This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Was hoping to pop out to Snowden Crags tomorrow evening, but realized its on access land and, since we are now past the Glorious Twelth, the country club might well be out murdering grouse. Does anyone know a) whether Snowden would be all right tomorrow evening and b) how one might find out what days the various Yorkshire moors are closed for shooting for future reference (other than turning up and reading a sign)?
Cheers, Alex
Post edited at 17:07
3
In reply to Alex the Alex: The Barden moor estate (Crookrise etc) publishes shooting dates on its website:
http://www.boltonabbey.com/whattodo/walking.htm#barden
http://www.boltonabbey.com/whattodo/walking.htm#barden
1
In reply to Alex the Alex:
You can do a simple search on the Natural England website:
http://www.openaccess.naturalengland.org.uk/wps/portal/oasys/maps/MapSearch...
Apparently the cold spring means that many shoots will not take place. Personally I don't have any real problem with "country" sports provided they don't try to stop me following my own interests.
You can do a simple search on the Natural England website:
http://www.openaccess.naturalengland.org.uk/wps/portal/oasys/maps/MapSearch...
Apparently the cold spring means that many shoots will not take place. Personally I don't have any real problem with "country" sports provided they don't try to stop me following my own interests.
In reply to Alex the Alex:
You are, I assume, vegetarian or does your distaste not extend to people murdering chickens, cows, sheep etc.
You are, I assume, vegetarian or does your distaste not extend to people murdering chickens, cows, sheep etc.
5
11
In reply to nigel n:
Unfortunately closures made under agreements drawn up before the Open Access legislation don't get mentioned on the NE site. This includes the Barden Moor estate, which is closed today, but not according to NE.
The advertised closures on Barden Moor do not always actually happen in practice, and when they do they usually affect just part of the estate. But unless you're local, travelling there on the off chance seems a bit pointless when you could go tomorrow instead and guarantee access..
> You can do a simple search on the Natural England website
Unfortunately closures made under agreements drawn up before the Open Access legislation don't get mentioned on the NE site. This includes the Barden Moor estate, which is closed today, but not according to NE.
The advertised closures on Barden Moor do not always actually happen in practice, and when they do they usually affect just part of the estate. But unless you're local, travelling there on the off chance seems a bit pointless when you could go tomorrow instead and guarantee access..
In reply to Alex the Alex:
As a gamekeeper, wildlife manager and conservationist I have to point out to you that Grouse shooting does not just support rural economies, business, provide jobs and local services, I.e schools, post offices, shops, car garages in areas where without Grouse shooting would simply not be there but also the land management on Grouse estates creates great biodiversity and varied habitats to support such diversity of wildlife through the hard and often unrecognized work of gamekeepers. Next time you are in such a landscape and see rare bird species and upland flora please recognize that this is because of 'murdering Grouse'. If you wish to learn more about this please watch this video.
youtube.com/watch?v=fsMkt04XKVs&
And have a read into the joint raptor study. http://www.langholmproject.com/jointraptorstudy.html
As a gamekeeper, wildlife manager and conservationist I have to point out to you that Grouse shooting does not just support rural economies, business, provide jobs and local services, I.e schools, post offices, shops, car garages in areas where without Grouse shooting would simply not be there but also the land management on Grouse estates creates great biodiversity and varied habitats to support such diversity of wildlife through the hard and often unrecognized work of gamekeepers. Next time you are in such a landscape and see rare bird species and upland flora please recognize that this is because of 'murdering Grouse'. If you wish to learn more about this please watch this video.
youtube.com/watch?v=fsMkt04XKVs&
And have a read into the joint raptor study. http://www.langholmproject.com/jointraptorstudy.html
6
11
In reply to Oceanrower:
No, not veggie. Its not so much the killing of animals. Its more the fact that it is largely for fun. But each to their own, live and let live etc. In truth it was more annoyance at not being allowed up to Simonseat on such a nice day.
No, not veggie. Its not so much the killing of animals. Its more the fact that it is largely for fun. But each to their own, live and let live etc. In truth it was more annoyance at not being allowed up to Simonseat on such a nice day.
4
In reply to Ben87:
Thanks Ben, I will have a watch tonight. I dont know nearly enough about the subject to make to make a case, but I do think the support to the community etc. is because the sport is such an institution. That doesnt in my opinion take away from the fact that is all for entertainment, and often for a select few. And as for the ecosystem its far from a natural or balanced system, however I do really like it, and it is much nicer to climb in than the jungles of Guisecliffe.
Thanks Ben, I will have a watch tonight. I dont know nearly enough about the subject to make to make a case, but I do think the support to the community etc. is because the sport is such an institution. That doesnt in my opinion take away from the fact that is all for entertainment, and often for a select few. And as for the ecosystem its far from a natural or balanced system, however I do really like it, and it is much nicer to climb in than the jungles of Guisecliffe.
Post edited at 17:23
In reply to Alex the Alex:
I concede, people do gain satisfaction and pleasure from going out into our countryside and varied landscapes to take a harvestable surplus from a population of game and bringing it home to share with family and friends.
I concede, people do gain satisfaction and pleasure from going out into our countryside and varied landscapes to take a harvestable surplus from a population of game and bringing it home to share with family and friends.
4
13
In reply to Alex the Alex:
I see your point of view Alex and see it regularly among people who do not fully understand through no fault of their own what goes on within nature and the countryside. I must point out that field sports are not just for a select few as often perceived. Another important thing to remember is there are no true wild places and ecosystems left, or so very few I cannot think of any example other than perhaps places like Ben Macdui alpine plateau, even the last remaining fragmented parts of the caledonian forest have all been managed to some extent but more importantly balance is exactly what wildlife managers seek to provide within an ecosystem such as a grouse moor with predator vs prey species.
I see your point of view Alex and see it regularly among people who do not fully understand through no fault of their own what goes on within nature and the countryside. I must point out that field sports are not just for a select few as often perceived. Another important thing to remember is there are no true wild places and ecosystems left, or so very few I cannot think of any example other than perhaps places like Ben Macdui alpine plateau, even the last remaining fragmented parts of the caledonian forest have all been managed to some extent but more importantly balance is exactly what wildlife managers seek to provide within an ecosystem such as a grouse moor with predator vs prey species.
3
13
In reply to Ben87:
Well managed grouse moors are a fairly impoverished community with low biodiversity. I recognise that some habitats have intrinsically low species diversity, but that the individual species are valuable, and that blanket moor is one of these. However this diversity could be so much better than it is in the majority of cases. Historically some conservation groups have focussed on birds that have similar requirements to grouse, such as golden plover, but increasingly other less obvious species are being recognised for their ecological importance. And these species have more complex requirements than just rotationally burned Calluna.
