Further to the recent news (here) that water utility company United Utilities has decided not to renew any more grouse-shooting leases on its land in northern England, the Countryside Alliance has responded with predictable fury.
The Telegraph published an appallingly unbalanced pro-grouse shooting article last night (see here) with extensive quotes from Tim Bonner, chief executive of the Countryside Alliance.
In this Telegraph puff piece for the grouse-shooting industry, Bonner is quoted as follows:
“United Utilities seem to be panicking about its recent appalling media coverage over their pollution of our waterways.
“The suggestion that it is banning shooting on its land has all the hallmarks of an ill thought-out distraction technique that will inevitably backfire.
“If it is true they intend not to renew the leases for shooting, it will have irreversible damaging consequences for the conservation and biodiversity of our precious uplands as well as the livelihoods of rural people.
“Additionally, it will create a new problem for United Utilities which should expect to find all its operations significantly more difficult, as a large part of the countryside will no longer want to cooperate with them in any way.
“It would be a stupid move for any landowner and utility provider to pick a fight with the countryside, let alone one which relies so heavily on access on to other people’s land.”
That half-veiled threat that “a large part of the countryside will no longer want to cooperate with them in any way” was put more forcibly in a tweet from the Countryside Alliance’s media account this morning, where the words “will no longer want to cooperate” were changed to, “will no longer cooperate“:
I’m not sure what he means by ‘cooperate‘ as water utility companies have statutory powers of entry on to private land, under the Water Industries Act 1991 – they don’t need a landowner’s ‘cooperation’ and United Utilities have an approved code of practice for such entry (see here) where a landowner’s rights are clearly laid out.
The Telegraph article does contain some useful information – it reports that the longest current grouse-shooting lease on UU-owned land is due to expire in 2027. At least now we have an idea when to expect grouse-shooting to end on UU-owned moorlands.
UPDATE 28th July 2023: Emails of support for United Utilities’ decision not to renew shooting leases (here)
UPDATE 30th July 2023: United Utilities stands firm & explains its decision not to renew shooting licences (here)
Raptor Persecution UK 
Do we know what has led to UU’s decision, and can someone give a brief account of what will happen in terms of water retention on moorland of it is not controlled by the grouse shooting industry?
Thank you
“controlled by the grouse shooting industry”: you mean the people that are putting in drainage systems to get rid of the water off the moors as soon as possible, causing flooding on land downhill from the moors? Perhaps you should have a chat with the residents of places downhill from those moors for your answer.
Never really happened on UU land certainly not in Bowland. It is great news confirmed by this nonsense from the Countryside Areliars, one wonders how many of them will try to take their business elsewhere, not many I suspect, given the way water is supplied. Sadly the grouse shooting on the surrounding moors of Bleasdale Estate, the Duke of Westminster’s Abbeystead Estate and the moors of the Duchy of Lancaster show no signs of following a similar path and it is these and the other private estates in Bowland that are still largely Hen Harrier and Peregrine free.
So, is it pressure from those suffering the effects of flooding that has led to UU’s decision?
Save your breath. It is quite obvious that Bonner is right and UU are seeking environmental brownie points to offset their current problems. It is also quite obvious that xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx are ignorant entitled bullies with their own dirty practices which, uniquely among ‘industries’, include systemic cruelty to sentient beings . Sensible people will, for the time being, support the lesser of two weevils in this case. Isn’t that the kind of cynical arrangement that you people pride yourselves on ?
Doing the right thing for the wrong reasons still gives the right results.
Exactly what would be the benefit of supporting Bonner and friends?
It wasn’t the grouse shooting fraternity that drained the moors (gripped) . The ministry of agriculture fisheries and food (MAFFF) paid out the money to drain the moors after the second World War, to improve the grazing for increased sheep production. So that the country wouldn’t risk being starved into submission during world war 3 . (And don’t say it won’t happen) so you can probably ultimately lay the blame on Hitlers U boats for your flooding.
I understand grouse moor owners drain moors also, to dry the land out, which enables heather to increase & provide more feed for grouse. I think xxxxx grouse moors above Hebden Bridge were drained for that reason, increasing run-off & helping to flood Hebden Bridge and other downstream areas. I’m sure the same happens on other grouse moors.
