The RSPB did a fair bit of lobbying and campaigning on the back of the recent Wild Justice petition calling for a ban on driven grouse shooting.
Although agreeing with Wild Justice on the various problems associated with driven grouse moor management, the RSPB’s position was not to support a ban, but rather to push for a licensing scheme.
Calling for a licensing scheme has been RSPB policy since October 2020, after a period of internal review (see here).
It was good to see a couple of RSPB staff members attend the Westminster Hall debate last Monday, and on Friday it published the following statement (available on the RSPB website here but reproduced below because annoyingly, links to material on the RSPB website tend to break quite often).
On Monday 30 June Parliament debated the future of driven grouse shooting in England, and with it the future of vast swathes of our iconic upland landscapes. The debate was triggered by the petition launched by the campaign group Wild Justice, which was signed by over 104,000 people and called for a ban on driven grouse shooting.
Our position on shooting
The RSPB is neutral on the ethics of shooting, and concerned only with preventing the harm caused to wildlife through the management of some grouse shoots. This is why, while we support efforts that bring this important issue into the spotlight, our focus has long been on achieving a system of licensing for grouse shooting. We believe this, rather than an outright ban, is the most pragmatic way to secure a positive outcome for nature.
Licensing would raise environmental standards across the shooting industry and allow responsible shoots to continue to operate, while providing an effective deterrent for those who do harm, or worse, break the law.
Our concerns
We share the concerns of Wild Justice and all who signed the petition about the damaging and often illegal activities associated with the intensive management of land for grouse shooting:
- Our latest report ‘Hen Harriers in the firing line’ highlights that there have been 102 confirmed cases of Hen Harrier persecution in the UK in the last five years, and these confirmed cases are just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to the true scale of this criminal activity, as many incidents happen in remote locations and go unreported. The report highlights that the average life expectancy of a young Hen Harrier in the UK is just 121 days, and that a Hen Harrier is 10 times more likely to die or disappear when on grouse moors. Despite this, there has not been a single conviction for Hen Harrier persecution in England.
- More broadly, our latest Birdcrime report reveals that, between 2009-2023, there were 1,529 confirmed bird of prey persecution incidents in the UK involving 1,344 individual birds of prey, including Peregrines, Buzzards and Red Kites, as well as rare and recovering Hen Harriers and White-tailed Eagles. The majority of raptor persecution incidents are associated with land managed for gamebirds, and of all individuals convicted of bird of prey persecution-related offences between 2009 and 2023, 75% were connected to the gamebird shooting industry.
- Grouse shooting estates often use burning of peatland vegetation as a land management technique intended to encourage the growth of young heather shoots on which Red Grouse feed. This practice damages the UK’s globally rare peatlands, contributing to climate change by degrading these natural carbon sinks, increasing air pollution and associated health risks, and increasing the risks of flooding for nearby communities.
- Research has highlighted the scale of the use of lead shot used in the grouse shooting industry. In 2024/25, 100% of the grouse purchased from UK food retailers, and from which shot could be recovered, had been killed with lead. This is toxic to both wildlife (including birds of prey) and to humans.
- And then there are other impacts including the largely unregulated use of veterinary medicines, and the damage caused by the construction of hill tracks and other infrastructure for shoots.
The Westminster debate
While there were some who spoke persuasively during the debate about the need for a robust regulatory framework if grouse shooting is to have a future, many spoke out against the calls for a ban. A wide range of arguments were given, from the socio-economic and cultural value of grouse shooting through to the often beneficial effects of legal predator control for some species of wading birds – most notably Curlews.
Importantly, however, although the concerns raised are arguments against a ban – none of them are arguments against licensing.
Almost all of those who spoke were unanimous in their outright and unequivocal condemnation of the illegal killing of birds of prey. But disappointingly few had suggestions for how this can be meaningfully addressed.
In summing up, Defra Minister Daniel Zeichner repeated the UK Government’s previous statements that they have no plans to ban grouse shooting, but acknowledged the strong opinions on both sides of the debate, and said that the Government would keep options under close review.
Licensing is urgently needed
Based on the growing body of evidence of the unacceptable and often illegal activities associated with grouse shooting, we believe grouse shoots should be licensed in England. Without change, there can be no sustainable future for our uplands.