Much work currently being done in the uplands is to undo some of the historic mismanagement by keepers and graziers. Burning grouse moors (even "cool"burns) causes big issues for relatively immobile species, such as non flying invertebrates and promotes heather at the expense of other species. A heather monoculture is beneficial to relatively few species, and even those would not be adversely affected by a much lower management intensity. Modern burns are often undertaken with too few personnel to adequately monitor their speed and extent, with resulting damage and erosion of an already stressed peatland environment. Where catchments are used to provide drinking water, this peat erosion can cause severe problems, including indirectly human health issues, due to the process used to treat the discoloured water.
Gullying, which can occur on burn damaged slopes, exacerbates water loss from the peat and this in turn further degrades the vegetation communities, most of which need a much damper environment, coupled with a mosaic of other species, not just Calluna. The removal of the majority of predator species can have benefits for some notable ground nesting birds, but that in itself is not a good enough reason to cause such dramatic changes to the broader ecological communities (and that's just considering the losses of stoats, foxes etc, not the charismatic raptors, which have been discussed many times on this forum).
The problems with grouse moors are fundementally down to over management and artificially high populations of grouse. Less intensive grouse shoots would solve many of the problems, but would not be suited to large scale driven shoots that require such grouse numbers to satisfy their clients.
And yes, let's be clear. Too many keepers on grouse moors, many of which are sssi, sac, nnr etc, do not care about conservation, only insofar as how it might restrict grouse production.
And I haven't even mentioned harriers...........
Well managed grouse moors are a fairly impoverished community with low biodiversity. I recognise that some habitats have intrinsically low species diversity, but that the individual species are valuable, and that blanket moor is one of these. However this diversity could be so much better than it is in the majority of cases. Historically some conservation groups have focussed on birds that have similar requirements to grouse, such as golden plover, but increasingly other less obvious species are being recognised for their ecological importance. And these species have more complex requirements than just rotationally burned Calluna.
Much work currently being done in the uplands is to undo some of the historic mismanagement by keepers and graziers. Burning grouse moors (even "cool"burns) causes big issues for relatively immobile species, such as non flying invertebrates and promotes heather at the expense of other species. A heather monoculture is beneficial to relatively few species, and even those would not be adversely affected by a much lower management intensity. Modern burns are often undertaken with too few personnel to adequately monitor their speed and extent, with resulting damage and erosion of an already stressed peatland environment. Where catchments are used to provide drinking water, this peat erosion can cause severe problems, including indirectly human health issues, due to the process used to treat the discoloured water.
Gullying, which can occur on burn damaged slopes, exacerbates water loss from the peat and this in turn further degrades the vegetation communities, most of which need a much damper environment, coupled with a mosaic of other species, not just Calluna. The removal of the majority of predator species can have benefits for some notable ground nesting birds, but that in itself is not a good enough reason to cause such dramatic changes to the broader ecological communities (and that's just considering the losses of stoats, foxes etc, not the charismatic raptors, which have been discussed many times on this forum).
The problems with grouse moors are fundementally down to over management and artificially high populations of grouse. Less intensive grouse shoots would solve many of the problems, but would not be suited to large scale driven shoots that require such grouse numbers to satisfy their clients.
And yes, let's be clear. Too many keepers on grouse moors, many of which are sssi, sac, nnr etc, do not care about conservation, only insofar as how it might restrict grouse production.
And I haven't even mentioned harriers...........
25
In reply to toad:
Historic mismanagement is historic, modern gamekeeping has moved with the times as has raptor persecution which is not acceptable and no good keeper will say otherwise, as for Hen harriers, they thrive on grouse moors with grassland habitat.
A good healthy moor will have a mosaic of grass, bog and different stages of heather providing food in fresh growth, insects and cover from predators. It is not just a monoculture of Calluna, and this grass provides pipits and voles for Harriers. If we leave the heather to go rank it simply will not support that level of biodiversity as seen in a well managed moor. I live next to a moor that has not been managed for decades and would be lucky to see any waders, grouse or raptors. As to modern burns, it is wrong to suggest all grouse moors are burned with too few staff or too many burns at once to be controlled, that is down to the estate, it's finances and the pressure put upon the keepers.
Now we both know that grouse shooting puts a value on a species, the management of which positively effects other species and creates diversity of life in an area that otherwise would most likely be blanket burned for grazing or left to go rank. So we have a benefit to wildlife, many of which are rare or vulnerable species and we have a benefit to rural communities. Take away the grouse shooting and you get rank heather or blanket burns for sheep grazing and the breakup of rural communities.
Not all grouse moors are managed for large driven days. I do however agree that many grouse keepers but certainly not all are only interested in grouse production, that is their job and pressure from above dictates this.
Historic mismanagement is historic, modern gamekeeping has moved with the times as has raptor persecution which is not acceptable and no good keeper will say otherwise, as for Hen harriers, they thrive on grouse moors with grassland habitat.
A good healthy moor will have a mosaic of grass, bog and different stages of heather providing food in fresh growth, insects and cover from predators. It is not just a monoculture of Calluna, and this grass provides pipits and voles for Harriers. If we leave the heather to go rank it simply will not support that level of biodiversity as seen in a well managed moor. I live next to a moor that has not been managed for decades and would be lucky to see any waders, grouse or raptors. As to modern burns, it is wrong to suggest all grouse moors are burned with too few staff or too many burns at once to be controlled, that is down to the estate, it's finances and the pressure put upon the keepers.
Now we both know that grouse shooting puts a value on a species, the management of which positively effects other species and creates diversity of life in an area that otherwise would most likely be blanket burned for grazing or left to go rank. So we have a benefit to wildlife, many of which are rare or vulnerable species and we have a benefit to rural communities. Take away the grouse shooting and you get rank heather or blanket burns for sheep grazing and the breakup of rural communities.
Not all grouse moors are managed for large driven days. I do however agree that many grouse keepers but certainly not all are only interested in grouse production, that is their job and pressure from above dictates this.
2
8
In reply to Ben87:
You would need to visit some RSPB reserves for example to experience habitats which allow trees and other flora to thrive and so benefit from real biodiversity. People with too much money can cause huge amounts of damage of which shooting for pleasure is just one. Some of the estates in Scotland are a disgrace to us all.
You would need to visit some RSPB reserves for example to experience habitats which allow trees and other flora to thrive and so benefit from real biodiversity. People with too much money can cause huge amounts of damage of which shooting for pleasure is just one. Some of the estates in Scotland are a disgrace to us all.
11
1
3
In reply to Phil1919:
The RSPB is a disgrace to us all through their mismanagement of our cultural heritage. Please see Abernethy and the capercaillie as one example. Caper do better on game estates.
