Tim Bonner: RSPB moves against shooting

At its AGM last October, the RSPB's Chairman, Kevin Cox, announced that it was going to review its policy on gamebird shooting and associated land management. This was no great surprise since there has already been a clear, progressive change in policy against shooting within the RSPB in recent years and the organisation has become increasingly obsessed with the issue.

What was also predictable was that Mr Cox justified the announcement on the basis of "growing public concern, including from our membership". Here he is on distinctly shaky ground because there is no evidence of any growing public concern about game shooting in the public domain. In fact, the evidence - based on economic studies and demand for game shooting - is that far from being concerned about game shooting, more members of the public want to do it. Meanwhile, our polling has consistently suggested that issues like hunting and shooting remain subjects of utter irrelevance to the vast majority of the British public.

As for RSPB members, I would suggest that it is more likely that Mr Cox is referring to an increased level of pressure from activists within his membership than real "concern" amongst RSPB members as a whole. We know, for instance, that emails from a few hundred activists amongst its 1.1 million members reversed the RSPB's trustee's approach to the carefully negotiated Hen Harrier Joint Recovery Plan in 2016. There is undoubtedly a concerted campaign by a few RSPB members, led by Mark Avery, its former Director of Conservation, to turn the RSPB into an anti-shooting organisation. Undoubtedly, there are also some of Mr Avery's ex-colleagues who would welcome such a move too, but neither of those facts constitutes evidence of growing public concern.

As part of the review, the RSPB has "consulted" on its draft conservation principles for gamebird shooting and associated land management. The consultation document is lengthy and attempts to give a pseudo-scientific veneer to the process, which is rather spoilt by inaccuracy and some strange references. You will be pleased that the RSPB has classified woodcock as "ground game" which will at least make them easier to hit. It may also be of interest to our friends across Europe that driven game shooting is apparently "unique to the UK".

The consultation has just closed and the Alliance, along with eight other leading organisations with an interest in game shooting has submitted a joint response based on the Game and Wildlife Conservation Trust's (GWCT) principles for game management. The GWCT's approach - unlike the RSPB's - is based on accepted international principles that are compatible with the objectives of the major environmental treaties. These encourage the maximum environmental, social and economic benefits arising from sustainable game management in contrast to the RSPB, which is essentially trying to create a structure to restrict shooting.

Of course, game management should, and does, deliver a net biodiversity gain, but it also plays a key part in sustaining the rural economy and social fragmentation in some of the most marginal areas of the British countryside. A refusal to even consider the human, as well as the environmental, benefits of shooting does the RSPB no credit and reveals its underlying motivation. Shooting is making unprecedented strides in addressing the long-term sustainability of game management and its contribution to the countryside. From illegal raptor killing, to the phasing out of lead ammunition, to credible self-regulation, the shooting community is moving forward together with an agenda that will benefit shooting and the countryside as a whole.

It is worth remembering that all the RSPB reserves in total represent a small fraction of the land managed for shooting in the UK. This should represent an opportunity for the RSPB to work with the shooting community on our many areas of mutual agreement. Public opinion research shows people are concerned with environmental issues like pollution, climate change and biodiversity loss and together, we could address those concerns. It is a great shame that, at the moment, it seems that the RSPB would rather pursue the narrow agenda of anti-shooting activists than work with us to tackle these real public concerns.