Lots of the water companies own parts of the uplands because that is where much of the water falls (you only get blanket bog in areas of very high rainfall). Blanket bogs in good condition (i.e. not burnt or drained) give much cleaner water, without Dissolved Organic Carbon (the brown colour in upland streams) or Particulate Organic Carbon (sediment). UU banned burning on the moors that it owns about 10 years ago because of the impact on water quality.
“can someone give a brief account of what will happen in terms of water retention on moorland of it is not controlled by the grouse shooting industry?”
Yes. It will be greatly improved.
It’s about time that the ecological damage that is caused by the combination of the following is recognised.
a] the colossal release of imported birds for shooting,
b] the artificial maintenance of a monoculture to promote grouse populations
c] the extermination of native species deemed a “threat” to profitability
d] the harm caused by scattering of tons of toxic lead shot around the countryside.
Every environmentally aware organisation must surely stop shooting !
Grouse shooting doesn’t rely on release of imported birds, Red Grouse are unique to the UK and entirely wild if somewhat molly coddled. I do however get your point. It’ll be good to see some bog and habitat restoration on the UU estate too.
Hilarious! Talk about “picking a fight with the countryside”! As if that hasn’t been going on for hundreds of years. These people have hijacked the word “countryside” to mean only what they understand by it.
and we will also know when the Hen Harrier shooting will end(2027)
Let’s hope so, but sadly this has not been the case in several similar situations. With a vacant lease / non-shooting tenant next door, other persons with a “zero tolerance” for harriers would now lose their inhibitions about upsetting friends / breaking a ‘gentleman’s agreement’, and may be inclined to simply sneak in over the boundary “to do a job” with less people looking or caring. I’m sure the raptor monitor volunteer types won’t let their guard down though. Similarly, in the north Pennines the monitors have to maintain 24/7 vigils around Harrier nests on RSPB Geltsdale, a place many people would naturally (naively) assume ought to be as free from persecution as anywhere could ever be.
When are the right-wing press going to stop pandering to this bunch of charlatans? Even before they changed their name from the Field Sports Society you really had to take everything they said with a huge pinch of salt.
That an organisation with fewer than 100,000 members can be said to speak for a rural population of over 12.5 million, the vast majority of whom, opinion poll after opinion poll shows, are opposed to xxxxx psychotic pursuits and the crimes associated with those pursuits, just goes to show how dishonest the right-wing media is. No doubt their owners have vested interests in fox and stag hunting and shooting and they set the agenda.
Sadly the answer is that the pandering will only stop when the owners stop being very rich & influential
What is United Utilities position in all this? Has any official announcement been made? or have these shooters thrown all of their toys out of the pram in advance of any announcement on the basis of a rumour if UU are going ahead I would suggest the sooner the rewetting (blocking drainage channels) starts the better on the basis of fire prevention these hysterics from CA and such were after all predictable and there are an awful lot of people that live in the countryside that will be glad to see the back of them and xxxxx cruel practices poisons and traps.
Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android
The vast majority of people who access and enjoy the countryside are not in the CA lobby but are more supportive of the likes of RSPB and wildlife trusts. Asked if they want to see more bird species and other flora fauna on the moors as well as better environmental management I’m sure the vast majority would agree with UUs action just as they were with Bradford Council ending shooting on Ilkley Moor for example
‘The countryside’ will now prevent utilities availing themselves of their statutory rights of access?
So the shooting industry is now openly threatening to take on the law?
Good luck renewing those firearms licences, lads!
Looking like Mr Bonner could become a liability for his cause.
Has there been heather burning previously on UU’s land? Perhaps someone could answer, please?
I see above, banned about ten years ago.
Begging the rather obvious question as to why it is considered essential elsewhere!
Anything that pisses off xxxxx and the Countryside Areliars (good name for a band?) has got to be good.
I reckon, tho I have no evidence, that most of us, who live in the countryside, don’t support grouse shooting or, for that matter, pheasant shooting, which is carried out much closer to communities and is horrible to hear/see. Good news, I say. Bye bye guns
I wonder if Mr Bonner would like to explain what he means by “it would be a stupid move for any land owner and utility provider to pick a fight with the countryside”.
How is Mr Bonner defining the countryside?
I don’t think the vast majority of people would see the countryside as being defined as the vested interests of a minority who participate in grouse or commercial game bird shooting?
My suspicion is Mr Bonner is simply posturing knowing full well that United Utilities like any landowner are perfectly entitled to decide how they manage the land they own, and may well have decided that their contribution to conservation, nature recovery and the fight against global warming could be better served if shooting on their land ceased and the land was managed in another way.
