Why the licensing of driven grouse shooting is a bad idea
Guest post by Stephen Lewis, July 2022
A former direct-action roads protestor, Stephen Lewis lives semi-retired in the Highlands of Scotland. A keen outdoor person (and avid trespasser), he has become increasingly concerned and angry at what is going on in the countryside with respect to our environment and wildlife. Last autumn Stephen walked - solo and unsupported - from Fort William to the south coast of England and what he saw (or didn't see) reinforced his concerns about industrial agriculture, land rights, and his loathing of bloodsports.
In this post Stephen argues against the licencing of driven grouse shoots, a proposed legislative system which would apparently involve a shoot obtaining an operational licence from a regulator that would, at minimum, have conditions attached mandating the shoot follows wildlife and environmental protection codes of practice and laws. Where there is evidence suggesting that a shoot has failed to follow those conditions the licence could be withdrawn, even if the evidence pointing to criminality is less than sufficient to merit criminal proceedings.
Why the licensing of driven grouse shooting is a bad idea
Background – What is driven grouse shooting?
For readers unfamiliar with what driven grouse shooting (DGS) actually entails, the following is a brief summary.
DGS is basically what it says on the tin: red grouse (Lagopus lagopus) – a native wild bird (referred to by shooters as a ‘gamebird’) of the British uplands - are ‘driven’ (forced to take flight by disturbance) by ‘beaters’ (aka shooting estate ‘lackeys’) towards the ‘guns’ or men (and, yes, it usually is men) armed with shotguns who then shoot them out of the sky in vast numbers for ‘sport’. Put simply, DGS is the killing of wild birds, in this case red grouse, for fun.
All this ‘fun’ comes at a price and participants pay significant sums of money to kill red grouse on our upland moors during the ‘season’ of 12th August – 10th December each year. Killing birds for fun is now a seriously commercial activity run by and practiced by some very wealthy people. Some would describe DGS as ‘elitist’. That wealthy elite really do not like scrutiny of their bird-killing days out and moorland ‘management’ activities by conservationists, or anyone else for that matter.
It is also important to note that in the UK the activity of DGS itself is almost entirely unregulated. Participants need to have a shotgun licence (heavily subsidised by the taxpayer), but other than that the vast areas of our uplands dedicated to this destructive ‘bloodsport’ are almost regulation-free – just the way the landowners and DGS enthusiasts like it. Whilst increased regulation may be welcomed by some I want to make the case why increased regulation of this ‘sport’ will not work and could actually make things worse.
Although I will refer to some of the issues associated with DGS, the purpose of this article is not to dwell on the many serious ills of DGS in detail. However, for a detailed, forensic look at the structural problems of DGS I highly recommend reading the report ‘The Intensification Grouse Moor Management in Scotland’ by Andy Wightman and Dr. Ruth Tingay. Also recommended is Dr. Mark Avery’s demolition of DGS in his book ‘Inglorious’.
What is driven grouse shooting/moor licensing and why have people campaigned for it?
DGS licensing as a policy – for now - only pertains to DGS in Scotland. This is due to the fact that England has a Tory government (the political wing of most upland landowners Countryside Alliance, British Association for Shooting and Conservation – my favourite oxymoronic title – and many other pro-‘bloodsport’ groups) and Scotland does not. However, the many inherent problems with DGS are the same north and south of the border. The situation may change if the Tories try and claw back the currently devolved powers that allow the Scottish Government to instigate a DGS licensing system.
It would be inaccurate and churlish to argue that the Scottish SNP Government - with some much-needed and welcome scrutiny from the Greens - has not done anything to counter the many ills of DGS in Scotland. They have taken some action such as stiffening penalties for wildlife crime and (almost) banning the slaughter of mountain hares, for example. Arguably, however, it is the touchstone issue of industrial-scale raptor persecution (which the Scottish Government and their agencies have thus far failed to address effectively) by gamekeepers on or near grouse moors which remains front-and-centre of the ongoing scrutiny of DGS and subsequent debate; a debate helped enormously by Ruth Tingay’s excellent ‘Raptor Persecution UK’ blog. Well worth a read and free subscription.
At least in Scotland, DGS and all its terrible ills, are ‘on the agenda’ and significantly this has culminated with the publishing of a Government-commissioned Independent Review of Grouse Moor Management, commonly referred to as ‘The Werritty Report’ (TWR) in November 2019.
Notwithstanding the Covid pandemic, most campaigners against DGS would agree that the Scottish Government response to TWR has been, if I’m being charitable, glacial. The Scottish Government has accepted the principal recommendation of TWR and has publicly stated that they will introduce a licensing system for DGS. The Scottish Government is still deciding what form this will take.