The RSPB is a disgrace to us all through their mismanagement of our cultural heritage. Please see Abernethy and the capercaillie as one example. Caper do better on game estates.
3
9
In reply to Morty:
What has the hunting of lions in africa got to do with a grouse estate? The only similarities I can see are the value given to a species and consequential management of an area and employment that would provide. Which otherwise wouldn't exist.
What has the hunting of lions in africa got to do with a grouse estate? The only similarities I can see are the value given to a species and consequential management of an area and employment that would provide. Which otherwise wouldn't exist.
2
2
In reply to Ben87:
Langholm is an anomalous example. In addition, diversionary feeding remains a controversial side of this management. Is it really right to leave out food for a wild bird, which by definition, normally, hunts for its prey? However, in the bigger picture, it is better to be arguing about this, rather than the unknown causes for the disappearance of 5 male Hen Harriers this year.
I have no idea if it is the actions of a minority of gamekeepers or common practice, but a number of examples could be given which paint a different picture to yours. When Hen Harriers were showing signs of nesting on a Cumbrian estate this year, the gamekeepers were reported to be out firing propane gas guns to discourage the birds from nesting on the land. Not conservation by any stretch of the imagination. Given the number of cases in recent years of poisoned Golden Eagles, shot Hen Harriers, buzzard trapping, we should ask why does this continue? I suspect the answer is similar to your response of "pressure from above". At the end of the day, as you point out, it is a business (which I acknowledge, helps local communities from an economic point of view), so if estates have to rear twice as many Grouse because they get eaten by predators, this is reducing profit. But also, probably another answer is it seems to be a crime that doesn't carry a heavy penalty, so the consequence if caught, appears to be not that great. http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2007/nov/07/monarchy.wildlife
In Bowland, there always seems to be a new hut or grouse butt being made and the tracks continue to get better. Hardly something I call natural or wild. I also believe that pheasants get burnt rather than eaten on many Bowland estates, not taken "...home to share with family and friends". I should also add I'm not vegetarian and have enjoyed Red Grouse when I have bought it on the odd occasion.
However, I also realise that many arguments can be turned around. The RSPB feed Bitterns fish at times during winter. At Leighton Moss there was a deer cull this year to control the population. All this is management of the land to encourage certain species and discourage others, the same as gamekeepers are doing.
So, I acknowledge that this is an incredibly complex topic, I haven't really decided where my answers are. I also think that more examples like Langholm are needed, showing that estates can support Hen Harriers. Instead we have Ian Botham and the RSPB constantly arguing.
I think it is time to look at if it is best to drive up a moorland on a newly made track, shoot 200 Grouse, then go home?
Langholm is an anomalous example. In addition, diversionary feeding remains a controversial side of this management. Is it really right to leave out food for a wild bird, which by definition, normally, hunts for its prey? However, in the bigger picture, it is better to be arguing about this, rather than the unknown causes for the disappearance of 5 male Hen Harriers this year.
I have no idea if it is the actions of a minority of gamekeepers or common practice, but a number of examples could be given which paint a different picture to yours. When Hen Harriers were showing signs of nesting on a Cumbrian estate this year, the gamekeepers were reported to be out firing propane gas guns to discourage the birds from nesting on the land. Not conservation by any stretch of the imagination. Given the number of cases in recent years of poisoned Golden Eagles, shot Hen Harriers, buzzard trapping, we should ask why does this continue? I suspect the answer is similar to your response of "pressure from above". At the end of the day, as you point out, it is a business (which I acknowledge, helps local communities from an economic point of view), so if estates have to rear twice as many Grouse because they get eaten by predators, this is reducing profit. But also, probably another answer is it seems to be a crime that doesn't carry a heavy penalty, so the consequence if caught, appears to be not that great. http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2007/nov/07/monarchy.wildlife
In Bowland, there always seems to be a new hut or grouse butt being made and the tracks continue to get better. Hardly something I call natural or wild. I also believe that pheasants get burnt rather than eaten on many Bowland estates, not taken "...home to share with family and friends". I should also add I'm not vegetarian and have enjoyed Red Grouse when I have bought it on the odd occasion.
However, I also realise that many arguments can be turned around. The RSPB feed Bitterns fish at times during winter. At Leighton Moss there was a deer cull this year to control the population. All this is management of the land to encourage certain species and discourage others, the same as gamekeepers are doing.
So, I acknowledge that this is an incredibly complex topic, I haven't really decided where my answers are. I also think that more examples like Langholm are needed, showing that estates can support Hen Harriers. Instead we have Ian Botham and the RSPB constantly arguing.
I think it is time to look at if it is best to drive up a moorland on a newly made track, shoot 200 Grouse, then go home?
9
1
In reply to Ben87:
We just have different views on this. I prefer wild habitats. I prefer environments which are shared with the natural world. I wouldn't concur with everything the RSPB do but they have their heart in the right place.
Happy shooting.
We just have different views on this. I prefer wild habitats. I prefer environments which are shared with the natural world. I wouldn't concur with everything the RSPB do but they have their heart in the right place.
Happy shooting.
1
1
In reply to Matt_b:
As has been said, nothing is truly wild or natural anymore. It is such an incredibly complex issue with many sides.
There will always be bad apples in any walk of life and there are still some of the old school keepers who do what they want regardless of legislation, you cannot however tar every keeper with the same brush, and put every raptor poisoning incident down to a keeper. And believe it or not, being charged with a wildlife is crime is a huge consequence. Imagine coming home to your wife and telling her you have lost your job, tied housing and have to move the kids out of their school and what will your employment prospects be like with such a criminal record.
What you have suggested with burning pheasants is completely insane. Perhaps this is what goes on where you speak of but it would be madness to do, once shot, game is food and is treated as such, what clients or beaters don't take home would go to a game dealers, to do otherwise does not make sense, it is after all another source of income.
Again what would be the alternative, if grouse shoots closed down, who is going to pay for the management of the land?
As has been said, nothing is truly wild or natural anymore. It is such an incredibly complex issue with many sides.
There will always be bad apples in any walk of life and there are still some of the old school keepers who do what they want regardless of legislation, you cannot however tar every keeper with the same brush, and put every raptor poisoning incident down to a keeper. And believe it or not, being charged with a wildlife is crime is a huge consequence. Imagine coming home to your wife and telling her you have lost your job, tied housing and have to move the kids out of their school and what will your employment prospects be like with such a criminal record.
What you have suggested with burning pheasants is completely insane. Perhaps this is what goes on where you speak of but it would be madness to do, once shot, game is food and is treated as such, what clients or beaters don't take home would go to a game dealers, to do otherwise does not make sense, it is after all another source of income.