Just because the shooting stops, that doesn’t mean the conservation will also stop, as the governments stewardship grants and ELMs payments should mean that money is still available to help landowners engage in environmental and nature regeneration. This might even result in a much more diverse habitat being created. Something which might help offset the current position, where too many moors are managed for shooting.
Such a move may not fit in with Mr Bonnet’s position, but it might find support from a large number of people who do live in the countryside and wish it to be better managed for all of nature, rather than just a few selected breeds of game birds.
United Utilities decision to cease shooting on their land still leave a perfectly functioning shooting industry for those other landowners who choose to manage their land in this way.
So, perhaps Mr Bonner would also like to explain why he believes a large part of countryside will no longer cooperate with United Utilities?
I am tempted to suggest Mr Bonner’s words are akin to all that smoke which goes up when the heather is burned. Something which both obscures the view and pollutes!
Oh that is funny – The Countryside Alliance complaining about what a land owner does with their land!!!
Too right!!
Very good response John. I just hope that other major landowners with a conscience follow the example set by United Utilities.
The more irritable and argumentative people like Bonner become the happier I am because we are getting there. Ilkley Moor, Denton Moor, National Trust and now Bowland.
For myself, I wonder whether the book ‘Wild Fell’ by Lee Schofield has had an effect. The book is about an RSPB reserve on UU land, and shows that side of UU’s work in a positive light.
This news can only add to that.
I believe Mr. Bonner’s comment that
” “it would be a stupid move for any land owner and utility provider to pick a fight with the countryside”.
sums up the attitude of DGM owners over the past two centuries. By that I mean they will do whatever they see as being necessary to compel country dwellers to abide by whatever decisions they might make — or else.
Hegemonic power strategies ensure that this minority group has fingers in every pie from Community Councils upwards. The Countryside Alliance has become the tail that wags the dog. Anyone who dares disagree with them risks snow not being removed from the track which leads to the public road and stacked up at the point where they join ; estate employees shining lamps through bedroom windows as they are out lamping foxes ; being regularly stopped while out walking and asking what you are doing or where you are going with no legal authority ; being assaulted ; having libellious and untrue letters posted in the local newspaper ; having a cctv camera pointed into one’s garden and much more, if the example of what happened to me is as widespread as i believe it to be.
However this is NOT the attitude of the majority of rural residents but most, in my experience, prefer to avoid being harrassed and remain silent while voice tends to be given to the more pro-grouse, unruly demographic with direct ties to shooting estates.
It can be difficult to get the police to do much about it — and the treatment protesters attending illegal foxhunts receive without police intervention will verify this — as, from my own experience, they inevitably take the side of the criminals.
Let’s hope that the behind the scenes interventions by this powerful but immoral demographic for whom fear and aggression appears central to any campaing they might wage fail in this instance. I’ve no doubt that any campaign/public demonstration they might launch will appear to be well supported and attended as most of those who are employed by them and live in a tied house, know exactly what the response will be if they do not.
Dont you love the not grouse shooting picture they are using, cos they are country through and through. As for animosity UU have right of access and I am suspicous a fair few countryside types these days, whatever they are and look like, might actually say good on em for doing this.
Tiny Tim Bonner has lost the plot. When he talks of protecting the countryside, he’s talking of protecting shooting, NOT the countryside. He must have a very low IQ.
The Countryside Alliance wants to continue with the myth that they are the guardians of the countryside. When instead they xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxxx xxxxx xxxxx. They really are digusting.
I have been shooting on UU land for over 20 years. We have now been told that our pheasant shoot will close at the end of the 2023-24 season. There was no discussion or consultation – just an email saying that our lease would not be renewed.
We don’t burn any heather and we don’t shoot any hawks, owls, buzzards or anything else that is often claimed. We shoot pheasant and pigeon only. We don’t do the environment any harm at all.
We do however spend a great deal of time improving the habitat to make it attractive for birds to live in. We also put down 6 or 7 tons of wheat and maize over the winter which is eaten by many wild birds and animals alongside the pheasants.
We have many walkers passing by the shoot in the winter and most are fascinated by it and stop to watch and have a chat. We do get the odd objection as you would expect but in all honesty these are few and far between.
