Animal Aid launches week of action against grouse shooting

Animal Aid has launched a week of action against grouse shooting (running 5-12 August).

As part of their campaign, they’ve produced a video called ‘Grouse shooting: unnatural, uncontrolled, unkind’.

They’ve published some accompanying material, including interviews with some of those who feature in the film.

They’re also encouraging their supporters to sign the e-petition to ban driven grouse shooting. This petition has now attracted over 70,000 signatures and is well on its way to reaching the 100,000 signatures needed by 20 September 2016 to be eligible for a parliamentary debate about the future of driven grouse shooting. Please sign HERE


22 Responses to “Animal Aid launches week of action against grouse shooting”

  1. August 3, 2016 at 12:37 pm

    Good, thanks for posting this , RPS/UK.

  2. August 3, 2016 at 12:46 pm

    I have written a post which tries to condense the issue into one letter.
    Feel free to copy and paste and send to anyone who might not have signed.


  3. 4 Bimbling
    August 3, 2016 at 12:47 pm

    Do we need to plan for and start briefing for The Debate?

  4. 6 Les Wallace
    August 3, 2016 at 12:56 pm

    Excellent…it’s the animal welfare organisations that are pushing the conservation, environmental and social cost of DGS. Come on Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth and Green Parties do your bit.Think it would also help to state how much land is burnt for grouse shooting – shows how much is being damaged.

    • 7 Michael Watts
      August 3, 2016 at 2:19 pm

      Bravo Animal Aid; and as Les Wallace askes, where are Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth and the Green Party, why aren’t you part of this campaign? We generally understand why the RSPB haven’t yet back the petition, it’s now time that all who profess to care about our wildlife and countryside come to the aid of the campaign, get on with it.

      • 8 Michael Watts
        August 3, 2016 at 2:49 pm

        And while I am on the subject; we are familiar with the SSPCA’s on-going endeavour to get authorisation from the Scottish Government to investigate wildlife crime scenes in Scotland, but their south of the border counterpart, the RSPCA are rarely if ever mentioned in the context of Red grouse shooting and illegal persecution of raptors, why is that? For an organisation that is reputedly the wealthiest animal welfare organisation in Britain, they remain disturbing silent when it comes to the illegal persecution of raptors, and the persecution, illegal or otherwise, of native wildlife on the moors, all to facilitate Red grouse shooting.

        • 9 Jack Snipe
          August 4, 2016 at 2:59 am

          There appears to be some socio-economic law which means that the more wealthy a conservation body is, the more conservative it becomes. It’s horrible to watch grouse shooters in action on the Animal Aid video, and in my experience positively nauseating to observe them in real life, as I have on many occasions. It’s hard to express in words how disgusting and contemptuous a form of human behaviour you’re witnessing. If anything it’s even worse when the shooters get together afterwards and are in a state of almost frenzied excitement about what they’ve been doing. It certainly brings out the right-wing ranting and raving, with the lower classes, social workers and in particular nature conservationists getting it in the neck. Tall tales abound, showing an almost complete ignorance of raptor ecology, in fact a lack of understanding of basic ecology, which pervades their ranks. I haven’t attended any such event in recent years (though watch from a distance through a good pair of binoculars), but I can imagine Chris Packham’s ears burning particularly sorely come the 12th of August! The whole hunting and shooting fraternity is currently obsessed with witch-hunting him, and at times I genuinely fear for his safety.

          The arrogance and superior egotism of most of the shooters knows no bounds, and anyone who says we don’t live in a class-ridden society any more should spend a day out with them, if they can afford the £1,000. When I watch a video or real life action on the grouse moors, it completely puzzles me how an organisation like the RSPB can live with their conscience when they sit around a table with these people, and don’t have a fundamental principle of policy that all killing of birds, or indeed any wildlife, for pleasure is disgusting and past its sell-by date. The odd thing is that if you speak to a member of RSPB staff about this issue, they either speak up for their employer very weakly, try to avoid the subject altogether, or after a few pints, tell you how appalled and ashamed they are of the RSPB’s stance. It is a minority of people who kill birds because they derive pleasure out of it, but even fewer who can justify hunting for food in our society. I raise the subject when speaking at RSPB Members’ Groups, and the ordinary member seems puzzled by the RSPB’s position; in fact it’s not unusual for them to be in denial, sometimes even accusing me of making it up because I bear some hidden grudge. I don’t, and actually have great respect for most of the RSPB’s contribution to conservation. If anything, the few SNH staff I have discussed the matter with are even more disillusioned with their employer. Some have simply resigned or moved on to other employment in disgust. This is modern Britain. Rant over, apologies for stuck record syndrome but I can’t help being Mr Angry.

