Author: RaptorPersecutionUK

When we said the other day (here) that the grouse-shooting industry was seriously rattled by Chris Packham’s video about Marks and Spencer’s decision to sell red grouse, we underestimated their fury.

Here’s the video again, in case you haven’t seen it:

Yesterday, four organisations (BASC, Countryside Alliance, Moorland Association and the National Gamekeepers’ Organisation) united in their efforts to silence Chris by publishing a joint statement calling for the BBC to ‘rein in Packham’.

It’s quite an entertaining statement, full of faux outrage about a perceived breach of BBC impartiality, even though they acknowledge that Chris’s video is a “non-BBC video” and that Chris is “not always directly employed by the BBC“. According to one of the furious complainers (Charles Nodder of the NGO), any public comments made by Chris “are indivisible from the BBC“. Eh? Mr Nodder clearly doesn’t have a very high opinion of the general public if he thinks we can’t distinguish between a personal view of a part-time presenter and that of the BBC!

Calling on the BBC to ‘rein him in’ and demanding that the corporation ‘withdraws support’ for Chris’s supposed “extremist propaganda” is basically a call for the BBC to sack Chris. Haven’t we been here before?

Let’s just be clear. This is less to do with the grouse-shooting industry’s concerns about BBC impartiality but more to do with them wanting to silence an articulate, thoughtful, well-informed and popular ‘celebrity’ to prevent him expressing views on the disgraceful and damaging aspects of driven grouse shooting. These views are obviously the polar opposite of those held by the grouse-shooting industry and thus are labelled by them as ‘extreme’. Gosh, there are a lot of ‘extremists’ in the UK at the moment – over 56,000 so far!

The BBC has responded by issuing the following statement:

“Chris Packham is a naturalist in his own right and is not solely employed by the BBC. If Chris Packham wishes to express his personal views outside of his employment on BBC natural history programmes, he is entitled to do so.”

Meanwhile, the grouse-shooting industry’s futile attempts to stick the knife into Chris may well have backfired. Their efforts have been picked up by at least two national newspapers (Telegraph – here; Daily Mail – here), thus giving far more exposure to Chris’s video and the ban driven grouse shooting campaign than we could hope to reach. So cheers to them for that!

In the Telegraph article, it emerges that Iceland Foods stores are not planning to sell red grouse this year. Perhaps they’ve realised that selling meat that contains lead levels 100 times higher than those allowed in other meats isn’t that good for their customers’ health, or for business. Well done to them. Iceland 1: Marks and Spencer 0.

Meanwhile, M&S continues its plan to sell red grouse this year, ignoring the facts that shot red grouse sourced from some driven grouse moors are unhealthy, unnatural and unethical. They may contain:

• Excessive amounts of toxic poisonous lead (over 100 times the lead levels that would be legal for other meat – see here)
• Unknown quantities of the veterinary drug Flubendazole (see here)
• Unknown quantities of the veterinary drug Levamisole hydrochloride (also used in chemotherapy treatment for humans with colon cancer – see here)
• Unknown quantities of the pesticide Permethrin (used topically to treat scabies and pubic lice; probably not that great to ingest – see here)
• They may also be infected with the disease Cryptosporidiosis (see here).

It is up to M&S to demonstrate that their red grouse have been ethically sourced from an estate where raptors are not illegally poisoned, trapped or shot, and that their red grouse have been rigorously tested for the above chemicals. So far, they’ve refused to do this, and their friends in the grouse-shooting industry don’t seem to be encouraging them to be open and transparent either. Can’t think why.

If you’d like to encourage M&S to be open and transparent about its policy to sell red grouse this year, please consider sending an email to Patrick Bousquet-Chavanne, the man in charge of M&S’s ‘Plan A’ (basically its policy on ethical product sourcing). You might want to ask him the name of the estate from which M&S is sourcing its red grouse, how M&S has ensured that this estate is run ethically, legally and sustainably, and what tests M&S will conduct to ensure the red grouse for sale on its shelves do not contain high levels of toxic lead and other chemicals and pesticides as listed above. Email Patrick at: patrick.bousquet-chavanne@marks-and-spencer.com

You might also want to join Chris Packham and 56,000+ people who have already signed the petition to ban driven grouse shooting – HERE.

Two days ago, Chris Packham sent a video message to Marks & Spencer about their decision to sell red grouse in their stores this year. If you missed it, here it is again:

Some from within the grouse-shooting community have responded, and they are rattled. Seriously rattled. We’ve read hundreds of messages on social media, almost entirely full of vile, vitriolic, personal abuse, aimed directly at Chris as well as at fellow campaigner Mark Avery.

Today, BASC has issued a public statement about the video – see here. We’ve reproduced it here in case it ‘disappears’:

BASC backs M&S to beat the bullies

BASC is urging Marks & Spencer not to buckle to celebrity bullying after Chris Packham launched a social media campaign calling on the retailer to stop selling red grouse in its stores.

Packham, a regular presenter for the BBC, has appeared in a YouTube video ahead of the retailer’s AGM this week in which he labels shot grouse as ‘toxic’ and urges viewers to lobby the retailer to abandon the sale of grouse. Packham is promoting the video on his official Twitter account.