I appreciate that some people will object to shooting regardless as they simply don’t want to see animals being killed. This is fine but most people appear to understand that eating meat requires animals to be killed, and the vast majority of people in the UK are not vegetarians.
The pheasants that we shoot and eat have a much better quality of life than most birds consumed in the UK – of that I have no doubt.
Sadly our shoot will close in March and friendships built up over many years will be lost. The winter ritual that gets us all outdoors in the fresh air when it’s generally cold and pretty miserable will be gone. Some will no doubt be glad to see the back of it, but I will miss it a great deal, and I honestly believe that the wildlife on our shoot will miss us too.
So, the fact that your shoot annually releases X amount of non-native birds (which may sustain unnaturally high numbers of generalist predators, and have negative effects on native vertebrate and invertebrate populations) each aside…
Your shoot doesn’t undertake any predator “control” whatsoever?
Or use lead shot?
And your birds are not a vector for ticks?
And let’s not perpetuate the myth that the shooting sector, is part of the food industry.
Also, whether your shoot is involved or not, it is not “claimed” that “hawks, owls, buzzards” are shot, it is proven fact.
There are strongly held views on both sides of this debate. There are clearly some people in the shooting fraternity who behave badly, as in all walks of life. In my experience however, the vast majority of people involved in shooting are strongly opposed to killing birds of prey and gain as much pleasure from seeing them as most. Perhaps people who enjoy nature and wildlife would be better off trying to work together to protect it rather than fighting with each other.
I accept that some of the comments from the CA and BASC on these matters are not entirely helpful in progressing an open and constructive debate. Barrages of polarised views don’t generally lead to a great deal of progress in my experience.
And as for our birds being “a vector for ticks”, I must say I thought I had heard them all but that is a new one for me! :)
I’m pleased to increase your awareness. Though in truth, you should already know this as a matter of your own health and safety if nothing else…
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/9542349/
https://www.jstor.org/stable/3547727
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.2981/wlb.2003.046
Now, would you be so good as to answer the points/questions I’ve put to you, in relation to your assertion that…
“We don’t do the environment any harm at all” ?
Ok here goes. The only vermin we control are grey squirrels which are an invasive, non-native species which according to your very informative article are also “a vector for ticks”. Grey squirrels also eat lots of songbird eggs and chicks so I would argue that this is generally a good thing (unless you are a grey squirrel).
We don’t shoot foxes as it’s a waste of time unless you are doing it regularly. You also need to enjoy sitting in a field at 2 in the morning which most people don’t in fairness.
Lead is being phased out as I am sure you are aware. This is a good thing although the relatively low volumes that we shoot mean that the environmental impact is negligible. Whilst on the subject of environmental impact, UU and the other water companies are hardly in a position to lecture anybody. Banning shooting is a side show compared to the untreated sewage that they pour into our rivers and seas but that’s another debate completely.
You also need to balance off all the good things that we do for the local environment. Planting native species to improve cover and provide nesting sites. Providing food in the winter and water in the summer. I would estimate that around 70% of the time we spend on the shoot is on work parties trying to improve the ground with only 30% actually shooting. This is typical for most small DIY syndicate shoots. You must appreciate that the birds are free to wander as they please so the only effective way to keep them on your land is to provide a good environment for them to live in.
I’m going to leave it at that. I wish you every success in your campaign to protect raptors and fully understand your motives for doing so. They are marvellous creatures and we should do all we can to preserve them.
My thanks also to Howard for providing a politely and sincerely delivered account of his particular shoot’s activities. It makes a refreshing change (I’ll take it that no corvids or mustelids are harmed either).
Nevertheless, although the impact of low intensity shoots is, at least comparatively, benign the fact remains that the release of non-native gamebirds and the use of lead is environmentally damaging, and to claim that “we only do it a little bit” doesn’t really cut it.
It must also be pointed out that the propaganda from the shooting sector doesn’t, and never will equate with published peer-reviewed evidence.
This said, maybe if the shooting sector as a whole took a similar stance to Howard, then it wouldn’t find itself so deservedly on the back foot.
Howard,
I fully understand your disappointment in losing what is perfectly legitimate activity.
Sadly, the evidence indicates that far too many shoots don’t behave in the manner that you describe, and if you have read some of the previous posts on this blog, you will understand that the criminal activity which some involved in game shooting engage in, has is in my opinion driven a huge wedge between conservation minded shooters and those that campaign for wildlife and reform of the shooting industry. This is disappointing, as wildlife protection and conservation needs support from all the sides involved.
