Actually, it is. It's undeniable that more diverse woodland habitat has been maintained by game shooting than any other group. Its equally true that anglers do more to maintain rivers and police water quality than any other group.That's not a defence of shooting but more a comment that most people will not pay the extra for conservation.
For the avoidance of doubt, I have no desire to participate in driven game shooting or catch and release angling - I find both distasteful - but I'm also objective enough to recognise the benefits of the pastimes.
Oh goodness me no, that shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the economics of shooting. If you think a day's grouse shooting is free, you are woefully misinformed. It's also a very different type of driven shooting to pheasant and red legged partridge - but of course you knew that didn't you?Isn't that exactly what they are doing with grouse moors?