Again what would be the alternative, if grouse shoots closed down, who is going to pay for the management of the land?
2
1
In reply to Phil1919:
Like you, I prefer wild habitats and environments that are shared with the natural world, unfortunately we don't live in a country where this exists.
Like you, I prefer wild habitats and environments that are shared with the natural world, unfortunately we don't live in a country where this exists.
1
A truly civilised society would not tolerate the slaughtering of any sentient creatures in the pursuit of enjoyment, and would look to overcome any land management, biodiversity and local employment difficulties without perpetuating such barbaric practices or seeking to justify them. Sadly we still live in a society that is a long way from being civilised.
14
3
In reply to john arran:
Excellent comment, I agree 100%. The murder of defenceless innocent creatures is heinous and barbaric and also the worst form of cowardice imaginable and before anybody asks, yes I am vegetarian, have been since the 70's.
> A truly civilised society would not tolerate the slaughtering of any sentient creatures in the pursuit of enjoyment, and would look to overcome any land management, biodiversity and local employment difficulties without perpetuating such barbaric practices or seeking to justify them. Sadly we still live in a society that is a long way from being civilised.
Excellent comment, I agree 100%. The murder of defenceless innocent creatures is heinous and barbaric and also the worst form of cowardice imaginable and before anybody asks, yes I am vegetarian, have been since the 70's.
3
3
In reply to Ben87:
Well what an erudite and reasonably debated discussion arising from an offhand turn of phrase in a simple access query.
Best hijack ever.
Well what an erudite and reasonably debated discussion arising from an offhand turn of phrase in a simple access query.
Best hijack ever.
3
In reply to Alex the Alex:
I find it mildly amusing when people get so worked up about grouse shooting. To be fair, veggies are entitled to their moral high ground but it is hypocritical in the extreme for carnivores or fish eaters to get on their high horse. If you eat flesh then you endorse killing. Full stop. Grouse are a farmed crop, tended and nurtured, just like sheep, lambs, cows, trout and salmon and, like all crops, the time comes for them to be harvested. Indeed it might be argued that the grouse has a better life than many other farmed animals, especially intensively reared ones, and perhaps a better end too since they do not have to be driven miles to abattoirs and then wait in line to be slaughtered. The idea that birds are thrown away is daft. Grouse is an expensive dish in many restaurants and the complaint among guns is that even after paying so much for the day's shooting they are only allowed to keep a brace or two and the rest is whipped off to dealers and restaurants.
A lot of the objections seem to come from people taking umbrage that the shooters (who also commit the apparently cardinal sin in many eyes of being well off) pay through the nose for the privilege of doing the shooting and enjoy exercising their skill. Well, so what? Does that make a blind bit of difference to the death of the grouse?
As has been said, shooting puts huge amounts of money - I've seen figures of £250 a bird - into estates and ancillary businesses like hotels, restaurants, guest houses, transport, etc and without it many would not be viable. Whether you prefer your moors covered in heather, as I do, or a more 'wild' appearance is a matter of personal taste. If grouse shooting keeps some rural areas afloat I am all in favour.
Since we are into full disclosure I should say I have never fired a gun or held a fishing rod in my life, have never eaten grouse and am a lapsed veggie now back to gorging on dead bodies after 30 meatless years.
I find it mildly amusing when people get so worked up about grouse shooting. To be fair, veggies are entitled to their moral high ground but it is hypocritical in the extreme for carnivores or fish eaters to get on their high horse. If you eat flesh then you endorse killing. Full stop. Grouse are a farmed crop, tended and nurtured, just like sheep, lambs, cows, trout and salmon and, like all crops, the time comes for them to be harvested. Indeed it might be argued that the grouse has a better life than many other farmed animals, especially intensively reared ones, and perhaps a better end too since they do not have to be driven miles to abattoirs and then wait in line to be slaughtered. The idea that birds are thrown away is daft. Grouse is an expensive dish in many restaurants and the complaint among guns is that even after paying so much for the day's shooting they are only allowed to keep a brace or two and the rest is whipped off to dealers and restaurants.
A lot of the objections seem to come from people taking umbrage that the shooters (who also commit the apparently cardinal sin in many eyes of being well off) pay through the nose for the privilege of doing the shooting and enjoy exercising their skill. Well, so what? Does that make a blind bit of difference to the death of the grouse?
As has been said, shooting puts huge amounts of money - I've seen figures of £250 a bird - into estates and ancillary businesses like hotels, restaurants, guest houses, transport, etc and without it many would not be viable. Whether you prefer your moors covered in heather, as I do, or a more 'wild' appearance is a matter of personal taste. If grouse shooting keeps some rural areas afloat I am all in favour.
Since we are into full disclosure I should say I have never fired a gun or held a fishing rod in my life, have never eaten grouse and am a lapsed veggie now back to gorging on dead bodies after 30 meatless years.
8
1
In reply to Wiley Coyote:
Did you read Toad's post? It isn't just a cruelty/hunting issue. Grouse moor management has major impacts on water quality and carbon cycling. The Leeds University EMBER report is well worth a browse for more info on the topic.
Did you read Toad's post? It isn't just a cruelty/hunting issue. Grouse moor management has major impacts on water quality and carbon cycling. The Leeds University EMBER report is well worth a browse for more info on the topic.
1
In reply to Ben87:
So lets make some changes. Lets be the change we want to see. There is a lot of good stuff going on.
Driven grouse shooting needs to be made illegal.
So lets make some changes. Lets be the change we want to see. There is a lot of good stuff going on.
Driven grouse shooting needs to be made illegal.
3
6
In reply to Wiley Coyote:
If we all ate less meat there would be a lot less stress on the environment.
From my vantage point, I find it mildly amusing how you put money in front of the environment on issues such as these.
If we all ate less meat there would be a lot less stress on the environment.
From my vantage point, I find it mildly amusing how you put money in front of the environment on issues such as these.
3
1
In reply to john arran:
I agree, and will therefore only eat meat if it is killed in a slaughterhouse where the employees hate their jobs.
> A truly civilised society would not tolerate the slaughtering of any sentient creatures in the pursuit of enjoyment
I agree, and will therefore only eat meat if it is killed in a slaughterhouse where the employees hate their jobs.
3
In reply to Mike Peacock:
Of course moor management has an impact, some of it adverse. But when we manage any land - and in the UK that's pretty much all of it - it has effects, both intended and side effects. It's a matter of balancing them. For me, as someone who enjoys walking the heather moors and is in favour of a vibrant rural economy in areas where there may be few other options,grouse shooting is, on balance, a plus. From my window now I can see a few houses, a road, fields of monotone green and the purple heather on the moors. I know which bit of that view I like best.