I strongly believe that real protection for raptors and other wildlife, will only really be achieved when those in shooting industry rid themselves of those who engage in criminal or bad practices.
I can’t see any government banning game shooting, and even if the shooting industry is regulated and licensing introduced, I have great concerns that the criminal behaviour will still continue, and those responsible for this criminal behaviour will simply conceal their activities to a greater extent than they do now.
The protection of raptors and wildlife really does need support from those in the shooting industry who won’t tolerate this illegal persecution, and are also receptive to changes in practice, so that as the science evolves, the environment becomes better protected, and proper conservation of native wildlife becomes the raison d’etre behind the shooting rather than the production and protection of game birds, which seems to be the current position.
My hope is that you, and other like minded shooters can become a voice within the shooting industry for change?
I suspect that when perfectly legitimate small shoots close because of the bad public perception that the criminals give the shooting industry, then hopefully that voice will become loud enough for the umbrella organisations in the shooting industry to actually take note, and instead of empty statements stating they don’t tolerate raptor persecution, actually take positive action to rid the industry of the bad players?
However, as you have alluded to in one of your comments. I suspect that this may prove extremely problematic, as the commercialisation of game shooting has probably meant that some of the big players in the industry who want to attract the fee paying cliental, cliental who demand an endless supply of game birds to shoot and absurdly large bag sizes no doubt means that the voice of the conservation minded shooter is drowned out?
It would appear that there is some truth in the expression- money is the root of all evil.
Even with the loss of your shoot, please don’t stop your conservation work- our wildlife needs all the help it can get.
However moderate, well meaning and perhaps even ecologically neutral on the “balance sheet” these little shoots are (and I know that many are, which I can certainly live with) they are not typical and don’t account for very much of the overall game bird shooting activity across the UK, and a tiny fraction of total birds released/killed. Exponents of the modest rough shoot / syndicate type (i. e. of work parties and beat-one-stand-one days of sub 50 head of game, etc) could do a lot more to put clear water between their activities and the typical commercial shoots with inherent evils i.e. damage to habitat, poor rear & release husbandry/welfare, cruel predator control, etc things that they wouldn’t do on their own shoots. But I bet (and I am speaking generally, not referring to Howard) most of these guys would still grab with both hands a free guest day on a big 250 – 400 bag commercial pheasant shoot, or a free 250 brace day on a big-name grouse moor – despite what may be common knowledge among local shooting folk regards things like raptor persecution. It’s fifty shades of grey morality, with only a few taking a principled stance and standing conspicuously well clear. When the Shooting Times editor made the case for moderation a couple of years ago, he was put in his place by the industry big-boys without much support forthcoming from the grassroots. As it is, the little shoots are going to sink as well as the big ones because they tied themselves blindly to their supposedly “bigger & betters”.
Howard, thank you for engaging politely and constructively in this debate. I personally have no interest in shooting animals but I can see that the practices you describe are very different from the activities of many driven grouse shoots. It is unfortunate that too many shoots are involved in destructive practices, underpinned by an ethos that positively seeks out cruelty (especially towards predators) and uses its political and financial clout to effectively spread misinformation. I don’t think this describes you or your shoot at all, but you appear to be the baby thrown out with the bathwater. I hope you will see that the cause of your disappointment is not UU but the pernicious, vindictive and disingenuous actions and political campaigns of the grouse shooting lobby.
Thanks Rob. I live near the Trough of Bowland and have seen hen harriers numerous times on the moors up there. Why anybody would want to kill one is beyond me. Every time I see a news story on the subject I find it thoroughly depressing. I just wanted to make it clear that not all shooting people are the same – in fact the majority just like being out in the countryside and respect nature and wildlife more than most. Sadly when big money gets involved the rules tend to get bent, as is the way with many things in life I guess.
Howard, you’ve made your point, well and clearly. Thank you for your input.
You’ve made a valuable contribution to the debate Howard. Personally, I think a blanket ban on shooting is a mistake. In an ideal future there would be small numbers of large herbivores roaming our uplands and maintaining biodiversity through their actions. In the absence of natural predators (and we’re not going to see them any time soon), humans will need to keep teir numbers to sustainable levels and shooting is one way of doing so. It’s the industrial scale of grouse shooting and the awful practices that are justified in its name that need to be stopped.
