The epetition to Ban Driven Grouse Shooting reached the required level of signatories and then some. The House of Commons Petitions Committee decided to hold an evidence session where the petitioner Dr Mark Avery and Jeff Knott of the RSPB answered questions from the Committee members. Amanda Anderson of the Moorland Association and Liam Stokes of the Countryside Alliance had, according to some bloggers a much easier time from members of the Committee who had at least declared vested interest in pro DGS.
Rob Sheldon offers us a view of the proceedings in “A grouse about evidence-based decision making”
Ollie’s Birdwatching Blog also provides a pretty good critique of the HoC Petitions Committee conduct?
But lest we be accused of bias, the readers are encouraged to watch and read the Parliamentary record
The Parliamentary website offers public access to the 477 submissions made as well as the Oral Evidence taken on 18 October 2016. Parliament TV also makes available the proceedings and the nuances which cannot be as easily sensed from a written format are laid bare to the reader here?
Will tomorrow’s Debate in Parliament see Driven Grouse Shooting banned? Here’s hoping for a more evidence based debate tomorrow, with MPs offering facts and not fiction. To see the erroneous peddled as fact then read the series of submission critiques by Avery. Of particular interest are submissions from ex-gamekeepers and local communities troubled by grouse shoots, there are some heart wrenching pleas to accompany the more academic critiques citing reports and papers. The tragedy of the increase in illegal raptor persecution is offered by the dedicated raptor workers who have monitored the decline over decades. Together it is a pretty damming indictment of a ‘sport’ and the submissions offer a compelling case for reform?
But this is Westminster, this is Parliament – will it be for the many or for the few?