Of course moor management has an impact, some of it adverse. But when we manage any land - and in the UK that's pretty much all of it - it has effects, both intended and side effects. It's a matter of balancing them. For me, as someone who enjoys walking the heather moors and is in favour of a vibrant rural economy in areas where there may be few other options,grouse shooting is, on balance, a plus. From my window now I can see a few houses, a road, fields of monotone green and the purple heather on the moors. I know which bit of that view I like best.
2
1
2
Driven grouse shooting is a immoral sports, can't see any plausible defence for it.
It may provide jobs and income for local towns and villages. But this is off set by the environmental damage caused by increased flood risk. Pollution to drinking water. Increased CO2 emissions. Grouse shooting has a net loss to society. If we only have four breeding hen harrier pairs, but have the habitat to support close to 400, it's fairly obvious that persecution of raptors is wide spread amongst game keepers.
Also if you factor in the tax payer subsides of 50quid per hectare, then Grouse shooting is a sport which the majority are paying the cost for environmental mismanagement, so the 1% can have some enjoyment.
Also I wouldn't be eating game anytime soon. Unless lead catridges are banned how can we know the meat is safe to eat?
It may provide jobs and income for local towns and villages. But this is off set by the environmental damage caused by increased flood risk. Pollution to drinking water. Increased CO2 emissions. Grouse shooting has a net loss to society. If we only have four breeding hen harrier pairs, but have the habitat to support close to 400, it's fairly obvious that persecution of raptors is wide spread amongst game keepers.
Also if you factor in the tax payer subsides of 50quid per hectare, then Grouse shooting is a sport which the majority are paying the cost for environmental mismanagement, so the 1% can have some enjoyment.
Also I wouldn't be eating game anytime soon. Unless lead catridges are banned how can we know the meat is safe to eat?
4
5
In reply to Phil1919:
That's a much broader argument. There are all kinds of things eg driving and flying to crags, that would mean 'less stress on the enviroment', or watching TV or reading books after dark, which requires a lot of extra electricity if we banned them. Where would you stop?
Calling it 'money' makes it easy to dimiss. Try calling it people's jobs, homes, ability to stay in their local area instead of having to move away and it's a bit less simple.
> If we all ate less meat there would be a lot less stress on the environment.
That's a much broader argument. There are all kinds of things eg driving and flying to crags, that would mean 'less stress on the enviroment', or watching TV or reading books after dark, which requires a lot of extra electricity if we banned them. Where would you stop?
> From my vantage point, I find it mildly amusing how you put money in front of the environment on issues such as these.
Calling it 'money' makes it easy to dimiss. Try calling it people's jobs, homes, ability to stay in their local area instead of having to move away and it's a bit less simple.
4
2
In reply to Wiley Coyote:
How much land is used to produce meat products? How much land is used to produce veggie food? All the land that is freed up could then be shared and a certain amount left wild on farms. More so than at present. You can eat veggie on your trip to the crags. The way things are going we need radical change.
I don't think we realise how near to the edge we are with the way we are treating our environment.
Carrying on as we are isn't an option.
Anyway. Big argument. We obviously think differently on this. Thats fine.
How much land is used to produce meat products? How much land is used to produce veggie food? All the land that is freed up could then be shared and a certain amount left wild on farms. More so than at present. You can eat veggie on your trip to the crags. The way things are going we need radical change.
I don't think we realise how near to the edge we are with the way we are treating our environment.
Carrying on as we are isn't an option.
Anyway. Big argument. We obviously think differently on this. Thats fine.
1
2
In reply to Phil1919:
I think you underrstimate the enormity of the challenge of feeding a growing population. Meat from animals harder grazed and marginal land is a huge part of the solution.
I think you underrstimate the enormity of the challenge of feeding a growing population. Meat from animals harder grazed and marginal land is a huge part of the solution.
1
In reply to Alex the Alex:
Just as a side note and not wishing to open another can of worms, are all you veggies out there aware that animals are killed daily to provide your food? With crop protection rabbits, deer, wood pigeon, hare and even rooks have to be controlled to make it profitable to produce arable crops. And then when crops are harvested many animals get killed from being caught up in the combines. You still have blood on your hands. And then there is run off from pesticides and nutrients. I think the only way to really hold the moral high ground is to grow all your own food organically, which is tough to do year round as well as time consuming and not everyone has the land to do this.
Just as a side note and not wishing to open another can of worms, are all you veggies out there aware that animals are killed daily to provide your food? With crop protection rabbits, deer, wood pigeon, hare and even rooks have to be controlled to make it profitable to produce arable crops. And then when crops are harvested many animals get killed from being caught up in the combines. You still have blood on your hands. And then there is run off from pesticides and nutrients. I think the only way to really hold the moral high ground is to grow all your own food organically, which is tough to do year round as well as time consuming and not everyone has the land to do this.
6
12
In reply to Phil1919:
I was not disputing your basic premise that meat production uses more resources than veggie food production, which is manifestly true. I was merely pointing out that once you start banning things that you think make needless demands on the environment others may want to add a few other things to the list, like climbing and, dare I say, wasting electricity on idle discussion forums like UKC.
I was not disputing your basic premise that meat production uses more resources than veggie food production, which is manifestly true. I was merely pointing out that once you start banning things that you think make needless demands on the environment others may want to add a few other things to the list, like climbing and, dare I say, wasting electricity on idle discussion forums like UKC.
2
In reply to Ben87:
Very much agree. Any species will make an impact on an environment. Some practises are more abusive than others. In reality, grouse moors are pretty inhospitable whenever Im on them, and people have less impact than in many other environments here or in other parts of the world (Yosemite? Stanage?), and I havent seen huge queues of people kept off them, or keen conservationists crowdfunding buying moors when theyre for sale. I am bemused why something like grouse shooting is such a fashionable target for grousing about, and equally bemused how the grousers can avoid giving credit for benefits - rural employment and housing for example.
Very much agree. Any species will make an impact on an environment. Some practises are more abusive than others. In reality, grouse moors are pretty inhospitable whenever Im on them, and people have less impact than in many other environments here or in other parts of the world (Yosemite? Stanage?), and I havent seen huge queues of people kept off them, or keen conservationists crowdfunding buying moors when theyre for sale. I am bemused why something like grouse shooting is such a fashionable target for grousing about, and equally bemused how the grousers can avoid giving credit for benefits - rural employment and housing for example.
3
1
In reply to Ben87:
Do you realise what a ridiculous argument you're making? That nobody can criticise anything or seek to bring about changes unless they're whiter than white? Failing that, there can be no further distinction drawn so anything goes? Amazing.
