Category: Opinion

Marks and Spencer has announced it won’t be selling red grouse in its stores for the second year running. Excellent!

Read their statement here.

It’s quite interesting that the reason given is “because of the cold wet spring and the toll this took on red grouse on our single estate in the Scottish Borders, we won’t be selling grouse this year – as a responsible retailer, we believe that conserving the birds this year is the right thing to do. We intend to stock grouse next year, assuming the weather allows us too! [sic]”.

It’s hard to imagine that if M&S really wanted to sell red grouse they wouldn’t be able to find another stockist – there are over 400 grouse moors in the UK. Do they really only source their grouse from one (as yet unnamed) estate in the Borders? Are they saying that the other 400+ grouse moors don’t meet the requirements of their (as yet un-described) Responsible Sourcing Code? Or is what they really mean that they can’t find any grouse moor in the UK that meets the requirements of their Responsible Sourcing Code but they don’t want to say that for fear of a customer backlash/possible boycott by those who support grouse shooting? If so, using the ‘poor weather’ as a reason is quite clever as it keeps all customers happy: ‘we’ are happy because they’re not selling red grouse and ‘they’ [grouse industry supporters] are happy because M&S isn’t publicly saying that red grouse is an unethical, unhealthy and unsustainable product (which it is).

Whatever, we’re delighted that M&S won’t be stocking red grouse this year and we also applaud them for trying to develop a new Responsible Sourcing Code – we look forward to finding out just what that code entails in due course.

There’s an article in the Independent this evening, written by Mark Avery, outlining his thoughts on why driven grouse shooting should be banned.

Article here

If you agree with his view, please consider signing this e-petition HERE.

Photo by Ruth Tingay

Inglorious – Conflict in the Uplands by Mark Avery. Bloomsbury Press, London. 304pp.

Publishing date: 30 July 2015

RRP: £14.99

ISBN (hardback) 9 78-1-4729-1741-6; ISBN (ebook) 9 78-1-4729-1742-3

This book won’t make it on to my bookshelf for quite some time. The reason? It’ll either be being held in my hands as I (re)-read it or it’ll be on my desk within easy reach for when I want to be reminded that the time for negotiation and 2^nd, 3^rd, 4^th,…..18^th, 19^th, 20^th, etc. chances is over and the time for change is now.

I won’t ruin Mark’s story by giving a detailed analysis of the book’s content but the main thrust is that Mark thinks driven grouse shooting should be banned and his arguments for this position are laid out with compelling clarity.

Inglorious begins with a raging, damning condemnation of driven grouse shooting in an impassioned foreword written by Chris Packham. Then there’s a short preface from Mark with a synopsis of the book and his reasons for writing it. Chapter 1 opens with the basics of hen harrier biology and ecology and their persecution on driven grouse moors; Chapter 2 provides an overview of driven grouse shooting, including its history, how it works and who’s involved; a detailed analysis of the first Joint Raptor Study at Langholm (also known as ‘Langholm 1) which took place in the mid-1990s and was focused on the conflict between hen harriers and grouse shooting is discussed in Chapter 3; an explanation of the political events and scientific studies that took place between 1997-2013 and brought greater attention to upland management practices is provided in Chapter 4; Chapter 5 presents Mark’s perspective on events that took place in 2014 when the public finally woke up to what was happening and began the fight back for hen harriers; Chapter 6 tells the fictional story of a former gamekeeper, now gainfully and happily employed in 2046 as a land manager for the National Trust, reflecting on his previous career and how it all came crashing down; Chapter 7 outlines all the things an ordinary member of the public can do to help hasten the inevitable demise of driven grouse shooting.

It’s obvious that a lot of thought went in to the structure of Inglorious, effectively building the story from the plight of one relatively little known bird (the hen harrier) to the exposure of the corruption, criminality and political influence that underpins the driven grouse shooting industry. Inglorious is audacious, courageous and defiant. If you’re not outraged after reading this book then you’ve either not been paying attention or you’re someone who has a vested interest in this racket.

If, like me, you thought you were pretty well-versed in the subject of driven grouse shooting and its associated environmental atrocities, Inglorious will surprise you. Yes, all the by-now- familiar scientific evidence is in there (and is well explained for a non-technical audience) but interwoven is a fascinating insight to the political backdrop of nature conservation, especially during the period 1997-2013. Understanding what was happening behind closed (and sometimes open) parliamentary doors during this 17 year period and how it impacted on the (mis)fortunes of the hen harrier and on the management of our uplands is crucial to understanding how Mark reached the decision to call for a ban on driven grouse shooting. Of course, some of this insight is subjective as it stems from Mark’s personal experience from his time working as the RSPB’s Conservation Director but that makes it all the more persuasive. His isn’t the view of someone uninformed and with a shallow understanding, hitching a ride on the back of an increasing public awareness of ‘wildlife crime’; this is the view of someone with authoritative credibility earned through his intimate involvement over many years in UK nature conservation policies.