Licensing has already been introduced in Scotland, and, as pro-shooting and anti-ban MP John Lamont stated during the debate, “that system has its flaws, but works adequately in other respects”.
We’re now calling on the UK Government to take swift action to introduce the licensing of grouse shooting in England, building on, and learning from the experience in Scotland.
Our Hen Harriers and other wildlife can’t wait. Those who operate responsible shoots would have nothing to fear, and much to gain, from a system that would make the unanimous calls for effective action on the illegal persecution of birds of prey a reality.
ENDS
I mentioned above that calling for a licensing scheme for driven grouse shooting has been the RSPB’s policy since October 2020 after the organisation undertook a comprehensive review of the evidence.
That policy was announced at the AGM in October 2020, and included the following statement:
‘Our focus is not on “walked up” grouse shooting, but we will re-double our efforts to secure effective licensing for “driven” grouse shooting, and we will learn from the developments anticipated soon on this issue in Scotland. We will provide an annual assessment of progress and review our position within five years. Failure to deliver effective reform will result in the RSPB calling for a ban on driven grouse shooting‘. [Emphasis is mine].
The findings of that five-year policy review are due to be announced in three month’s time at the RSPB’s October 2025 AGM.
It’ll be really interesting to hear what the RSPB says about the findings of it’s five-year review. I’d guess, given the RSPB’s response to the Westminster debate, that it will be sticking to its policy of calling for a licensing scheme rather than a ban, but if so, how will it justify that ‘effective reform‘ has been delivered since 2020? I don’t even know what measures it will use to assess ‘effective reform‘ but from what I’ve seen in the last five years, there hasn’t been a single bit of it.
Indeed, if you watch this (very good) RSPB video about the problems with driven grouse moor management in the Peak District National Park, which the RSPB published in January 2025, it’s quite clear that the RSPB recognises that ‘effective reform‘ has most definitely not been delivered:
Raptor Persecution UK 
“The RSPB is neutral on the ethics of shooting, and concerned only with preventing the harm caused to wildlife…”
Err, the RSPB seem unaware that grouse ARE wildlife. Furthermore, they are also BIRDS.
But this organisation for the “Protection of Birds” is “neutral on the ethics” of shooting birds in the face?
???
???
The RSPB must have a very difficult balancing act to perform on the issue of shooting. It does appear to be the case that much more woodland would have been cleared for farming if it were not for the shooting industry retaining it for cover. The RSPB is not particularly concerned about the lives of individual creatures rather for the survival of species as a whole, and the habitats they need to survive. Looked at this way the lives and deaths of individual birds are not important unless they are extremely rare. You may not agree but I can personally sympathise with this point of view.
Genuine question – if we lived in a country where ‘live’ Trap Shooting of reared doves & pigeons was legal* – as it used to be – where would this sit within the ethical spectrum of shotgun shooting?
It wouldn’t affect nature and the wounding rate is IMO probably less than ‘high bird’ commercial game shooting.
*which still occurs in some countries and although illegal in USA still often has a blind eye shown to it in some States.
We so much agree, Phil.
The RSPB should change their name. Maybe the Royal Society for the Protection of Rare Birds would be more accurate.
It certainly is a source of frustration. Indeed many RSPB staff/volunteers are still actually eating birds, which is not only cruel to the birds on an individual basis but environmentally irresponsible considering the significant impact of poultry farming on water supplies and biodiversity. And of course the industry is the entire cause of avian flu intensifying and spreading. It’s a serious blind spot for a charity that claims to exist for the protection of birds.
I’m really pleased with a lot of their work and as Jeremy has said, they’ve got to do a real balancing act to do with regards to grouse shooting. I still think they need to step it up and stop trying to please everybody, because they’re alienating a lot of folks who would support them fully otherwise.
Pretty much agree. Being neutral on the ethics of shooting as a general position is one thing, but failing to note that not all shooting is the same is a mistake. Even within the (shotgun) shooting world (as just two examples) – there are those that would object to the shooting of (often semi-tame) rear & release driven mallards from muddy ponds, or the current fashion for ‘high birds’ in pheasant & redleg shooting, which has led to an increase in proportion wounded and condemned to miserable deaths over hours or days, rather than cleanly killed. Given the scale of the millions of numbers of birds released and shot at, this shouldn’t be ignored. Surely the RSPB would not upset the apple cart too much if they objected publicly to those shotgun shooting practices and fashions that increase cruelty unnecessarily – especially if they explained why and presented some research & evidence as to the basis of their objections?
