Talk:Driven grouse shooting

Prices
The list of "key" prices is a bit suspect, isn't it? For a start, these things change rapidly, so a date (2009?) would be helpful. Further, the article must not be (or seem to be) an advertisement, and the tone at present feels quite wrong, with the list-like presentation of prices. The point, if there is one to be made, is the reason why such shooting is costly, with the many factors to consider. Why, for instance, is the moor 7,000 acres? The whole thing needs proper explanation, in prose. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:21, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree. Clearly this page is very biased. Written by some grouse hunter or someone who approves of grouse hunting. Do other "sport" page in Wikipedia have a section detailing the economic benefits to the local community? Why is this given so much prominence on this page? Yes, it's a subsection of hunting, and so deserves a page... but the "apologetics" bent of this page needs to be remedied.WikiLambo (talk) 16:10, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Rainforest comparison
The article says heather moorland is rarer than rainforest. I don't doubt that's true, but is there a reason why there should be more heather moorland than rainforest? I believe the problem with rainforest is not that it's absolutely rare, but that it is being cut down at an alarming rate.

That line of the article reads like propaganda for grouse shooting, rather than being a relevant comparison.

There is a citation, but the source is the World Forum on the Future of Sport Shooting Activities, which suggests a particular perspective.

Serac73 (talk) 09:57, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Predator control
The article talks of 'routine control of predators such as foxes, crows, and stoats'. It puts it in the most benign terms possible. 'Control' could mean a number of things. The article would be improved with more detail on how wildlife is killed, and examples of where it goes wrong and badgers are illegally caught in snares, as at Moscar Moor in April 2017. Then it would give people more information about what actually happens.

Serac73 (talk) 09:57, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Structure of the article
It would be better if the article gave a sober, factual assessment of grouse shooting all the way through. As structured at present, it includes too many partisan arguments for grouse shooting in the main body, then a small section headed 'opposition' right at the end. Serac73 (talk) 09:57, 23 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Agree with this, added NPOV tag, this is a heavily industry-PR-sourced piece. Cieran 91 (talk) 10:00, 16 January 2018 (UTC)


 * I’ve recently tried to balance and update this article to present a more balanced and factual view but these corrections have been reverted to maintain the original bias, I would go so far as to say that ‘gatekeeping’ is occuring ::ModFob (talk) 18:37, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Given that Serac73 and ModFob appear to be from opposite sides of opinion (the former anti-shooting, the latter defending it) yet are both suggesting this article is biased, one might conclude it is about right. Dave.Dunford (talk) 09:49, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

Context
The subsection  English grouse moors and farm subsidies (2016) has no context and does not attempt to explain what it means orwhy it is included. - 146.66.51.92 (talk) 16:32, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Major edit
At these edits I have tried to address some of the criticisms above, and to write a better article. I'm sure that further improvements are possible. I wonder in particular about removing the table of moors and their owners. What do other editors think? Richard Keatinge (talk) 17:20, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I think the table is important. It shows how much the taxpayer is giving to the landowners. Jowaninpensans (talk) 18:24, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Although I'm far from being a defender of driven grouse shooting, I fear your edits have swung the balance too far the other way. Dave.Dunford (talk) 19:16, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
 * In such a vexed area, we will need to come to consensus carefully and on the basis of good references. I note a lot of obfuscation of the issues on one side of the argument, and some solid work with careful conclusions on, more or less, the other. I look forward to your thoughts. In the meantime I have boldly taken out the table and also the shopping list of prices for various aspects. Not on the grounds of balance, though the edit might address Dave.Dunford's concerns, but because the comments were far too long and, as the IP points out above, not in an encyclopedic context. Richard Keatinge (talk) 22:28, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
 * The article would benefit from the opening paragraphs remaining strictly factual and neutral, describing the practice and history of driven grouse shooting without value judgements (easier said than done). Then the stuff about its deleterious effects on habitats and predators, and the economic and conservation justifications offered by the industry and its supporters, can go in a "Controversy" section. At the moment there are points of view (mostly anti) expressed throughout. Not sure I'll find time to do it myself though (or that I'm the best person to do it, as I have a very definite point of view). Dave.Dunford (talk) 13:00, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
 * OK, I'll give it a go. I'd still suggest that the controversy, widely covered, needs mention in the lede as well as the body. I'd be interested to hear your point of view, but elsewhere might be better. Richard Keatinge (talk) 14:49, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Yep, would agree a sentence or two about opposition/controversies in the lead is justified. Dave.Dunford (talk) 20:10, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I've done some work on the refs (incidentally, I feel there's rather too much reliance on the Rewilding book; similar citations could be found from Mark Avery's Inglorious, probably) and I've removed some of the more opinionated sentences which I didn't feel were justified by the references. Dave.Dunford (talk) 21:39, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Bias and reverting of updates
This article is biased and attempts to update and balance the article citing recent research have been reverted to maintain this bias ModFob (talk) 18:35, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I (partially) reverted your edits for three reasons:
 * many of the smaller edits were uncited
 * those that were cited were not cited properly
 * several of your assertions did not tally with the general thrust of the cited material
 * Dave.Dunford (talk) 09:53, 16 October 2022 (UTC)