Several conservation organisations – most notably the influential RSPB - opposed to DGS have long been campaigning for a DGS licensing system of some sort. At first glance many conservation-minded people opposed to DGS might think ‘great, at last something is being done’. At this point I would ask those in favour of DGS licensing to stop and think about what the licensing of driven grouse shooting would actually mean for the future of our intensively-managed-grouse-moor-denuded uplands.
It is my firm belief that DGS licensing as a campaign aim and as a future policy for our uplands has been and will remain a catastrophic error. I will explain why.
Would you agree to licensing the mugging of old ladies?
Most organisations and individuals opposed to DGS - I think it is safe to say - would really prefer that DGS was banned outright. Therefore, promoting and accepting DGS licensing as a campaign objective, at best, could only be seen as a consolation prize. It is also my firm belief that not only is DGS licensing not a consolation prize, it is actually a retrograde step for protecting our uplands as the chances of getting DGS banned post-licensing would be worsened.
Some things are simply so awful that a civilised society legislates to ban them. In the area of wildlife protection, banning badger baiting and fox hunting would be good examples. Encouragingly, I’m far from alone when I say, loudly and clearly, that DGS is one such awful pastime and it should be banned outright. That remains my terminus a quo.
DGS as a pastime is not only heinous because of the red grouse that are killed for entertainment. The associated land degradation (draining, burning, cutting etc.) over vast areas of our uplands, increased flooding in lowland areas, industrial-scale predator control (killing untold numbers of crows, stoats, weasels, foxes etc.), use of medicated grit (to prevent disease in grouse due to ridiculously high population densities that makes DGS ‘commercially viable’), moorland burning, construction of hill tracks in wild areas, the use of toxic lead ammunition and the fact that grouse moors are often subsidised by the taxpayer, make it an utterly unsustainable and abhorrent pastime.
And they are the just legal ills of DGS.
When one considers the industrial-scale illegality – primarily raptor persecution – associated with DGS, then the magnitude of the problem really sinks in. Indeed, many conservationists – some of whom still support DGS licensing – have referred to raptor persecution on/around grouse moors as ‘organised crime’. That it most definitely is.
So, my first point is: why on earth would you want to license something that is so destructive on so many levels?
I would argue that those, perhaps, suffering from campaign fatigue and thereby settling for ‘something’, ‘anything’, when it comes to DGS is not understandable, sensible or even acceptable. When fox hunting was banned, the prior campaign never sought some botched compromise of a licensing system. No, only a ban would do and that was what we got. It may have taken a long time, by many brave campaigners, but a ban was the result. The right result.
However imperfect the Hunting Acts are [the Wild Mammals Protection (Scotland) Act (2002) and Hunting Act 2004 which covers England and Wales] they are nonetheless a ban north and south of the border and, encouragingly, there are moves afoot in Scotland to strengthen the ban with the introduction of the Hunting with Dogs Bill.
Why on this earth would anyone opposed to something as destructive as DGS want to effectively campaign to keep it by, er, licensing it? In fact I would go as far to say that – gun to my head – if I had only one choice which one out of fox hunting or DGS would I opt to ban, it would be DGS every time (as it is so environmentally destructive – much worse that fox hunting on that score); and I am someone who loathes fox hunting with every cell of my being.
Legitimacy – the unholy grail of the bird killers
The pro-DGS lobby are indeed rattled by current campaigns and as a result, they constantly crave legitimacy by all manner of means with their own campaigns outside of the scope of this discussion. If and when DGS licensing is introduced, the pro-DGS lobby will, by definition, be given a massive dollop of legitimacy i.e. ‘your pastime is now safely licensed and everything is hunky dory’.
I say this to anti-DGS campaigners: try getting DGS banned after licensing has been introduced. Good luck with that.
I know a few people in the DGS ‘industry’ and their views on licensing vary from ‘mildly irritated’, ‘not bothered’ to actually ‘welcoming’ (due to the legitimacy afforded by licensing). Of course. the public squealing of the ‘hard-done-by’ DGS mob loud mouths is to be expected, but do not be fooled for a second; this is just chaff being thrown up as a campaign tactic to ensure that the ‘industry’ gets a licensing ‘system’ that it is happy with. A ‘system ’that will be easy enough to avoid with a bit of cash thrown at it. I and many others fear that is exactly what will happen.