More naval gazing and kicking the can down the road by those who DO know better. I’m disgusted with every one of them. May their karma be all they deserve and especially may that be so on all those clueless pompous oafs who call themselves MP”s.
I hate to be a pedant but I think you mean “navel”, as in belly button, as opposed to “naval”: maritime fighting force.
Perhaps in six months’ and a year’s time, the RSPB will ask Daniel Zeicher publicly as to how his ‘close review’ is proceding?
Oh dear: did I notice a vegan slipping on here to spread their zealotry and propaganda?
For the record, the RSPB have nothing to do with domestic animals, that is the RSPCA. As for RSPB staff who are omnivorous, that’s them being normal, hard though it seems that is for vegans to understand.
It would seem, to me, that those who operate driven grouse moors are allowed to act with total impunity and have done for decades. And when they are told that they must repair the damage they have done to our precious wildlife environments in one way or another, they just ignore the instruction and carry on as they wish.
These people need to be regulated and as for their seriously damaging muir burns then there should be some authority there at each burn to oversee and make sure that they are not doing ever increasing damage as was mentioned and clearly shown in the video.
Until a much wider audience is made aware of all these goings on, and that includes the abhorrent killing of our precious raptors then they will carry on as they wish. They know there is very little chance of being prosecuted; and when they are, the punishment is no more than a slap-on-the-wrist small fine which will be easily covered by one person’s fee to attend a shoot and have no financial impact upon them whatsoever.
I very much doubt the current Labour Government under Keir Starmer are going to do anything, even though they made promises in their election manifesto to increase protections for our wildlife and environments
Hit the nail on the head oj55 , Sphagnum, Phil there is no protection for the birds until a serious licensing scheme is put in place and the law steps up it’s act to brings anyone who steps out of line to justice! So basically it’s business as usual no change no protection massacre continues hen harrier holocaust and normal carnage on moorlands continues raping pillaging and burning !!
For context, from the RSPB Charter (April 1957, amended several times up to February 2019):
“ELIZABETH THE SECOND by the Grace of God etc etc etc…
“Objects of the Society
To promote the conservation of biological diversity and the natural environment for the public benefit, in particular but not exclusively by:
And, in furtherance of that primary objective, to raise public understanding and awareness of, and to provide information on, such matters.
To advance education of the public in conservation of the natural environment.
Manner of delivering the Objects…
…
The Society shall take no part in the question of the killing of game birds and legitimate sport of that character except when such practices have an impact on the Objects.“”
That last quoted paragraph is the only reference to shooting in either the Charter, Statutes or Statement of Governance of the RSPB, and has been used to suppress discussion.
Of course, Red Grouse are wild birds, and conserving them and shooting them might seem to the ordinary person to be plainly contradictory (Red Grouse are not the only wild birds which may legally be shot for ‘sport’ in the UK).
I think this clearly reflects the contradiction of having a Royal Patron who publicly shoots the very animals you are otherwise trying to conserve.
I imagine that there was something of an internal argument about continuing with this Royal patronage thing, but that a majority of Council Members decided that the benefits outweighed the obvious contradiction?
I assume, therefore, that is why the RSPB has come up with this rather pathetic opening statement ‘The RSPB is neutral on the ethics of shooting (…birds we might otherwise be spending your money conserving?)“.
Their ‘Position on Shooting” also seems to me to be very optimistic about what licensing might achieve. But whenever I have discussed licensing with politicians (not that many), licensing is the straw they immediately cling to in order, I think, to avoid ‘confronting’ the Establishment.
So, if licensing is the only choice the current lot of Parliamentarians are prepared to offer, then I will support it (and see what happens). I wouldn’t object to that as the RSPB’s ‘pragmatic way‘, rather than being appallingly ‘ethically neutral’ on killing wild birds for ‘sport’.
But, as we know, licensing is also likely to be an utter mess unless conservationists design the legislation (which is unlikely to be allowed to happen).
Otherwise, generally, the RSPB’s list of ‘Our Concerns‘ and the work they do for nature is exemplary.