I don't want any moral high ground. Really, I don't. Hell, I'd like never to have to bother thinking about this, never mind posting on internet sites in response to moronic comments. What I'd really like is for the world - and the people in it - to be more responsible, more caring and more civilised than the factory farming, grouse shooting, lion hunting, halal-tolerating place we live in today. Is that really such a bad thing to hope for? Or am I clearly being ridiculous because I own a pair of leather shoes?
Do you realise what a ridiculous argument you're making? That nobody can criticise anything or seek to bring about changes unless they're whiter than white? Failing that, there can be no further distinction drawn so anything goes? Amazing.
I don't want any moral high ground. Really, I don't. Hell, I'd like never to have to bother thinking about this, never mind posting on internet sites in response to moronic comments. What I'd really like is for the world - and the people in it - to be more responsible, more caring and more civilised than the factory farming, grouse shooting, lion hunting, halal-tolerating place we live in today. Is that really such a bad thing to hope for? Or am I clearly being ridiculous because I own a pair of leather shoes?
10
3
In reply to john arran:
Never thought I would see factory farming amd grouse shooting grouped together in the same list of sins! Even more bizarre that religious beliefs are then grouped with them (halal). At least you arent arguing for some toterance.
Never thought I would see factory farming amd grouse shooting grouped together in the same list of sins! Even more bizarre that religious beliefs are then grouped with them (halal). At least you arent arguing for some toterance.
3
5
In reply to nightclimber:
I'm not arguing for anything except a responsible approach to animals, however that manifests itself, and not necessarily excluding killing for consumption as long as that's what it's done for, there's a good case for it and it's done as humanely as reasonably possible. It isn't complicated.
I'm not arguing for anything except a responsible approach to animals, however that manifests itself, and not necessarily excluding killing for consumption as long as that's what it's done for, there's a good case for it and it's done as humanely as reasonably possible. It isn't complicated.
2
1
In reply to nightclimber:
I agree fully with your sentiments. I think people need to open their eyes a bit more to see the bigger picture and how hypocritical some comments on here have shown to be. I do not wish to make any personal attacks on anyone and their beliefs though. If anyone has been enlightened with some of the great responses on here then fantastic. Sorry Alex for hijacking your thread.
I agree fully with your sentiments. I think people need to open their eyes a bit more to see the bigger picture and how hypocritical some comments on here have shown to be. I do not wish to make any personal attacks on anyone and their beliefs though. If anyone has been enlightened with some of the great responses on here then fantastic. Sorry Alex for hijacking your thread.
3
5
In reply to john arran:
You are being a bit ridiculous and that is not the argument I am making, just that I don't think veggies really see the bigger picture of their diet and how hypocritical some statements are.
You are being a bit ridiculous and that is not the argument I am making, just that I don't think veggies really see the bigger picture of their diet and how hypocritical some statements are.
5
7
It's not hypocritical to ask for more environmentaly friendly farming. I am not a veggie, but the science is pretty clear. Contrary to what others has suggested, meat productions uses 200 times plus more land than growing grain and vegetables, and produces at least 10 times the CO2 levels. It's a pretty sound way to reduce our carbon foot print in the developed world, and would also free up more land for nature. But I am not a veggie so I am also a hypocrite.
2
1
In reply to Wiley Coyote:
That is an old chestnut. 'The problem is so big that any small changes aren't worth making'. You don't need to ban meat eating, just stop eating meat yourself. That is the idea behind 'be the change'.
That is an old chestnut. 'The problem is so big that any small changes aren't worth making'. You don't need to ban meat eating, just stop eating meat yourself. That is the idea behind 'be the change'.
2
2
In reply to nightclimber:
Perhaps because its just past August 12th?
Rural employment and housing as a benefit from driven grouse moors? There must be a better way.......... Would you justify any destruction of the environment on this basis?
Perhaps because its just past August 12th?
Rural employment and housing as a benefit from driven grouse moors? There must be a better way.......... Would you justify any destruction of the environment on this basis?
5
1
In reply to daftdazza:
I await with interest the results of an attempt to grow wheat on High Street.
In the UK much of the land used to produce meat is not Appropriate for arable farming. If we want to reduce meat consumption then fine, but let's not throw away the food we can produce in the UK's more marginal areas.
> It's not hypocritical to ask for more environmentaly friendly farming. I am not a veggie, but the science is pretty clear. Contrary to what others has suggested, meat productions uses 200 times plus more land than growing grain and vegetables, and produces at least 10 times the CO2 levels. It's a pretty sound way to reduce our carbon foot print in the developed world, and would also free up more land for nature. But I am not a veggie so I am also a hypocrite.
I await with interest the results of an attempt to grow wheat on High Street.
In the UK much of the land used to produce meat is not Appropriate for arable farming. If we want to reduce meat consumption then fine, but let's not throw away the food we can produce in the UK's more marginal areas.
4
2
1
1
3
In reply to Dr.S at work:
Why would you want to grow wheat on High Street. You'd only need a fraction of the land given over to agriculture if most of us were veggies, most of the time. We would then have some proper wild ground to explore and adventure in.
Why would you want to grow wheat on High Street. You'd only need a fraction of the land given over to agriculture if most of us were veggies, most of the time. We would then have some proper wild ground to explore and adventure in.
3
1
In reply to Dr.S at work:
I think you are missing the point, if cattle consume 16kg of grain to produce 1kg of meat, moving away from meat consumption is going to vastly increase amount of arable land which can now be used to grow crops for humans.
And if cattle produce about 20% of global CO2 emissions, eliminating meat consumption would help slow down climate change, resultant in yet more land available global for grain production.
I think you are missing the point, if cattle consume 16kg of grain to produce 1kg of meat, moving away from meat consumption is going to vastly increase amount of arable land which can now be used to grow crops for humans.
And if cattle produce about 20% of global CO2 emissions, eliminating meat consumption would help slow down climate change, resultant in yet more land available global for grain production.
Post edited at 22:38
1
1
2
In reply to Phil1919:
That's an old chestnut too - producing a statement I never made and then knocking it down. I think you must be confusing me with someone else
> That is an old chestnut. 'The problem is so big that any small changes aren't worth making'.
That's an old chestnut too - producing a statement I never made and then knocking it down. I think you must be confusing me with someone else
Post edited at 00:18
In reply to Ben87:
I would agree. I'm an idealist. Ideally I'd like to roam around in wild country and produce food organically. The reality is that I'm surrounded by factory farming and bleak landscapes.
There are good things going on however. There is some change a foot.
I would agree. I'm an idealist. Ideally I'd like to roam around in wild country and produce food organically. The reality is that I'm surrounded by factory farming and bleak landscapes.
There are good things going on however. There is some change a foot.
