More reasons to ban driven grouse shooting – evidence from the Peak District National Park (guest blog by Bob Berzins)

This is a guest blog written by conservation campaigner and author Bob Berzins who has written previously on this blog here, here, here, here, here, here and here.

MPs are scheduled to debate the Wild Justice Ban Driven Grouse Shooting petition on 30^th June 2025 in Westminster Hall.

The Government response to the petition states, “… well managed shooting activities…can be beneficial for wildlife and habitat conservation”, and, “The Government supports the National Wildlife Crime Unit (NWCU)  – which helps prevent and detect crimes against wildlife by obtaining and disseminating intelligence and directly assisting law enforcers in their investigations.” Further, “All forms of predator management to protect grouse must be undertaken within the law, including compliance with animal welfare legislation.”

Fine words, if only they were true.

This site provides comprehensive and ongoing exposure of blatant and deliberate raptor persecution on many driven grouse moors. So I’ll provide an update and recent examples from the Peak District of some of the other factors which support an urgent need for a ban.

Grouse moors receive a lot of taxpayer money for little return

This link (here) shows a data map for environmental stewardship agreements in England. These areas have not made the transition to the new Environmental Land Management Schemes (ELMS) but have their existing 10 year agreements extended. The database indicates that Moscar Estate, owned by the Duke of Rutland in the Peak District National Park, has a scheme from 2012 to 2028 with total subsidy payments calculated at over £2.8 million.

Natural England is responsible for administering these stewardship schemes but rarely checks SSSI unit condition. After paying Moscar Estate (so far) over £2 million since 2012, the condition of two of the SSSI units that were last checked by Natural England in 2022, Black Hole Moor (here) and Derwent Moors (here), are both rated as Unfavourable – No Change.

Here is the NE commentary on the site condition assessment for Black Hole Moor:

Here is the NE commentary on the site condition assessment for Derwent Moors:

From these site assessments, it seems clear to me that driven grouse moor management – which prioritises grouse numbers above all else – does not result in good condition of blanket bog, a priority habitat.

A carcass-filled landscape

The British Association for Shooting and Conservation (BASC) claims that grouse moors are teeming with life. A more accurate description would be: filled with decomposing carcasses.

Canada geese can be shot under General Licence GL41 (here) to ‘prevent slips and falls, spread of human disease and issues with birds nesting’. I think it’s obvious to most people that decomposing carcasses just a mile upstream from a Yorkshire Water reservoir are a health hazard but it’s impossible to get the Environment Agency or local authorities to take action on stink pits.  

Charred and barren uplands

In October 2023, when nearby grouse moors were being deliberately set alight, Sheffield filled with smoke (here), causing air pollution monitors for particulates to spike well above safe levels for several hours. But burning continues (so there can be more grouse to shoot) and when vegetation is removed from steep slopes in particular, water flows increase making flooding more likely. If new concrete barriers protect Sheffield city centre then Doncaster is flooded downstream.

Pharmaceuticals seep into our water

There was no grouse shooting that I’m aware of in the Peak District in 2024, and the response from estates was a very obvious increase in burning, mowing, traps and medicated grit. So more intensive management which has obviously failed before. And oh dear, there doesn’t appear to be any grouse this year either.

The quartz grit in the photo is usually laced with Flubendazole – a worming agent to prevent the strongyle parasite and it’s very obvious how this leeches into the water table. And by the way Yorkshire Water won’t test for this chemical. The only reason Flubendazole is used is to produce more grouse to shoot. [Ed: See here for more detail on the medicated grit scandal – exposed ten years ago and still it continues].

Police, National Wildlife Crime Unit (NWCU) and animal welfare

In March 2025, I reported a number of DOC traps (a brand of spring trap) I’d found on another Peak District grouse moor to South Yorkshire Police and I included a request that SYP officers liaise with the National Wildlife Crime Unit (after listening to the NWCU presentation at last autumn’s Northern England Raptor Conference). I was being ‘the eyes and ears’ that NWCU had requested.

I’ve written previously about the inhumaneness of these traps (here) and this photo below shows a Stoat mainly outside the trap with only a small part of the body crushed under the bars – contrary to legal and humane use of these devices.

Regardless of the trap set-up, Defra informed me that animals were protected from unnecessary suffering because the trap operator has a statutory obligation to remove any animal trapped as a result of a foul strike.

This is a nonsense because there’s no statutory requirement to check these traps and this device, like many others, is in the middle of nowhere miles from any road or track.  

A crucial factor in the humaneness of these traps is compliance with the statutory requirements for the set-up. Relevant here is the maximum permitted diameter of the internal baffle (a structure with an aperture/hole that slows down the animal and directs it into the trap) for a ‘run through’ trap (as shown in the above photo) is 51mm and the bottom of the hole/aperture has to be level with the trap plate (see here, p3).

The trap in the photo above has a 50mm mesh tunnel where wire strands have been cut to enlarge the opening and because of the large piles of moss either side of the trap, the internal baffle is several centimetres above the plate. I would say this trap is unlawful and the trap operator should be prosecuted.

Some estates do manage to set compliant traps such as this one below where a smaller gauge mesh is used for the tunnel with the approach on a flat plank of wood level with the trap:

The South Yorkshire Police Officer dealing with this case assured me they work closely with the NWCU and also said,

“We have a meeting coming up with all the estate managers and I would like to raise these issues at the meeting.”

I replied asking for notes or minutes of the meeting. It’s well known that police, the Peak District National Park Authority, estate managers and gamekeepers meet annually at Chatsworth – a closed door get together with no minutes or published notes. I understand that other meetings have also taken place between police and the Peak District Moorland Group [Ed: one of a number of regional grouse moor gamekeeper groups established in recent years, established and funded by shadowy figures in the grouse shooting industry, with an objective to promote grouse moor shooting and smear/discredit anybody who dares raise questions about sustainability, ethics and criminality. This particular moorland group has strong links to the dodgy astroturfers, C4PMC (Campaign for Protection of Moorland Communities)].

A further visit I made three months on, in June 2025, showed the estate in question still setting traps that I believe to be set unlawfully. And still no proper reply from the police.

Perhaps the National Wildlife Crime Unit could offer an opinion here – the incident number is SYP-20250321-1026. Or has this case already been wrapped up in a closed door meeting with a friendly handshake and slap on the back?

The Government response to the Wild Justice petition is disingenuous greenwash. So please write to your MP – the simplest way to stop this nonsense is to ban driven grouse shooting.

UPDATE 19 June 2025: ‘Reclaim Our Moors’ – local residents in Sheffield and North Derbyshire start campaign for community ownership of ‘trashed’ grouse moors (here)