M&S has previously said they would continue to stock grouse providing it could be sourced ‘to the highest standards of game and moorland management’.

BASC believes the retailer’s stance is consistent with the association’s own aim of promoting ethical shooting on grouse moors effectively managed for conservation and long-term sustainability.

Duncan Thomas, BASC’s northern director, said: “For Packham to condemn grouse as ‘toxic’ can only be either naïve on his part or deliberately inflammatory. Grouse, when properly prepared for the table, is a healthy, tasty and popular game meat. That’s the reason reputable retailers like M&S put it on their shelves.

“There is always an onslaught from antis in the run up to the ‘Glorious Twelfth’, so we should expect nothing less from the likes of Packham. He abuses his position as a presenter with the BBC to promote an ill-informed, anti-shooting agenda and to support failing petitions.”

BASC chairman Peter Glenser said: “We applaud M&S for standing strong against this cynical, celebrity bullying. Grouse is an ethical food source. As a major presence on the high-street, I’m sure M&S will continue to prefer substance over propaganda.

“Contrary to the claims of the antis, grouse shooting has been proven to have an economic value of around £100 million per year and supports the equivalent of more than 2,500 full-time jobs. And grouse moors support a vast range of wildlife, not just grouse. This is absolutely down to the efforts of gamekeepers and farmers.”

BASC has published an interactive infographic on the benefits of grouse shooting, which shows that up to five times more threatened wading birds are supported on land managed for grouse shooting and 75 per cent of the world’s ecologically sensitive heather moorland is found in the UK because of grouse moor management.

END

It’s fascinating, isn’t it, that they decide to label Chris as a ‘celebrity bully’ just for asking legitimate, reasonable questions of Marks & Spencer, but say nothing when ‘celeb’ Ian Botham spews unsubstantiated abuse at the RSPB? And isn’t this the same industry that petitioned for the BBC to sack Chris for speaking out about wildlife crime (a move that spectacularly backfired when a counter-petition reached over 80,000 signatures in support of him – see here) – what was that if it wasn’t bullying?

And how, exactly, can politely asking legitimate, reasonable questions of Marks & Spencer’s ethics, be construed as bullying? M&S, quite rightly, takes great pride in its ethics, claiming to have a strong policy on food sourcing, including a ‘named farmer’ scheme and a farm assurance scheme ‘which guarantees high quality food production’ (see here) and high specifications for animal welfare (see here). So when they suddenly become all coy about the details of their supposed ‘industry-leading Code of Practice for game meat’ (here), and refuse to name the estate from which they’re sourcing their grouse, naturally questions are going to be asked. Especially when M&S infers (here) that this ‘industry-leading Code of Practice’ is supported by the RSPB, when actually, it isn’t at all – the RSPB hasn’t even seen it (see here)!

Shot red grouse, sourced from most driven grouse moors, are generally unhealthy, unnatural, and unsustainable (see here). They may contain:

• Excessive amounts of toxic poisonous lead (over 100 times the lead levels that would be legal for other meat – see here)
• Unknown quantities of the veterinary drug Flubendazole (see here)
• Unknown quantities of the veterinary drug Levamisole hydrochloride (also used in chemotherapy treatment for humans with colon cancer – see here)
• Unknown quantities of the pesticide Permethrin (used topically to treat scabies and pubic lice; probably not that great to ingest – see here)
• They may also be infected with the disease Cryptosporidiosis (see here).

Now, if M&S can demonstrate that their red grouse have been sourced from a sustainably-managed grouse moor, whose gamekeepers aren’t involved in illegal wildlife persecution or indeed in excessive levels of ‘legal’ persecution, and that they subject their grouse to rigorous testing for the all above chemicals and poisons, then no worries, we’d have no complaints. But so far, M&S has refused to answer any specific questions and won’t even name the source estate. What are they hiding?

And why is the grouse-shooting industry pointing its guns at Chris? Why shoot the messenger? Surely, if they believe that red grouse is healthy, natural and sustainable, they’d be encouraging M&S to be open and transparent about (a) the origin of their grouse and (b) the tests & checks they’ve undertaken to ensure the grouse meet M&S’s usual high standards?

Are they so rattled because they know they can’t provide answers to these questions? Probably, and also because they know that Chris is held in high-regard by the general public as a man of principle, integrity and decency, and so people are more likely to pay attention to his views than those of abusive, foul-mouthed social media trolls.

If you share Chris Packham’s views, and appreciate his willingness to stand up and speak out against the raptor killers, and object to his vilification by the grouse-shooting industry, please sign the e-petition to ban driven grouse shooting HERE. That’s the e-petition that BASC’s Duncan Thomas describes as “failing”. Hmm, 55,000+ signatures so far and rising all the time.

UPDATE 14 July 2016: Grouse-shooting industry further enraged by Chris Packham video here

A new petition has just been launched calling for the Scottish Government to introduce a State-regulated licensing scheme for all gamebird hunting in Scotland.