We make the laws and you, not us, abide by them
People and organisations who own grouse moors, just like people who go fox hunting, tend to be wealthy and very well connected. Yes, they are the folks that are used to getting their own way and for them, heeding the laws against wildlife crime is nothing more than optional. Sure, now and again the odd gamekeeper gets a slap on the wrist from a magistrate for clubbing a goshawk to death, but any subsequent fine is merely written off as a business expense and most likely paid by his betters. It remains an excruciating fact that existing laws pertaining to wildlife killing are routinely broken day-in-and-day-out. Perhaps if a judge gave that goshawk-bludgeoning gamekeeper 5 years in Wormwood Scrubs things may change, but there is no absolutely sign of that on the horizon, particularly in England.
Sadly, the reality is that the widespread killing of raptors on and around grouse moors is a continuing disgrace and virtually no one ends up in court. Therefore, does anyone opposed to DGS seriously think that adding another layer of bureaucracy in the form of a licence will prevent, for example, gamekeepers killing birds of prey on grouse moors?
No of course not.
Additionally, however stringent any licensing system is on paper, it is still only as good as the enforcement of said licence. Enforcement of existing laws i.e. not some woolly licence system, is pathetic now and I would argue that there is no evidence whatsoever that this woeful situation is going to improve anytime soon. Indeed, for example, the vicarious liability law in Scotland has not stopped raptors being slaughtered by ‘organised criminals’. So why would a licence stop raptor persecution?
Some conservationists would argue that if, say, a satellite-tagged golden eagle was found dead on a grouse moor then the licence for that moor/owner could be revoked.
Really? Just think about that for a second: A dead - illegally killed - raptor is found on a grouse moor with no evidence (either the police didn’t turn up or turned up and couldn’t be arsed as it was his lordship’s estate and he’s a good chap…) as to who committed the crime. Then, say, the licensing authority, gets all enthusiastic anyway and attempts to sanction the licence holder with licence removal. How would that play out? Try this: The sanctioned licence holder calls his £500-an-hour lawyer and, rather quickly, the licence gets re-instated + costs… I suggest that any DGS licensing ‘system’ would be a lawyer’s paradise.
Besides, the track record with respect to endemic wildlife crime (some say – probably correctly - that without killing raptors the ‘business model’ of DGS would be unsustainable) surely shows that DGS cannot be regulated? I proffer that those campaigners who still have faith in effective enforcement of a DGS licensing ‘system’ need to have a serious word with themselves.
Alternative land uses?
Many campaigners against DGS are also advocates of doing something less destructive and/or restorative with the vast areas of our uplands (estimates say 15-20% of land is currently knackered grouse moor in Scotland) currently monopolised by DGS. That is a laudable aim. Some form of re-wilding is often, rightly, top of campaigners’ suggestions.
Therefore, I put it to those campaigners who support DGS licensing another simple question: Just how will a DGS licensing ‘system’ assist, in any way, alternative biodiversity-friendly land uses for our uplands? Surely If DGS continues under licence our moorland will remain environmentally suppressed for years to come and no amount of licence conditions will alter this outcome.
Cold, hard, cash
Last but not least, who is going to pay for a DGS licensing system?
Since we do not yet know what we will end up with – I predict a complex, weasel-worded, dog’s breakfast of a DGS licensing system - no one knows what it will cost. Considering, however, just the admin costs, let alone the enforcement budget, I think all would agree that it will be a pretty big bill. Since we already directly and indirectly subsidise (yes, incredible I know, but true) many grouse moors I simply fail to see - as some campaigners have suggested – how the DGS ‘industry’ will pick up 100% of the costs.
This is cloud-cuckoo land thinking. I for one do not want to see more of my taxes funding wealthy people who like killing our wildlife for fun.
Conclusions
As much as I would like a DGS licensing system to work, for the reasons stated above I absolutely think it will not. All the evidence shows that DGS simply cannot be regulated effectively. Worse still, I think not only will a licensing system not work, it will make the DGS problem – and chances of consigning it to history – worse.
I also put it to organisations and campaigners who want, or merely agree with, a DGS licensing system that they are doing the remnant campaign to BAN DGS a great disservice, as we will be stuck with licensed driven grouse shooting for decades to come as the Scottish Government will see the ‘DGS problem’ as ‘sorted’. Simply put, ‘licensed driven grouse shooting’ will look remarkably like ‘driven grouse shooting’, only with no chance whatsoever of getting it banned.
I fear it will not happen, but I urge those campaigners who have their fingers crossed for DGS licensing to have a major rethink. It is probably too late, but for me and other campaigners the only sensible campaign objective has always been and always will be, a TOTAL BAN of DGS.
In the sad years to come, sad years when the morally bankrupt and soon-to-be freshly licensed ‘guns’ - with all the trimmings of respectability and legitimacy afforded to them by a licence - continue to happily blast away thousands of our wild birds each year, I say to the RSPB, REVIVE et al: If and when you achieve the pyrrhic victory of DGS licensing, do not say you were not warned.