Guns in Control

In the USA the question is about gun control. A question that should be asked in Britain is whether we wish to have our landscape, especially its more remote parts, designed and its appearance prescribed by a gun culture of our own. The way our hills look has much to do with the demands of two groups whose interests and agendas often overlap: the farmers and the shooters. Both groups are determined promoters of their own interests. The shooters claim their needs coincide with what’s best for the countryside and for Britain. They would say that of course; but that doesn’t stop them saying it. That claim is highly contentious. Their sport, shooting grouse, demands a treeless waste, a regime of burning heather, a campaign of persecuting (aka ‘managing’) wildlife. The persecution they go in for is of those wild animals that might  possibly endanger the lives of game birds before the shooters themselves get a chance to kill them. Note carefully the language used, proof of the involvement of public relations consultants. Game birds are now more often called ground-nesting birds. Culling, itself a euphemism, is now called managing. In fact the whole industry is promoted as one giant euphemistic lie: the story being that without the management and without the kind altruistic shooters selflessly performing a public duty, our upland landscape would somehow become a ghastly place to which nobody would want to go.

In the centre of the Peak District is the area known as the High Peak dominated by the bleak plateau of Kinder and even bleaker high land aptly named Bleaklow. The management of these areas is now in the hands of the National Trust. When the National Trust was considering its approach to future management a few months ago it held a consultation. The responses to that consultation suggest that the most determined responders were the vested interests of the shooting lobby plus perhaps a few others who’ve swallowed their propaganda –often given airtime by the BBC and other organs in the media.

The result is that our countryside gets shaped and managed in the interests of the shooting lobby. The National Trust is like Natural England in this. The people who tend to get positions at the top of these organisations are friends of the shooting and culling lobby. Below are some examples of the specious arguments thrown at any consultation regarding our uplands. There’s no doubt that what happens and what’s decided in the High Peak is a strong influence on what happens on Sheffield Moors and of course also on Blacka Moor:

 _______________________________________________________________

What would you like to see more of?

Some typical comments:

Field sports which provide the only financially sustainable way of maintaining our uplands which are not a natural environment.

Managed moorland (farmed and shot) which will encourage diversity and healthy population.

Restoring Heather, developing shoot opportunities.

Managed moorland (farmed and shot) which will encourage diversity and healthy population.

Much more burning on the moors. Much more bracken control. More control of

foxes and crows.

Predator control - fundamentally important for ground nesting bird populations.

These people get their way with National Trust managers who allow and encourage shooting on their land even rationalising it through statements like this:

NT recognises the importance of legal predator control for shooting and farming interests and for the conservation of ground nesting birds.We also recognise that deer and squirrel management have a role in establishing new woodlands. Control needs to be sustained and well timed to be effective. Evidence suggests that the targeted control of crows, magpies and foxes is likely to be effective in protecting ground nesting birds but is inconclusive on the effects of controlling stoats and weasels.