The petition has been lodged by the Scottish Raptor Study Group and already has the backing of RSPB Scotland (see here) and the Scottish Wildlife Trust (see here).

Background information about the petition may be read here.

Information about previous action that has been taken to address this issue may be read here.

The petition itself may be read here.

To sign this petition, please go here.

This isn’t the first time the Scottish Raptor Study Group has called for licensing. In 2014, they, with support from RSPB Scotland and the Scottish Ornithologists’ Club, called for grouse-shooting licences to be introduced (see here); a request that was rejected by the then Environment Minister Paul Wheelhouse (see here). That request was an informal one, put to the Minister in a letter. This time they’ve gone for a more formal approach and they need your support.

There is really no need to explain here why the regulation of gamebird hunting is long overdue. If you’re in any doubt whatsoever, just spend a few minutes looking through some of our blog posts and also have a look at the background information links above. The gamebird-shooting industry in the UK is the least-regulated in comparison with other European countries and, arguably, is responsible for more environmental destruction than any of its European counterparts. The UK shooting industry has had decades to get its act together and self-regulate, but has failed, comprehensively, and so enforced regulation is inevitable.

What’s interesting about this petition though, is how it differs from Mark Avery’s petition to ban driven grouse shooting (which so far has attracted over 55,000 signatures – see here).

The most obvious difference is that this new Scottish petition is calling for licensing rather than for a ban, and it is directed at ALL types of gamebird hunting in Scotland (e.g. grouse, pheasant, partridge) rather than just driven grouse shooting.

Some may argue that the licensing approach is futile, mainly due to enforcement issues, and we’d have to agree with that to some extent. Scotland already has some of the strongest wildlife protection legislation in Europe but enforcement problems continue to be of concern. Nevertheless, this new petition is still worthy of your support, and importantly, there’s nothing to stop you signing both petitions!

It seems the licensing approach in Scotland is considered to have more chance of acceptance by the Scottish Government than calling for an outright ban, largely due to the fact that the Scottish Government is, in relative terms, much more progressive and further down the road on this issue than the Westminster Government. This call for licensing is in line with the Scottish Government’s previously stated approach to the illegal persecution of raptors; they’ve been saying for years now that they are prepared to take further action if the persecution doesn’t stop, so this petition could nudge them in the direction they’re already travelling, because, despite the gamebird shooting industry’s claims to the contrary, the persecution has not stopped (see here).

It could be argued that licensing is just delaying the inevitable, in that if it fails to act as an effective deterrent, a ban must surely be on the cards, but we’d have to wait 10+ (?) years to get to that position because the Scottish Government will insist, quite rightly, that the licensing approach will need time before its success or failure can be measured. It does seem highly unlikely that the Scottish Government will support calls for a ban until all other options have been tried, so the licensing approach seems to be a necessary hurdle to be jumped, but if it does turn out to be effective then that’d be good, obviously.

If the Scottish Government does decide to accept a call for licensing, the next question will be, ‘What will that licensing look like?’. Who knows, and that’d be for the Scottish Government to decide in due course, but it might include restrictions on the intensification of land managed for gamebird shooting (i.e. restrictions on muirburn, restrictions on drainage, restrictions on medication) as well as new reporting requirements (i.e. How many gamebirds shot? How many predators legally killed? How many mountain hares killed?) etc. Crucially, whatever regime is introduced, it must be independently monitored if the public is to have any confidence in it.

But that’s for later discussion. At this stage, the most important thing is to apply pressure on the Scottish Government to accept that gamebird hunting in Scotland cannot continue in its current unregulated form. Whether you think a licensing scheme will work or not isn’t that important right now; the Scottish Government needs to hear from you that this issue is important to you and that you want to stimulate a discussion about it.

The Scottish Government’s petition system works differently to the Westminster system. For Mark’s ‘ban driven grouse shooting’ e-petition, the Westminster Government requires 100,000 signatures within a six-month period before it will even consider holding a Parliamentary debate, and even then that’s not a given. In Scotland, petitions are only live for six weeks but all petitions to the Scottish Government are considered equally by the Scottish Petitions Committee, regardless of how many signatures have been registered. The Petitions Committee will automatically submit the petition for consideration to the most relevant Parliamentary Committee, in this case the Environment Committee, who will discuss and put forward their recommendations based on their findings. Please note: the Scottish petition may be signed by anybody, anywhere in the world, whereas the Westminster petitions are restricted to UK citizens/residents only.

The Scottish petition will close on 22 August 2016. We’d encourage you to sign the petition (here), not only to support the views of the Scottish Raptor Study Group, but also to let the Scottish Government know that this issue is important and deserves Parliamentary time and attention.

As mentioned above, you don’t have to restrict yourself to signing one or other of the two petitions. What happens to raptors in Scotland is of equal significance to what happens to raptors in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. Many raptor species physically cross country borders, particularly as juveniles, and at the moment they are just as likely to be illegally killed in certain parts of Scotland as they are in certain parts of England, Wales and Northern Ireland. For this reason, we’d also encourage you to sign the e-petition to ban driven grouse shooting (here), which closes on 20 September 2016.

Thank you.