The following article was published today in the Wharfedale Observer:
Call for robust action to protect grouse on Ilkley Moor
by Annette McIntyre (reporter)
BRADFORD Council is planning “robust” action after reports of grouse being driven from Ilkley Moor to be shot.
Grouse shooting was banned on the moor at the start of 2018 when the council refused to renew a lease – but there are fears that birds are being deliberately driven onto private land to be killed.
Now Bradford is looking at taking tougher action after an allegation of an incident in October – and the Friends of Ilkley Moor are urging the public to report any attempts to get round the ban.
A Bradford Council spokesperson, said: “This is the second time we have received a report of grouse being driven from our land onto private land to be shot and we are extremely disappointed this has happened again.
The Bingley Moor Estate’s rights to drive and shoot grouse on Ilkley Moor expired in 2018, and last time this occurred we issued them with a legal warning.
Our staff have been trying to maintain good relations with the people from the Estate, but we are now seeking legal advice with a view to taking more robust action.”
The friends group issued a statement saying: “The Friends of Ilkley Moor are extremely concerned at what appears to be a concerted effort to get around the ban on shooting on Ilkley Moor. We call on the Council to take robust legal action. We urge any member of the public witnessing what appears to be a drive, to drive birds off Ilkley Moor, to take photographs and report the matter to ourselves and to Bradford Countryside Service“.
An alleged incident on October 18 was reported by an Ilkley woman, who does not want to be named.
She said: “I was walking with my dog in an area of moorland west and uphill from Silverwell cottage when I noticed a group of at least eight people walking in a line from Addingham Moorside towards Keighley Road. As they approached Keighley Road, they changed direction and started walking in formation towards Addingham Moorside.
It was an organised group, several (perhaps all) of the group were carrying walkie talkies which were in operation at the time. They were also carrying flags and had a number of dogs with them. I clearly saw ground birds being ‘lifted’ as they walked the area.
Gun shots could be heard, but I did not see the guns being fired. I assume the birds were being led to the area where shooting was taking place.
I stopped to take some photos, as I was surprised and unnerved to see beaters operating on Ilkley Moor, where grouse shooting is banned.
Once back at Keighley Road, I saw nine 4×4 type vehicles parked. This was above the parking area next to the driveway of Silverwell Cottage, above the sign stating not suitable for vehicles.”
Bingley Moor Partnership spokesman Edward Bromet said: “I do not deny we were there however Ilkley Moor is open access land for any member of the public including ourselves under CROW ( Countryside and Rights of Way) Act 2000 and since the ending of the lease by Bradford MDC we have to exercise this right to walk across it to reach Addingham Moor which we (the Bingley Moor Partnership) continue to manage.
There is no prescription in the CROW Act as to whether a group of people have to walk in a group or in a line or three or four at a time etc. It is a general right to roam, which Bradford MDC are happy to see exercised on Ilkley Moor but it inevitably disturbs wild ground nesting birds including red grouse which are native to the moorland. Where that bird then chooses to fly is of course at its discretion.
I confirm no shooting took place on Ilkley Moor. We parked beside the public highway in a car park, the same as many other visitors to Ilkley Moor do on a daily basis. We do not see we should be criticised for exercising rights available to the general public.
In the meantime, BMDC continue to use public funds to try and manage Ilkley Moor without any skills or machinery when they are unable to provide vital social services in central Bradford and elsewhere.”
Raptor Persecution UK 
These people really do seem to think that laws are for other people.
Witnessed by a friend of mine on 2 occasions, 10 plus people with dogs in a line flushing grouse that were driven from the moor to guns the other side of a wall off the moor. Reported to Airedale Moorland Monitors
does CROW apply if its conected to a business or carrying out an operation/survey where there is intent? thought it only applies if folk are genuinely wandering rather than going with the intent (in this case to drive grouse by sound of it). appears to be another example of how some xxxxx xxxxx xxxxxx think they are above the law
Schedule 2 of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 provides that a person is not entitled to be on land under the open access provisions of the act if, in or on that land, he—
“engages in any operations of or connected with hunting, shooting, fishing, trapping, snaring, taking or destroying of animals, birds or fish or has with him any engine, instrument or apparatus used for hunting, shooting, fishing, trapping, snaring, taking or destroying animals, birds or fish,”
The intention of the law seems quite clear, and the [Ed: alleged] actions of the individuals witnessed on Ilkley Moor were quite clearly connected with hunting or shooting.
Book ’em Danno….
On CROW Act land you cannot “disturb livestock, wildlife or habitats with intent”, which is xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx. Although I’m equally sure that they would deny intent.
I’d say the use of walkie talkies and flags as well as the witnessed actions of the walkers and their dogs suggests intent and is equipment associated with shooting.
