When ban attempt spectacularly fails 

Political unity in defence of rural traditions

In an era where rural Britain often feels like an afterthought in national policy debates, the Westminster Hall session on driven grouse shooting provided something rare: political consensus. This wasn’t along party lines, but on the value of sustainable land management, rural livelihoods and conservation.

Despite a petition backed by high-profile figures calling for a ban, MPs comprehensively dismantled the idea. The debate showcased deep cross-party support for grouse shooting and highlighted a glaring urban-rural divide in environmental thinking.

Challenging the narrative

While campaigners relied on emotive appeals alleging privilege and environmental harm, the facts told a different story. Former Prime Minister Rishi Sunak played a key role. He described grouse shooting not as elitist entertainment, but as a “conservation success story” deeply embedded in the “social fabric” of rural constituencies like his in North Yorkshire.

“A ban would be a policy with no winners,” he warned, rightly framing it as a case of “urban Britain imposing its views on rural Britain”.

On-the-ground benefits

MPs from across the chamber described how moorland management supports rural economies, protects biodiversity and reduces wildfire risk. Labour MP Sam Rushworth shared a powerful story of attending a Let’s Learn Moor event with schoolchildren. They weren’t being lectured on outdated customs. Instead, they learned directly from gamekeepers and firefighters about peatland conservation, bird habitats and wildfire prevention.

His conclusion was clear: without grouse shooting, we risk losing jobs, schools and wildlife.

Mismatched perceptions vs. lived experience

The debate exposed a sharp contrast between perception and reality. For many urban campaigners, grouse shooting seems like an outdated pastime rooted in inequality. In truth, for thousands of people, it provides both ecological balance and economic stability.

Gamekeepers act as first responders in fire emergencies. Moorland managers restore peatlands and protect birds like curlews. Meanwhile, hospitality and tourism thrive during the shooting season. These are the lived realities in places often ignored in national conversations.

Liberal Democrat MP Sarah Dyke summed it up: “Well-managed, sustainable shooting” brings tangible benefits.

Government stance and BASC’s impact

Defra Minister Daniel Zeichner confirmed that the Government has no plans to ban driven grouse shooting.

Behind the scenes, BASC played a vital role. We hosted drop-in sessions for MPs and distributed briefings before the debate. As a result, parliamentarians spoke with clarity and confidence about the value of sustainable grouse shooting.

Christopher Graffius, BASC’s executive director of communications, described the debate as a clear win—not just for shooting and conservation, but for the strength and conviction of the arguments made.

We sincerely thank the MPs who stood up for grouse moors. We’re also grateful to the many members of the fieldsports community who contacted their MPs and shared the wide-ranging benefits of grouse moor management.

A cultural divide laid bare

More broadly, this debate revealed a cultural faultline in how we view land, nature and rural life. One side sees managed moorland as a fragile balance of ecology, economy and tradition. The other sees it as a relic of the past to be dismantled in the name of progress.

Unless we bridge this divide, future petitions and tensions will continue to emerge. For now, the message from Westminster is clear: the benefits of sustainable grouse shooting are recognised and valued.

Share your thoughts

Do you agree with Alex? Let us know at shootingtimes@twsgroup.com