Grouse Shooting

The MP highlighted the dynamism of Scotland's approach to grouse moor management compared to a slower UK response. He praised the Werritty report for providing an evidence-based framework for licensing grouse shooting, aiming to balance wildlife protection and economic benefits. The MP noted that while there are positive aspects such as job creation in rural communities, there are also concerns about raptor persecution and public support for a ban on driven grouse shooting.

He declared his membership of the all-party parliamentary group on shooting and conservation. He noted that although he has never personally been grouse shooting, he understands both sides of the debate. David highlighted the importance of habitat management through controlled burning to promote wildlife growth and prevent wildfires. He also stressed that hunting is essential for managing animal populations and underpins funding for conservation efforts.

Argued that banning driven grouse shooting would harm wildlife and the environment, stating that well-managed moors support wading birds and hen harriers. Highlighted economic benefits including £100 million direct value to the UK economy and over 2,500 full-time jobs.

Jim Shannon, a member of the British Association for Shooting and Conservation and a conservationist, supported grouse shooting due to its environmental benefits. He cited that grouse moors store up to 35% of UK's peatland carbon while providing biodiversity and economic value through tourism. With 2,592 full-time jobs on moorlands generating £67 million annually, Shannon emphasized the need for research into land management practices and supported controlled burning as a necessary tool for wildfire prevention.

Mr. Djanogly stated that grouse management is not solely for shooting birds, but part of an environmental process involving people who engage in conservation efforts alongside shooting activities. Jonathan Djanogly supports grouse shooting as an environmentally beneficial practice that involves careful management of moorlands. He dismisses the idea that it is solely about maximizing profits, stating instead that those involved are passionate about preserving natural environments for future generations.

The MP criticised the economic and environmental impact of driven grouse shooting, citing issues like illegal raptor persecution, habitat destruction due to burning heather and poisoning from lead shot. She highlighted conservation concerns noting that hen harrier populations have declined despite available suitable habitats for over 300 pairs in England alone. The MP also questioned the economic benefits claimed by those involved in grouse shooting, stating these are exaggerated compared to alternative land uses.

Kevin Hollinrake points out that coniferous woodland is not beneficial for wildlife and that reforestation of these areas can increase carbon dioxide emissions by four to six times per hectare compared with moorland. Mr. Hollinrake pointed out that the number of hen harrier chicks declined from 50 in 2006 to zero in 2013, but increased to 60 last year, emphasizing the importance of looking at factual evidence rather than emotional arguments. He argues against banning driven grouse shooting, citing its positive economic and environmental impacts. He notes that managed moors support biodiversity, with five times more rare birds compared to unmanaged areas. The management also helps prevent wildfires by removing fuel loads without damaging peat layers. Hollinrake emphasizes the importance of evidence-based approaches in addressing wildlife crime.

Blake expressed concern about the impact of grouse shooting on biodiversity and climate change, noting that hen harriers are 10 times more likely to die or disappear on grouse moors. She highlighted illegal bird killings and habitat destruction, calling for an end to heather burning and better regulation to protect peatlands.

Mr. Holden highlighted the economic benefits of grouse shooting, mentioning that it supports jobs for gamekeepers and others in the hospitality sector, inviting the hon. Lady to visit his constituency to meet those involved. He expressed concern about the economic value of grouse shooting in his constituency, highlighting its contribution to part-time jobs and trade for the hospitality sector. He also discussed the importance of proper management of landscapes to prevent wildfires and carbon release, referencing the ecological catastrophe caused by draining peat moorland in the 1950s. Richard Holden supported well-managed moorlands and their positive impact on bird populations and tourism.

Robbie Moore disputes the petition's claims, arguing that grouse shooting is economically significant for rural communities. He cites a study by Simon Denny and Tracey Latham-Green which estimates the direct economic benefit of grouse shooting to be £67.7 million annually in England alone, with over 1,500 full-time jobs directly involved. Moore also highlights the positive impact on conservation efforts, including carbon sequestration and habitat improvement for various bird species.

Mr. Goodwill argued against banning grouse shooting, stating that it is crucial for environmental protection and economic support in the North York Moors national park. He cited 75% of Europe's heather moorland being in the UK and mentioned specific bird species such as black grouse and lapwings benefiting from the management practices. Mr. Goodwill also highlighted increases in raptor populations over recent decades, such as peregrines increasing sixfold since 1963. He discussed the economic benefits of shooting for rural communities and the impact on wildfire prevention.