I don't know anything about "English nature" but it is not necessarily inconsistent for them to be an organization that wants to "protect wildlife and the environment form thiose wanting to destroy it" and thier authorizing grouse shooting/bloodsport.

You need to understand something here --- Nature doesen't give a damn about your ETHICAL concerns. It might make a big difference to you if on one hand a human kills a grouse or on the other the killing was done by a fox (or a wildcat or a wolf --- animals humans have extripated from Britain) and when you come down to it, the grouse probably doesn't care either.

PLEASE -- I am not taking sides by this but just pointing out the reality that while "animal welfare" folks and "environmental" folks are often on the same sides of a particular issue it's not necessarily for the same reasons and sometimes they might be on opposite sides of an issue. The problem our movements face is how we can arrange things so that we can manage to cooperate when we do find ourselves on the same side of something and not allow the fact that we might not be engaged in all the same fights or even sometimes be on the opposite sides of one disturb that cooperation.

Attacking the "environmentals" when they don't join you in your campaign against "blood sport" or don't join you in veganism or whatever --- well you want to think twice about that. You do want "environmentals" to look the other way when you go liberate some chickens, etc. don't you? There's too much overlap of people involved for you want things to get nasty at this stage. If you feel that eventually, when the other battles have been won it will have to come to a showdown, are you imgaining that the time for that is now?