Calls to Ban Grouse Shooting Rely on Misinformation, Say MPs

Kevin Hollinrake MP

The Westminster debate on the future of driven grouse shooting revealed how those seeking a ban lack a clear understanding of grouse shooting and its benefits, leading to what some Members of Parliament described as "misinformation" across several key areas:

Economic Impact and Significance

The petition claims that "grouse shooting is economically insignificant when contrasted with other real and potential uses of the UK’s extensive uplands". This assertion was directly challenged by numerous MPs. John Lamont, the opener of the debate, stated that the petitioners "do not seem to have a real grasp of the activity or a clear understanding of the benefits it brings to communities".

He highlighted that the wider shooting sector is worth £3.3 billion to the UK economy annually, with grouse shooting specifically contributing £23 million in gross value added to the Scottish economy alone, supporting around 3,000 full-time equivalent jobs in England and Scotland.

Rishi Sunak questioned the "economically insignificant" claim, stating there is "nothing economically insignificant about 2,500 direct jobs and tens of millions of pounds paid out in wages," arguing these numbers are "an underestimate".

He further emphasized that the "real victims of any ban would not be caricatures, but ordinary working people" like farmers' wives, young gamekeeper apprentices, and local publicans, implying proponents fail to grasp the real human cost.

Labour MP Sam Rushworth

Labour MP Sam Rushworth described it as "insulting when these people’s wages are talked about as 'economically insignificant'," underscoring that for those directly employed, their livelihood is far from insignificant.

Kevin Hollinrake argued that the 400 people in his constituency who signed the petition have been "misled" on the economic impact, noting that hundreds are directly employed, and businesses like hotels, shops, and caterers rely on the industry. Robbie Moore reinforced that the economic importance is felt directly in "some of the most remote and deprived" upland rural communities.

Proponents were also criticized for offering "vague and hazy ideas" of alternative economic models without concrete proposals for replacing jobs and revenue, demonstrating a lack of practical understanding of rural economies.

Environmental and Ecological Management

The petition contends that "grouse shooting is bad for... the environment and wildlife". This claim is emphatically rejected by proponents of grouse shooting, who argue the opposite: "This sector does not harm the environment; it protects it. It does not damage the countryside; it maintains it. It does not risk biodiversity; it enhances it".

Speakers highlighted that grouse moors are "managed landscapes" and not "wild, untouched places". The understanding of proponents regarding practices like controlled burning was questioned, with Robbie Moore stating their concerns "fail to consider the full picture and, dare I say it, are sometimes completely ill-informed".

Proponents were accused of having a "surface-level analysis" that ignores how burning is vital for heather regeneration, creating a mosaic habitat, and significantly reducing the risk of "huge and far more damaging wildfires" by preventing fuel build-up.

Kevin Hollinrake explicitly stated that the policies of Natural England, which he views as aligned with the ban's proponents, are "exacerbating the problem" of wildfires by restricting burning.

The role of grouse moor management in peatland restoration and carbon sequestration was emphasized, with 27,000 hectares of bare peat restored in 20 years, contributing to climate change mitigation. Opponents' claims linking burning to flooding were also dismissed, with the counter-argument that moorland managers are actively rewetting peat by blocking drains, leading to flood mitigation downstream.

Regarding biodiversity, the petition's claim that grouse shooting is "bad...for wildlife" was challenged by studies showing higher densities of endangered ground-nesting birds like curlew, lapwing, and golden plover on managed moors due to predator control.

The increase in hen harrier numbers, a species often cited by opponents, was also presented as evidence of successful conservation efforts in partnership with the industry. A Game and Wildlife Conservation Trust study cited reveals the "devastating ecological impact" of withdrawing predator control.

Wildlife Persecution

While the petition is concerned about wildlife persecution, the proponents of shooting condemn illegal acts, emphasizing that it is "criminality" by a "lawbreaking minority," not a systemic issue.

Shooting organizations have "zero-tolerance" policies. This implies that those advocating for a ban may not fully grasp the industry's stance against illegal activities or the efforts being made to combat them, such as investment in the National Wildlife Crime Unit and the hen harrier taskforce.

Furthermore, the effectiveness of laws against cruelty was highlighted, with arguments that the focus should be on enforcing existing laws rather than creating new ones or imposing a blanket ban.

Lack of Appreciation for Rural Realities

Beyond specific claims, there's a broader sentiment that the proponents of the ban, often perceived as "a small section of urban Britain," fail to appreciate the views and interests of rural communities.

John Lamont expressed that the petitioners "do not doubt the petitioners’ sincere and good intentions, but I note that, regrettably, there is often a great deal of misinformation surrounding grouse shooting". This suggests a fundamental disconnect in understanding the traditions, social fabric, and complex management practices integral to rural life, as articulated by Rishi Sunak and other rural MPs.

The "brazen disregard for these jobs and businesses, and for the economic damage a ban would cause" by "some activists" was also cited as a form of misunderstood impact.

In essence, those wanting to ban driven grouse shooting lack a detailed understanding of the subject - they misrepresent the economic significance, overlook the environmental and ecological benefits of active moorland management and fail to differentiate systemic issues from illegal minority actions, all while offering impractical alternatives for vital rural economies.

📧 Keep updated on this and all moorland issues - sign up for our FREE weekly newsletter.