AMID the hostile debate over the future of fox hunting, there was little such vociferous opposition in evidence as each year August 12 came around, marking the beginning of the 121-day grouse shooting season.

While there were always animal rights zealots who saw only evil in the practice of shooting birds for fun (albeit also for food), there was little or clamour for more than a modicum of outrage.

It was viewed, rightly of wrongly, as a traditional custom of the wealthy elite…more of a cultural than an ethical target for opponents.

The rather equivocal attitudes to grouse shooting changed markedly last year, when, spurred on by support from TV presenter and environmentalist Chris Packham, it joined the ranks of country pursuits accused of animal cruelty.

Mr Packham threw his considerable support behind a petition, drawn up by former RSPB director of conservation Mark Avery, calling for a ban on driven grouse shooting.

The two created a formidable alliance, claiming grouse shooting entailed intensive management of moors, eradicating animals such as foxes, stoats and hares in large numbers, and putting at risk the habitats of protected birds of prey such as hen harriers.

In addition, there were serious questions raised over potential flood risk in sensitive ecologically precious habitats.

Such was the support and momentum behind the petition, that it gathered 120,000 signatures in quick time, thus prompting a debate in Parliament last autumn.

But the Government refused to budge, rejecting any notion of a ban, which would have had a devastating impact in rural areas of Northumberland and the North Pennines, where grouse shooting remains an important component of the local economy, helping to sustain hundreds of jobs throughout the year.

During the debate, rural affairs minister Therese Coffey insisted allegations that grouse shooting and moorland management was linked to the persecution of birds of prey, would be tackled.

But she concluded: “The Government have no intention of banning driven grouse shooting, but we have every intention of bringing to justice those who break the law. We all agree that conserving the upland moorlands is in everyone’s best interests.

“We will help to ensure that a constructive dialogue continues so that grouse shooting is protected and these valuable moorlands thrive.”

On the eve of the new season, the minister’s tacit call for peace to break out amidst the war of words has fallen on deaf ears.

The British Association for Shooting and Conservation this week accused ‘anti-shooting extremists’, such as Mr Packham, of stepping up their campaign of ‘myths and propaganda’.

“They are slinging mud in the hope some sticks and ignoring sound evidence,” said association chairman Peter Glenser.

“The truth is that managing our uplands for shooting has benefits for conservation, preserves marginal upland communities and puts healthy, nutritious food into the market. “Heather moorland is an internationally important habitat and 75 per cent of it is found in the UK. This habitat is uniquely precious, with 90 per cent of grouse moors located in National Parks or Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty. “Gamekeepers create outstanding habitat for many rare and endangered birds – such as lapwings – which is why the majority of grouse moors are internationally-protected habitats, rarer than rainforest. Without shooting, they would not exist. “While August 12 is the iconic first day of the season, it is obvious that the benefits of grouse shooting are present all year around.”

Those supporting grouse shooting also point to the economic benefits of the organised shoots.

They say grouse shooting was worth an estimated £100m to the UK’s economy each year and supports more than 2,500 full-time jobs

In turn, it benefits pubs, hotels and other local retail outlets.

They maintain, that in upland areas, this can mean the difference in viability for fragile rural communities.

The Government’s hopes for constructive dialogue appear dead in the water. The warring factions at opposite ends of the debate are in no mood for compromise.