Thanks Rob. There is an excellent piece by Duncan Thomas on the BASC website which reflects very closely the views I have expressed on here. Far more balanced and reflective than the Countryside Alliance attempt. Well worth a read if you have 5 minutes to spare. https://basc.org.uk/united-utilities-falling-short/
Sorry, Howard. Duncan Thomas is in no way a positive representative for your hobby; or anything else for that matter…
https://markavery.info/2016/08/14/inglorious-duncan-thomas-basc/
Howard, I’m sorry to see you associate yourself with a piece like this. More subtle perhaps than CA but it spins the same line. You made the point that your shoot doesn’t engage in the destructive practices of driven grouse shoots that Mr Thomas is promoting, but now you say he represents your views. Clarity please!
Game birds shot with lead shot should not be eaten.
Pheasants are a non-native species and should not be released at all into our countryside. If pheasants were not roaming the countryside during the winter months the fox population would have much less to feed on and their numbers would naturally reduce during this time giving our native ground-nesting species a better chance of breeding success in the following spring. Winter feeding of many tonnes of maize and wheat in order to sustain non-native game birds is, to my mind, wrong. Stop importing, rearing, releasing and feeding pheasants and partridge altogether. Then, if you still want to give our many wild birds a boost during the winter with a little supplementary feeding, or, better still, by establishing wild bird headlands, then please do so.
I wonder abour Tick-Bourne Encephalitis. Found in Europe, could it be introduced with imported pheasants? Is anyone checking?
Nobody saying You cant get out for Your fresh air Pal, just go for a nice walk and don’t kill anything
Thank you for your balanced comments Howard. I cannot believe the vitriol I have just read on this website. I am a shooter, conservationist and steward of the small piece of countryside that we farm and own. Like many anti hunters and shooters, I too care deeply about the environment for the future of my children. My own gripe: the discarded rubbish and fly-tipping throughout this country and particularly on the roadside verges is appalling and very detrimental to our environment. Have any of the writers above thought about engaging and talking with shooters, keepers and landowners in a rational and civil way?
It may have escaped your attention that conservationists have engaged with the shooting sector for many decades, but (despite the claims of “good practice”) the criminality, lies, threats and environmental damage has continued unabated. A state of affairs perfectly illustrated by the very existence of this website.
I suggest that you level your criticism at those who share your hobby who are incapable of acting in accordance with the law of the land. And those who degrade our natural heritage on a daily basis, with so-called “management” practices, purely to further the selfish ends of those who enjoy killing, and those who profit from such desires.
Click to access grouse_moor_evidence_review_final.pdf
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0006320723001738#f0010
Click to access newton-2020-killing-of-raptors-on-grouse-moors_evidence-and-effects.pdf
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S026974912036317X
Click to access bop-in-niddaonb-evidence-report-final-sept-2019.pdf
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-019-09044-w
https://www.jstor.org/stable/2405296?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S000632070300363X
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/ibi.12356
https://www.nature.scot/snh-commissioned-report-982-analyses-fates-satellite-tracked-golden-eagles-scotland
https://www.leeds.ac.uk/news/article/3597/grouse_moor_burning_causes_widespread_environmental_changes
https://besjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/1365-2664.13708
On the subject of “vitriol”, you might familiarise yourself with the vile abuse levelled at this site’s admin and her colleagues, from those cowards who are terrified of the simple truth.
Charming piece of blackmail there from the CA.
Howard, there is much evidence, which a little careful internet research would uncover from many highly qualified organisations and individuals that would likely convince most people that the grouse shooting industry is damaging to the environment. I can only suggest that you try and put aside the natural bias that 20 years of shooting has given you and review that evidence with an open mind.
Hi Stephen. We don’t shoot any grouse and I am no expert on grouse shooting. I couldn’t afford to do it even if I wanted to. For some reason the headlines are all about grouse shooting, but the UU decision affects all their sporting rights which includes our pheasant shoot which is predominantly farmland with a few small woods. I’m sure the environmental impact of our shooting activities is positive and the local wildlife will probably decline when we are are forced to cease. I’m equally sure that there are studies one could point to that argue both sides of the argument if you care to look hard enough. Perhaps it isn’t just me that needs to have an open mind.
UU decusion will bring peace to the countryside.
Importing live animals to kill just for targets is uncivilised.
Imported animals include chukar partridges and red legged partridges as well as pheasants and ducks.