The publication of Inglorious couldn’t have been better timed. First, it comes soon after the suspicious ‘disappearance’ of five breeding male hen harriers in the space of a few weeks in May this year. When that news broke, any tiny flicker of optimism that the grouse-shooting industry wanted to stop their disgraceful persecution of this species was extinguished. Secondly, it comes just a few days before this year’s Hen Harrier Day (9^th August 2015) when hundreds of thousands of people, maybe millions, throughout the UK will be making a public stand against the illegal killing of hen harriers on driven grouse moors, whether that be by participating in a ‘Thunderclap’ on social media, posting a selfie on the Hen Harrier Day website, or by attending one of several rallies set to take place across the country. This book will unite that community and inspire many new campaigners to the join the fight.

Inglorious bears all the hallmarks of Mark’s writing: engaging, intelligent, thoughtful, insightful, articulate, well-reasoned, fair and good humoured. Although it is a depressing and poignant read in parts, it is also optimistic, and that’s important. The message is clear – driven grouse shooting has to end and the pathway to bringing that about has been brightly illuminated by this book.

To pre-order this book, please see here.

To listen to a recent podcast of Mark discussing Inglorious, click here

To read another review of Inglorious, click here

 

On Friday we blogged about the news that Iceland Foods is set to sell old frozen red grouse in its supermarkets next month and we set out our concerns about this (see here). Mark Avery also wrote a blog about the same subject and had similar concerns (see here).

We encouraged blog readers to email Iceland Foods CEO Malcolm Walker and ask him some questions. On Friday evening, the following statement appeared on the Iceland Foods website:

WHOLE GROUSE

The frozen grouse we will be selling are a branded product supplied by Kezie Foods. Below is some further information on this product.

• The grouse were shot on the grouse moors of southern Scotland and Northern England towards the end of the last shooting season.
• It is generally accepted that frozen game including grouse will remain in great condition and safe to eat for two years. The grouse going on sale in Iceland were frozen no more than ten months ago. As freezing is Nature’s pause button they will be in excellent condition.
• Game shot with lead ammunition has not been proven medically to have any adverse health effect.
• The FSA’s advice is to avoid eating shot game frequently, which they define as once or more per week every week of the year. There is no documented medical advice that moderate consumption of shot game is in any way detrimental to health.
• Game is good to eat, and is a great source of low fat tender meat.
• All our grouse are processed through an EU approved game plant which has strict health controls and each batch of grouse is inspected by an FSA approved vet and can only enter the food chain once approved.
• We do not condone illegal activities and would not source from any establishment which was involved in any illegal activity
• Proper moorland management is fundamental to the rural environment. Any form of wildlife control is properly regulated. We do not source from moorlands with unethical or questionable practices.
• A managed heather programme, involving limited and rotational heather burning, is an accepted part of good moorland management to protect the rural environment. If moorland were not managed, there would be no grouse.

END

It was good to see a quick response from Iceland Foods but the details within that response leave a lot to be desired and don’t come anywhere near close to answering the questions we posed. It looks like we’ll have to ask some more questions:

Questions for Iceland Foods CEO Malcolm Walker:

1. You say that “it is generally accepted that frozen game including grouse will remain in great condition and safe to eat for two years”. Please can you tell us BY WHOM it is generally accepted? Because every single website we’ve looked at when researching maximum storage times for frozen meat provides a range of between 1-12 months, not “two years”. And we’ve looked at a lot of websites, including UK and USA sites. Granted, there is very limited specific information about storage times for feathered game (which makes us all the more curious about the source of your claim) although we did find one website where feathered game was specifically mentioned (Penn State College of Agricultural Sciences, USA – see here) and they say game bird meat will store in the freezer for 9-12 months. It’s also pretty disingenuous to claim that “as freezing is Nature’s pause button they will be in excellent condition [for two years]” because during those long months in the freezer, the meat still undergoes changes, typically causing rancidity and oxidation, which is why frozen meat is labelled with a ‘best before date’ and why guidelines are provided for maximum storage periods!

2. You say that “game shot with lead ammunition has not been proven medically to have any adverse health effect”. Hmm. Is that because, inexplicably, game meat is exempt from the legal lead level tests required for every other type of meat sold in the UK (e.g. pork, chicken beef) and when it has been tested (see here) some of it was found to contain more than ten times the legal level (and some of it 100 times the legal level) allowed for those other meats? With this frightening level of poison in lead-shot red grouse, and “the overwhelming scientific evidence on the toxic effects of lead on human and wildlife health” (see here) how can you possibly claim that eating lead-shot red grouse is safe and healthy?