          • 10 Les Wallace
            August 4, 2016 at 4:13 pm

            Well said and what worries me is that when the RSPB sits round the table do they say ‘Well obviously we’d like you to make some changes to accomodate conservation, but you must also realize those same changes are consistent with meeting your social responsibilities – current practices are reducing water quality and thereby increasing treatment charges for the general public, and of course probably exacerbate flooding that affects farms, business and homes downstream’. Or do they just leave out the last bit so as not to irritate and offend the estates and keep on their good side? I fear they do the latter.

  5. 11 Brian
    August 3, 2016 at 3:38 pm

    Well Done Animal Aid,this is Excellent,and yes let’s hope other organisations join in to.that is a great point regarding the rspca,who must have had to deal with many horrific injuries to our Wildlife from Traps,Snares,Shooting,Poisoning from some of these Shooting estates.

  6. 13 against feudalism
    August 3, 2016 at 4:57 pm

    Great, the more the merrier!

    Without meaning to sound like a stuck record :) I still feel that emphasis should be given to the MILLIONS of £’s the shooting estates receive from the public purse for ‘farming’ grouse and pheasant, or putting a few sheep on the moor to act as ‘tick mops’ ? We might find that resonates more with the public. Maybe Chris Packham could add that to his excellent series of video’s, yet another reason to ban, we can’t afford the landowners!

    ” Just WHY are the rich toffs getting our money for their callus brutal hobby ? “

  7. 17 AlanTwo
    August 3, 2016 at 7:22 pm

    It’s great that Animal Aid have done this, and even better that they have included photos of stink pits, recently dug drainage ditches and moor burning in their accompanying material.
    Is it possible to get these pictures distributed more widely via social media, and maybe add some of the trailerloads of dead mountain hare? I think many people will react strongly to these.

  8. 18 Ros Berrington
    August 4, 2016 at 9:36 am

    My experience with members of Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth is that many of them don’t have a great deal of knowledge about wildlife but come from a more environmental angle.It would be great if they were more vocal about driven Grouse shooting which actually covers human,environmental and wildlife issues.In a way that could be it’s great strength if we all pull together.
    When you think that fox hunting was banned which affected only one animal but had huge support from the general public,Grouse shooting involves many species of native animals suffering very cruel deaths and destruction of our environment that contributes to flooding.
    Surely,surely sense and humanity can stop this devastating practice.I know we can win this,we have to keep going until we do.
    In defense of the Green party,Natalie Bennett visited Walshaw Moor this year and was extremely supportive and vocal as have been my local Green Party and they have pledged to ban driven Grouse shooting.

    • 19 Marian
      August 4, 2016 at 1:40 pm

      Thanks, Ros. I quite agree.

      Fox hunting – so many of the public value foxes and even in cities they are a familiar sight. There’s an emotional attachment to them, so the thought of their being torn to pieces is appalling.

      Few beyond the moors will ever have seen a grouse – I haven’t – and the environmental ramifications of this futile activity are more complex for those who aren’t committed to the cause in the way we are.

      I had a letter on the subject printed in The Big Issue North – but as far as I know, there was no response in any way to it.

  9. 20 AlanTwo
    August 4, 2016 at 11:49 am

    The National Trust, wearing its hat as ‘Britain’s largest farmer’, has released proposals for the reform of the farm subsidy system post-Brexit. It calls for an end to payments for simply owning land, and proposes a system in which money would be given only in return for helping wildlife and improving the environment.
    According to the report in the Guardian (https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/aug/04/national-trust-calls-for-complete-reform-of-british-farm-subsidies), the NT proposal is based on 6 broad principles, which seem to make total sense to me. In brief, public money should only be given to private companies or individuals in return for public benefits.
    The devil may be in the detail, but these could be ideas that could draw broad support from conservationists and NGOs. I await a response from the RSPB and Wildlife Trusts.
    The only way I can think of to improve these proposals would be to add a seventh principle, along the lines of:
    “No public money should be given for land that is primarily used for activities involving the killing or harming of animals for the primary purpose of pleasure or recreation.”
    If we could gather public support for something like this, we really would be getting somewhere.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Blog Stats

  • 4,162,344 hits


Our recent blog visitors