There are, of course, stone tracks for members of the public to follow on Ilkley Moor. You’d think these ‘conservationists’ and lovers of grouse wouldn’t want to go wandering around the very habitats where their favourite birds nest and rear young. They could keep them safe from the dogs simply by following the tracks like most responsible people.
I sure hope that not only are there photos but also video footage.
It occurs to me that shooters don’t have birds driven towards them when the sun is shining towards the shooters as, obviously, they want to take aim at the birds and don’t want to risk looking into the sun.
Also, birds tend to fly in the direction of the wind or cross wind when frightened in order to prevent their scent being blown back towards the predator. Consequently, drives tend to be down wind or cross wind.
With the wind and sun directions in mind, it would be interesting to know what time and from what direction the walkers started and ended their walk across the moors. Were the walkers heading down wind in the direction the birds were flying and towards or at an angle slightly away from the sun so the birds were flying roughly towards the sun?
It might help with any issue regarding intent.
Edward Bromet’s words show once again what an [Ed:rest of comment deleted as libellous]
A few Points:
whatever happened to ‘Stay on the Footpath to avoid disturbance to ground nesting birds’ a sign prevalent every 20 or so yards on most active grouse moors. Does this mean we can allow our dogs to run free over the heather without being reprimanded by a gamekeeper
Surely without the guardians of the countryside Ilkley Moor would be a dessert now where nothing lives?
I’m sure that if you were walking across a moor, in line waving flags, it could be proven that you had intent to disturb wildlife.
One of the senior people in the Bingley shoot is I believe Edward Bromet a past chairman of the Moorland Association. If these allegations are true he for one really ought to know better. I hope Bradford Council get good legal advice and are able to take the necessary action to prevent this happening again without a costly injunction.
Being good neighbours of course is supposed to work both ways. I can remember a case elsewhere where several armed keepers trespassed and despite being caught at a buzzard nest which subsequently failed no further action was taken in order to keep ” good relations” with the neighbours. Surely if relationships were supposedly good these trespassing actions would not have happened in the first place.
I’m sure WJ will know of a decent legal team prepared to look at the case for the council!
Off piste, do RPUK know why the comments are still on BST?
Does not the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 apply? https://www.rspb.org.uk/birds-and-wildlife/advice/wildlife-and-the-law/wildlife-and-countryside-act/
Is this the same Edward Bromet?
Solicitors Regulation Authority
30 July ·
‘closed down Edward Anthony Bromet – 24236 to protect clients’ interests. This individual can no longer act for clients. For information on retrieving your documents, papers or money visit our website for help.
http://ow.ly/TFS650vgoPS‘
I get a ‘Page not found’, ‘404 error’ from your linky.
Try this:
https://www.sra.org.uk/consumers/solicitor-check/024236/
“There is reason to suspect dishonesty on the part of Mr Bromet in connection with his practice as a solicitor”
People who do not live in the area perhaps do not know that the council-owned “Ilkley Moor” is only about a quarter of Rombalds Moor, and shooting continues on the rest. Most of the shooting butts are on the privately owned land, because only a small part of the high moor is owned by the Council (most of the public land is the slope down towards Ilkley). Unless you know where the boundary is, you would have no idea whether you were on the public or private land, and obviously the grouse and their predators don’t know the difference.
For this reason I think the Ilkley Moor shooting ban is of more symbolic than practical value. And the astonishingly brazen response from the shooters above, openly admitting that they are beating the grouse from the public land towards guns on the private land, and we can’t stop them, confirms this view. Unfortunately I fear that only a ban on driven shooting on the whole of Rombalds moor will be effective in protecting grouse and predators.
At least the council ban will hopefully allow the vegetation and peat on the public land to recover, and the absent birds and animals which depend on these will return. However there are still non-native sheep on this land, which are incredibly effective at preventing the natural regeneration of trees and shrubs.
Whilst the [Ed: alleged] actions must be deplored, I welcome the arrogant attitude displayed by Mr Bromet since it will further damage the image of driven grouse shooting amongst the wider public. He is evidently blissfully unaware how the wider public will regard his comments.
Not everyone cares about the issue of DGS but nobody likes a bad neighbour still less one who [Ed: rest of comment deleted as potentially libellous]
Ironic, isn’t it, that a clause put into CROW to protect landowner’s shooting is likely to be used against the estate.
I wonder if Edward Bromet is opposed to the public money being given to shooting estates for the supposed environmental work they undertake at a time of austerity.
I suspect that local tourism businesses appreciate the money Bradford Council spends on maintaining the moors around the Cow and Calf landscape spectacle.
I support spending public money on genuine environmental projects and schemes to mitigate climate change.
Pleased to see that this is the most read article in the Wharfedale Observer.