In reply to Wiley Coyote:
There is lots of misinterpretation on here. Difficult when you are communicating without any face to face contact. I took it to mean that you wouldn't want to make any changes to grouse shooting because you might then be asked than to get your house in order and stop going climbing in your car.
There is lots of misinterpretation on here. Difficult when you are communicating without any face to face contact. I took it to mean that you wouldn't want to make any changes to grouse shooting because you might then be asked than to get your house in order and stop going climbing in your car.
1
In reply to daftdazza:
Cattle and sheep do not need to be fed grain, they can be reared and finished on grass. That will make use of the UK's marginal land AND free up arable land to produce grains etc.
Of course this would lead to a decrease in the stocking density, an increase in meat price, longer lives for beef cattle and decreased CO2 production - sounds like multiple wins in there.
I'd like to see some rewilding, but I'd also like to see upland farming thriving - we have space for both, and having both will be better than having one or the other.
> I think you are missing the point, if cattle consume 16kg of grain to produce 1kg of meat, moving away from meat consumption is going to vastly increase amount of arable land.....
Cattle and sheep do not need to be fed grain, they can be reared and finished on grass. That will make use of the UK's marginal land AND free up arable land to produce grains etc.
Of course this would lead to a decrease in the stocking density, an increase in meat price, longer lives for beef cattle and decreased CO2 production - sounds like multiple wins in there.
I'd like to see some rewilding, but I'd also like to see upland farming thriving - we have space for both, and having both will be better than having one or the other.
2
In reply to Phil1919:
That's right But I was not saying, as you suggested, the change was too small to bother with. I was simply making the point that once you start talking, albeit hypothetically, about banning things because they make demands on the environment and you can't see the point of them it opens the door for the things you hold dear to go the same way. If I get a turn to pick, for example it would start with smoking, any alcohol except beer, wine and gin, organised sport (especially climbing comps), most people and quite a few entire nations.
> I took it to mean that you wouldn't want to make any changes to grouse shooting because you might then be asked than to get your house in order and stop going climbing in your car.
That's right But I was not saying, as you suggested, the change was too small to bother with. I was simply making the point that once you start talking, albeit hypothetically, about banning things because they make demands on the environment and you can't see the point of them it opens the door for the things you hold dear to go the same way. If I get a turn to pick, for example it would start with smoking, any alcohol except beer, wine and gin, organised sport (especially climbing comps), most people and quite a few entire nations.
In reply to Phil1919:
Such as?
> (In reply to Ben87)
>
> I would agree. I'm an idealist. Ideally I'd like to roam around in wild country and produce food organically. The reality is that I'm surrounded by factory farming and bleak landscapes.
>
> There are good things going on however. There is some change a foot.
>
> I would agree. I'm an idealist. Ideally I'd like to roam around in wild country and produce food organically. The reality is that I'm surrounded by factory farming and bleak landscapes.
>
> There are good things going on however. There is some change a foot.
Such as?
In reply to Ben87:
I think making a statement like that about 4 million people makes it quite obvious that it is you who is being ridiculous.
> You are being a bit ridiculous and that is not the argument I am making, just that I don't think veggies really see the bigger picture of their diet and how hypocritical some statements are.
I think making a statement like that about 4 million people makes it quite obvious that it is you who is being ridiculous.
In reply to RyanOsborne:
My expressed opinion that I believe many vegetarians are unaware that animals are killed to provide their food and that is a fact that no vegetarian can escape unless they grow their own food year round is ridiculous? I suspect that perhaps you are a vegetarian and maybe I have touched a nerve which is not my intention. Regardless, what is quite obvious is that many people tend to believe what they want to believe regardless of facts and reasonably debated discussions.
My expressed opinion that I believe many vegetarians are unaware that animals are killed to provide their food and that is a fact that no vegetarian can escape unless they grow their own food year round is ridiculous? I suspect that perhaps you are a vegetarian and maybe I have touched a nerve which is not my intention. Regardless, what is quite obvious is that many people tend to believe what they want to believe regardless of facts and reasonably debated discussions.
2
2
In reply to Ben87:
What is your view on the obvious correlation between holes in raptor populations and grouse moors?
What is your view on the obvious correlation between holes in raptor populations and grouse moors?
In reply to MG:
My opinion is complex, many of the issues have already been discussed not just by myself and in the grand scheme of things my opinion doesn't matter. I am lucky to have had a keepering and rangering background and through this have been able to see many sides and hear other well educated thoughts on wildlife conservation and countryside issues and would say my opinions have been molded though this and my own morals. Raptors are an emotive subject and this emotion can often cloud reason and common sense.
My opinion is complex, many of the issues have already been discussed not just by myself and in the grand scheme of things my opinion doesn't matter. I am lucky to have had a keepering and rangering background and through this have been able to see many sides and hear other well educated thoughts on wildlife conservation and countryside issues and would say my opinions have been molded though this and my own morals. Raptors are an emotive subject and this emotion can often cloud reason and common sense.
1
1
In reply to Ben87:
Ha! You can't see that making broad, unfounded and insulting comments about 7-11% of the British population is ridiculous?! Really?!
And no I'm not vegetarian.
Ha! You can't see that making broad, unfounded and insulting comments about 7-11% of the British population is ridiculous?! Really?!
And no I'm not vegetarian.
In reply to Ben87:
Well this is a discussion board and you seemed happy to post your opinion higher.
Raptors are an emotive subject and this emotion can often cloud reason and common sense.
I am sure that's true but the correlation is not an emotional aspect, it is a fact. I was asking for your view on this as above you implied that raptor persecution was due to a few bad eggs (sorry...). Do you think this is sufficient to explain the gaps in raptor populations, or do you have another explanation? Or do you in factagree, as many others do, that in these areas illegal persecution is widespread?
> My opinion is complex, many of the issues have already been discussed not just by myself and in the grand scheme of things my opinion doesn't matter.
Well this is a discussion board and you seemed happy to post your opinion higher.
Raptors are an emotive subject and this emotion can often cloud reason and common sense.
I am sure that's true but the correlation is not an emotional aspect, it is a fact. I was asking for your view on this as above you implied that raptor persecution was due to a few bad eggs (sorry...). Do you think this is sufficient to explain the gaps in raptor populations, or do you have another explanation? Or do you in factagree, as many others do, that in these areas illegal persecution is widespread?
3
1
In reply to Ben87:
It is interesting that "reason and common sense" are often pulled out of the hat when denigrating an argument or position in the face of little or highly conflicting evidence. The arguments for and against raptor control (culling) are equally emotive and you should acknowledge your own vested interests in this area rather than simply implying that those who oppose the unlawful culling of a protected species are unreasonable and lacking in common sense.
