The petition by Wild Justice to ban grouse shooting, which was launched on Friday 22 November, is just the latest in a number of such petitions over many years. It was eight years ago that Mark Avery launched his first petition to ban driven grouse shooting, and it was one that was promoted by Chris Packham. It resulted in a debate being held in Parliament in October 2016. The debate was preceded by a joint evidence session held by the Petitions Committee and the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee during which it was only too apparent that the available evidence did not support the deliberately misleading attacks being made on grouse shooting by Packham and Avery. The debate ended up being a clear rebuttal of their anti-shooting propaganda, thanks in no small part to the efforts of the Countryside Alliance who had provided comprehensive briefings ahead of both the evidence session and the debate itself.
Undeterred, and just three months after its formation by Chis Packham, Mark Avery and Ruth Tingay in February 2019, Wild Justice launched another petition to ban driven grouse shooting, again deliberately choosing to ignore both the previous evidence and that which had since become available and which further strengthened the case for grouse shooting and its considerable environmental, economic and social benefits. This resulted in yet another debate in Westminster in June 2021, providing a further opportunity to reinforce the case for grouse shooting. In the debate’s closing statement, it was pointed out to the petitioners that there was clearly ‘not support in this House for the petition. In fact, there is probably less support than there was four years ago’ when the previous petition had been debated. As had been the case then, the debate showed that there was no evidence to substantiate the sweeping allegations being made against grouse shooting. On the contrary evidence in support of grouse shooting had only increased during the intervening years. It was therefore ironic that Wild Justice should at the time accuse the Government of a ‘depth of ignorance and wilful blindness’ when it came to grouse shooting, as it was Wild Justice and not the Government that was guilty of that.
Now, just over three years later, Wild Justice has launched its latest petition to ban grouse shooting. What is extraordinary is that the wording of the introductory paragraph to this petition is identical to that of the 2019 petition; a petition that failed on all counts. Wild Justice continues to claim that grouse shooting is bad for people, the environment and wildlife, when all the evidence is to the contrary. They also still maintain that grouse shooting is economically insignificant when contrasted with other real and potential uses of the UK’s extensive uplands.
A report into the sustainability of driven grouse shooting published in August 2021 by the University of Northampton took the environmental, social and economic dimensions at the core of mainstream sustainability identified by the International Union for the Conservation of Nature and considered each one in detail. This was important as anyone making decisions about the use of moorland on which driven grouse shooting takes place needs to ensure that any change is at least as beneficial to all three dimensions as the status quo.
Studying all available evidence, the authors of the report completely rejected allegations that grouse shooting is bad for people and the environment, and that it is economically insignificant. Indeed, the report found that: no alternative uses had been put forward for managing grouse moors that would deliver the same positive economic impact to some of our the most remote regions; and there was no evidence that the alternative uses for moorland commonly proposed would increase natural capital or add value to the ecosystems services provided. If people – both the public and governments – continue to value heather moorland landscapes, then they will need to be maintained. The current model of integrated moorland management is a sustainable approach to maintaining this unique habitat, and there was no evidence that other management regimes can deliver the same result.
Driven Grouse Shooting is a topic that often inspires debate, but all too often it is debate that is driven more by emotion than facts or science. In calling for a ban on driven grouse shooting, Wild Justice is once again ignoring the science and evidence, and totally disregarding the impact such a fundamental change in land use would have both on biodiversity in our uplands and the livelihoods of many, all in pursuit of their anti-shooting agenda. As we did ahead of the two previous debates, the Countryside Alliance will be briefing political stakeholders with the science and evidence prior to any debate that might follow.