.
A small ray of light in all the uncertainty is that, unlike in abandoned coal mines, the 'new', DGS-free UK uplands will surely present some new, eco-oriented, employment opportunities if the Government plans ahead and applies strategy.
And there we have it then... as I said... if the Government
plans ahead and strategises.
I don't think they ever will... even though, in a way, Brexit (for good or ill) provides an opportunity. The rule book has been torn up after all... so let's start again and prove all those Remainers (like me) wrong!
Back to the meeting please, John!
Yes, sorry... I guess what I am drifting about trying to say is: for all that a Westminster debate brings, talk is cheap. Hen Harriers need help now for example... and, with the greatest respect to intelligent and well spoken people like Jeff Knott, and even Liam Stokes, they are young and perhaps don't yet feel the long-term frustration that someone like Dr Avery must feel.
They see solutions to be found in discourse and compromise; but I don't... at least, not in this case. If anything, it's the failure of already decades-long talk and debate that makes me lean to a total ban... and whilst the call to ban DGS has triggered all sorts of other interesting (and arguably more important) things to debate beyond just the fate of some,
albeit rather special and beautiful, birds of prey,
let's not forget: wildlife crime triggered all this in the first place... and the wildlife crime will go on if we stick with the status quo.
Must Hen Harriers go extinct in England
first before we then acknowledge the fault(s) and resort to considering re-introduction? Why must we always accidentally tread in the smelly stuff first before deciding our shoes were overdue a good clean anyway? (And all the other fun analogies!)
What next then?
Well, the full debate takes place at
4.30pm on October the 31st
. Let's perhaps ignore all what I've written above and reserve full judgement until the main course is served.
I will no doubt post a reaction on here to that too, so watch this space! Or... let's
watch it together first. I promise not to talk over the action and say the film isn't as good
as the book!
ZeeOx
* Which there no doubt is by the way!
** I'm guessing he was very much of the 'few bad apples' brigade.
P.S. I'll tidy this all up later and add some meta tags... I've got a working day to put up with first!
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/sep/07/mps-to-debate-ban-on-grouse-shooting