3. You say “we would not source from any establishment which was involved in any illegal activity”. Please will you tell us how you assess whether any of your source establishments is or isn’t involved in any illegal activity? Which body or organisation is making that assessment, on what basis is the assessment made, and is the assessor independent? For transparency, please name the estates.

4. You say “we do not source from moorlands with unethical or questionable practices”. Please will you tell us how you assess whether each of those moors/estates is or isn’t involved with unethical or questionable practices? Which body or organisation is making that assessment, on what basis is the assessment made, and is the assessor independent? For transparency, please name the estates.

5. You say “Proper moorland management is fundamental to the rural environment”. However, moorland management practices associated with intensively managed grouse moors, such as burning and drainage, can damage internationally important peatland and increase greenhouse gas emissions (see here). Please can you explain how these damaging management practices are “fundamental to the rural environment”?

6. You say that “any form of wildlife control is properly regulated” [on the moors from where your red grouse are sourced]. Please can you explain what you mean by “properly regulated”? Wildlife control (usually the killing of predators and also mountain hares) is highly unregulated on grouse moors with no requirement for monitoring the population impact on those species that are killed.

7. You say “If moorland were not managed, there would be no grouse”. Could you please explain this statement? Do you mean that if the moorlands were not intensively managed, the natural grouse population would be just fine but there wouldn’t be the ridiculously artificial high density of red grouse available for people to shoot? Because that’s very different from saying ‘without moorland management there would be no grouse’.

Emails please to Iceland Foods CEO Malcolm Walker: malcolm.walker@iceland.co.uk

Iceland, the low budget supermarket, has announced it is to start selling red grouse before the start of the shooting season, according to an article in yesterday’s Daily Mail (here).

How are they managing that? Well, they’re planning on selling frozen red grouse, that were presumably shot last year. Sales are due to begin in early August and will be limited to 12 packs in each store.

According to the Mail’s article, ‘A spokesperson from Iceland said: “Kezie Whole Grouse are sourced from moors in northern England and in Scotland, rich in heather and audited to ensure they adhere to the code of good shooting practice“‘.

The CEO of Iceland, Malcolm Walker, lists ‘shooting’ amongst his ‘greatest enthusiasms‘.

Iceland has an interesting statement on its website about corporate responsibility which includes the following quotes:

• “Iceland  has always been a responsible retailer, committed to providing safe, healthy and ethically sourced food”.
• “We also respect the environment…”
• “All Iceland brand products are clearly labelled on the back of our packs with a full and honest list of our ingredients…”
• “We encourage healthy eating…”
• “Iceland brand products adhere to a strict animal welfare policy”.

If you look around the Iceland website, and also on google, you’ll find a fair bit of bragging about how they introduced various food safety policies ‘before Marks and Spencer’. They’re a bit behind M&S when it comes to selling red grouse though; M&S abandoned grouse sales last year because they were not able to guarantee a responsible source of red grouse (see here).

So, in light of Iceland’s stated corporate responsibility policy, and the ever-increasing concerns about how environmentally damaging the driven grouse shooting industry is, here are some questions for Malcolm Walker (his email address is provided at the foot of this post) –

1. When were your frozen red grouse actually shot?

2. For how long can you safely freeze grouse meat? We couldn’t find any specific information about this on the website recommended by Iceland (Cool Cookery – see here) nor in an otherwise helpful article recently published in the Daily Mail that suggests varying periods for uncooked meat (although game not specifically mentioned) of between 3 to 12 months (see here). If your red grouse were shot last season (between 12 Aug – 10 Dec 2014), that would suggest they’ve already been frozen from between 7 -11 months.

3. Red grouse are shot with lead ammunition. Lead is a poison. Lead is highly toxic to humans. The health risk of lead poisoning has been well-documented (e.g. see here, here and here). In 2012, the Food Standards Agency published guidance on eating game shot with lead ammunition:

“The FSA is advising people that eating lead-shot game on a frequent basis can expose them to potentially harmful levels of lead. The FSA’s advice is that frequent consumers of lead-shot game should eat less of this type of meat“.

What steps have you taken to alert your customers to this advice, how does this advice fit in to your commitment of providing ‘safe and healthy food’, and do your labels (with a ‘full and honest list of our ingredients’) include information about how much lead is in each grouse?

4. There’s a new disease spreading through red grouse populations in both England and Scotland called respiratory cryptosporidiosis, also known as Bulgy Eye. Some red grouse infected with this disease may not show any apparent symptoms. What measures have you taken to ensure the grouse you are selling are not infected and what advice are you providing to your customers about consuming diseased grouse?

