The Government responds to Wild Justice's petition to ban grouse shooting

On 16 January the Government published its response to the petition to ban grouse shooting, launched by Wild Justice on 22 November, on reaching 10,000 signatures. In that response the Government has said that it has no plans to ban driven grouse shooting, and that it ‘recognises well-managed grouse shooting can be an important part of a local rural economy, providing direct and indirect employment.’ It also considers well-managed shooting activities to be ‘beneficial for wildlife and habitat conservation’, and that upland areas in which grouse shooting takes place ‘are important for a range of things including food, fibre, water regulation, carbon storage, biodiversity and recreational opportunities.’ The Government has confirmed that work will continue ‘to ensure a sustainable, mutually beneficial relationship between shooting and conservation’.

This response from the Government is welcomed, as it shows that unlike Wild Justice, it has clearly taken note of the considerable amount of available evidence and science on grouse shooting, almost all of which is supportive of the practice and its enormous environmental, economic and social benefits. Benefits of which Wild Justice are either ignorant or blatantly choose to ignore. Instead Dr Ruth Tingay, one of Wild Justice’s directors, has criticised the government’s lack of bias, described the response as ‘inadequate’, and sank so low as to say it was ‘p**s-p**r’, adding that it would merely strengthen their resolve to reach 100,000 signatures and ‘force a debate at Westminster Hall’. She would appear to be unaware that after 100,000 signatures, petitions are considered for debate in parliament, but there is no guarantee that one will take place.

But if there is to be debate, the Countryside Alliance will be briefing political stakeholders with all the available science and evidence beforehand, taking advantage of the opportunity to reinforce the case for grouse shooting with all its associated benefits – just as we did for the previous debate in Westminster held in June 2021. On that occasion it was clearly shown there was no evidence to substantiate the sweeping claims that were being made by Wild Justice in their attempt to drive forward their anti-shooting agenda, and since then the evidence in support of grouse shooting and its associated integrated moorland management has only increased further.