MPs will on Monday debate a ban on driven grouse shooting following a petition signed by more than 120,000 people. But there will be one missing signature that could have swayed the argument decisively behind a ban: that of the RSPB.
As a former employee and lifelong member I have become increasingly frustrated with the society’s desire to protect hen harriers by arguing for new laws to licence moors but not supporting a ban. It is a position which I strongly believe many of its 1 million-plus members now also find untenable.
As the number of breeding hen harriers in England has plummeted to nearly nothing due to illegal persecution, the RSPB has found itself having to take sides in an increasingly polarised debate. In response it has doggedly stuck to position of arguing that dialogue and reform is the way forward, even after withdrawing its support from the government’s hen harrier action plan because, according to its conservation director, Martin Harper, “the voluntary approach has failed”.
In advance of the debate, the RSPB has lobbied MPs not to back the ban but instead support its call for a change in the law. The organisation seems to forget that the law can sometimes be an ass, especially when it comes to protecting hen harriers. Why would a new law to licence moors be any more effective than one protecting the species - which clearly has failed? At best it is naive and at worst it would yet again let the shooting lobby off the hook.
Like so many ordinary rank and file RSPB members, I added my name to the petition because I believe that only a ban will allow the hen harrier population to recover. Going from a potential breeding population of more than 300 pairs to only a “tiny handful” this year is a conservation disaster requiring urgent action, not lobbying for new legislation which would be years away at best.
What causes me particular consternation is that - shamefully - the RSPB senior management seems to have already written off the result of the debate. Their head of nature policy, Jeff Knott, stated: “I’d be amazed if either a ban or licensing was introduced off the back of it”.
Given that the petition will have been signed by many of his members, the RSPB’s chief executive, Mike Clarke, would do well to caution his senior staff not to write any further hostages to fortune.
The RSPB’s stance has also brought it into conflict with many leading conservationists, from the author of the petition, Mark Avery, to the TV presenter Chris Packham.
Avery, its former director of conservation for nearly 13 years and my boss when I worked in the RSPB’s research department, has becoming increasingly irate with the society but has declined to publicly criticise it. Packham has gone further, publicly slamming its stance as “shameful” but again stopping short of resigning as its vice-president.
The reluctance to criticise the RSPB is understandable as no one wants to hand victory to the likes those representing the shooting lobby. As a major landowner itself, the RSPB also finds itself in the unenviable position of having to work with other landowners and gamekeepers on the ground every day. However, its stance has undeniably split the conservation lobby, meaning its voice in parliament during the debate will be considerably weakened.
If, as the RSPB predicts, MPs do not back a ban, then the society needs to ask itself some very difficult questions. Could the support of its million-plus members and its influence in parliament have tipped the debate in favour of a ban? And more importantly is its senior management team’s stance now at odds with its membership on the issue?
The only sure way to answer this question would be to ballot its members. For the sake of England’s dwindling hen harrier population, this vote cannot come soon enough.