5. Many grouse moors in England and Scotland are associated with the illegal persecution of birds of prey, particularly the hen harrier. From which (named) grouse moors are your red grouse sourced and how have you, as ‘a responsible retailer’, independently assessed whether they are involved with this criminal activity?

6. Intensively-managed grouse moors rely on a number of questionable practices, including the mass unregulated killing of other wildlife such as foxes, stoats, weasels, crows and mountain hares. How do these practices fit in to your commitment ‘to provide ethically sourced food’? Are these unethical practices carried out on the moors from where your grouse are sourced?

7. Intensively-managed grouse moor practices such as heather burning and drainage can damage internationally important peatland and increase greenhouse gas emissions (e.g. see here). How do these environmentally damaging practices fit in with your statement that Iceland ‘respects the environment’? Are these damaging practices carried out on the moors from where your grouse are sourced?

Emails to Iceland CEO Malcolm Walker: malcolm.walker@iceland.co.uk

For those of you on Twitter, you might find the following useful:

@MalcolmCWalker

@IcelandFoods

@IcelandFoodsPR

@MrPeterAndre (the current ‘face’ of Iceland with a known interest in wildlife & animal welfare issues)

It’s not been an impressive week for Scotland’s Environment Minister’s office, and the poor performance continues…

Do you remember back in May this year, when Scottish gamekeeper James O’Reilly was convicted of committing four wildlife crime offences on the Cardross Estate in Stirlingshire, including the setting of gin traps, one of which caused such injury to a buzzard that the bird had to be euthanised? See here for a recap.

O’Reilly received what we consider a typically pathetic sentence – a 240 hour Community Payback Order – and we encouraged blog readers to contact Environment Minister Dr Aileen McLeod to ask when the Government-commissioned Wildlife Crime Penalties Review report would be published.

Here’s the response received by one of our readers:

Dear XXXXXX

Thank you for your letter of 21 May 2015, to the Minister for Environment, Climate Change and Land Reform, Dr Aileen McLeod. I have been asked to respond on the Minister’s behalf.

Your letter, headed “Wildlife Crime Penalties Review”, asks when the review of the penalties for wildlife crime will be published. The review has taken longer than anticipated due to the volume of material considered and the range of issues which has arisen. The group are currently working on the draft report and we expect this to be with the Minister before the summer recess. The Minister will wish to consider the report carefully and at this juncture we are not able to provide details of when any of the recommendations might be implemented.

You also raise a concern about the recent conviction of a gamekeeper who received a 240 hour Community Payback Order (CPO). Sentencing is a matter for the Scottish Courts, however CPOs are not intended to be a “soft option”, they are an effective alternative to custody – individuals released from a custodial sentence of six months or less are reconvicted more than twice as often as those given a CPO.  There are also penalties for breaching a CPO, including an electronic monitoring sanction for non-compliance, so offenders cannot simply ignore the court’s punishment.

I hope that you find this response helpful.

Yours faithfully,

Karen Hunter Wildlife Crime Policy Officer

END

The third paragraph of this response is astounding. “CPOs….are an effective alternative to custody – individuals released from custodial sentences of six months or less are reconvicted more than twice as often as those given a CPO“. From where has this statement been lifted? It may well be applicable to easily-detectable crimes such as theft but the statement is entirely out of context and cannot possibly be applicable to assessing the reconviction rates of offenders involved in wildlife crime because there’s only ever been one custodial sentence for a raptor-killing criminal and that was only handed out in January this year (to gamekeeper George Mutch). That means that there aren’t any data on the deterrent effect of CPOs vs custody for wildlife crime offenders so making a statement to suggest that CPOs are more effective is disingenuous at best, and that’s being generous.

In addition, it’s well established that conviction rates (let alone reconviction rates) of wildlife crime offenders in no way reflect the actual offending rate – see the recently published LINK report for the low rate of prosecutions, let alone convictions, for reported wildlife crimes in Scotland. So to suggest that CPOs are an effective deterrent for addressing wildlife crime is absolute nonsense.

For all we know, a high percentage of convicted wildlife crime offenders are reoffending left right and centre – they’re just not being caught! Equally, of course, they may not be reoffending. Or, given the lengthy delays involved in bringing criminal prosecutions, they may have reoffended but the cases are still going through the system (remember that CPOs only came in to force in 2011, and we’re still waiting for some trials relating to offences that were alleged to have occurred several years ago). The point is, the limited data available do not provide for a robust assessment of the effectiveness of CPOs vs custodial sentences for wildlife crime offenders, so officials in the Environment Minister’s office would do well not to try and fob us off with such glib tosh.

Meanwhile, in a parallel universe, the North Wales Police and Crime Commissioner, Winston Roddick, is calling for tougher sentencing powers to allow the courts to deal with convicted raptor killers. His efforts are being supported by wildlife presenter Iolo Williams – see here.