Driven shoots will always be a charged subject (emotive is a term loaded with various meanings and connotations and best not used) and industry experience is does not qualify one towards a more reasonable perspective. Usually the opposite is true - who would you be more influenced by when considering the efficacy and contraindications of a drug; the company who produced it or a researcher with no vested interests?
For the record I am opposed to all hunting, no I don't eat meat or dairy and yes I do grow a substantial amount of my own food. Does that give my argument any more weight? Unfortunately it does not. Emotions inform our moral thinking and temper the excess that reason can lead us to. Evidence provides the balance between the two and that, as ever in these debates, is always spoken off but rarely presented.
I would have maintained a silence in this debate had you not implied that the argument in opposition to your own position lacked reason and common sense.
It is interesting that "reason and common sense" are often pulled out of the hat when denigrating an argument or position in the face of little or highly conflicting evidence. The arguments for and against raptor control (culling) are equally emotive and you should acknowledge your own vested interests in this area rather than simply implying that those who oppose the unlawful culling of a protected species are unreasonable and lacking in common sense.
Driven shoots will always be a charged subject (emotive is a term loaded with various meanings and connotations and best not used) and industry experience is does not qualify one towards a more reasonable perspective. Usually the opposite is true - who would you be more influenced by when considering the efficacy and contraindications of a drug; the company who produced it or a researcher with no vested interests?
For the record I am opposed to all hunting, no I don't eat meat or dairy and yes I do grow a substantial amount of my own food. Does that give my argument any more weight? Unfortunately it does not. Emotions inform our moral thinking and temper the excess that reason can lead us to. Evidence provides the balance between the two and that, as ever in these debates, is always spoken off but rarely presented.
I would have maintained a silence in this debate had you not implied that the argument in opposition to your own position lacked reason and common sense.
3
2
In reply to MG:
Actually I have been reluctant to post my opinions.
No I don't believe illegal raptor persecution on it's own is sufficient to explain the gaps in raptor populations however I in no way deny that this has a part to play and my opinion of illegal raptor persecution is that is in no way acceptable. As gas guns were mentioned earlier I will expand on this. This would have been used as a non lethal predator control method to reduce predation of grouse and consequently other species. Raptors kill to eat, as I'm sure you know. Again as has been mentioned, to conserve certain species you must discourage others, for example natural regeneration of native woodlands and deer. Grouse moors are managed to produce grouse, this management also benefits other species and it is at odds to encourage high numbers of predators when you are trying to encourage successful broods of ground nesting birds. Again I would say habitat has a part to play in raptor population gaps. Moors which are left to go rank support little biodiversity and as such no prey for predators. We are talking about a complex issue with few black and white answers.
Actually I have been reluctant to post my opinions.
No I don't believe illegal raptor persecution on it's own is sufficient to explain the gaps in raptor populations however I in no way deny that this has a part to play and my opinion of illegal raptor persecution is that is in no way acceptable. As gas guns were mentioned earlier I will expand on this. This would have been used as a non lethal predator control method to reduce predation of grouse and consequently other species. Raptors kill to eat, as I'm sure you know. Again as has been mentioned, to conserve certain species you must discourage others, for example natural regeneration of native woodlands and deer. Grouse moors are managed to produce grouse, this management also benefits other species and it is at odds to encourage high numbers of predators when you are trying to encourage successful broods of ground nesting birds. Again I would say habitat has a part to play in raptor population gaps. Moors which are left to go rank support little biodiversity and as such no prey for predators. We are talking about a complex issue with few black and white answers.
1
2
In reply to Cary Grant:
You are jumping to assumptions, that firstly I have a vested interest for raptor culling, and secondly that I implied reason and common sense should apply to people who oppose this, for what I stated holds true for both sides of the fence.
No I don't believe whether you are vegan, vegetarian or grow your own food or eat meat gives your argument any more weight, that is your life choices and should not be enforced upon others.
You are jumping to assumptions, that firstly I have a vested interest for raptor culling, and secondly that I implied reason and common sense should apply to people who oppose this, for what I stated holds true for both sides of the fence.
No I don't believe whether you are vegan, vegetarian or grow your own food or eat meat gives your argument any more weight, that is your life choices and should not be enforced upon others.
2
2
In reply to Ben87:
It's a wonder how 5 billion years of biodiversity evolved without the benign guiding hand of homo sapien! You can't seriously expect people to buy into the idea that farming grouse is essential to maintaining a broader biodiversity? The motive is profit and any accidental benefit to other non predatory ground nesting birds is just that; accidental.
Most of the culling that occurs across managed countryside is a direct result of terrible mismanagement of previous generations and nothing to do with some kind of failing on the part of nature.
I accept that heather burning may encourage other species, but to make the claim that if left, moorland would support little biodiversity would require some pretty spectacular evidence and a not inconsiderable rewrite of several million years of natural selection and ecology.
Argue for what grouse shooting is - an economic activity, but please don't expect people to buy into the conservation line. Yes, there may be some benefits, but this is not the motivating factor and is offset by the impact elsewhere (decline in raptor populations, drainage and flooding issues (Hebden Bridge?!), rights of way and access restrictions).
I love climbing, but I'm not going to argue that I climb because the use of crags in a leisure activity helps to preserve the crags. If grouse shooting was unprofitable I doubt that any of these conservation concerns would press heavily on your day-to-day work.
> Moors which are left to go rank support little biodiversity and as such no prey for predators. We are talking about a complex issue with few black and white answers.
It's a wonder how 5 billion years of biodiversity evolved without the benign guiding hand of homo sapien! You can't seriously expect people to buy into the idea that farming grouse is essential to maintaining a broader biodiversity? The motive is profit and any accidental benefit to other non predatory ground nesting birds is just that; accidental.
Most of the culling that occurs across managed countryside is a direct result of terrible mismanagement of previous generations and nothing to do with some kind of failing on the part of nature.
I accept that heather burning may encourage other species, but to make the claim that if left, moorland would support little biodiversity would require some pretty spectacular evidence and a not inconsiderable rewrite of several million years of natural selection and ecology.
Argue for what grouse shooting is - an economic activity, but please don't expect people to buy into the conservation line. Yes, there may be some benefits, but this is not the motivating factor and is offset by the impact elsewhere (decline in raptor populations, drainage and flooding issues (Hebden Bridge?!), rights of way and access restrictions).
I love climbing, but I'm not going to argue that I climb because the use of crags in a leisure activity helps to preserve the crags. If grouse shooting was unprofitable I doubt that any of these conservation concerns would press heavily on your day-to-day work.
4
3
In reply to Cary Grant:
I think if you are looking for a culprit for downstream flooding it would be fairer to blame sheep than grouse. Modern management, such as burning may have some impact of water retention, but I suspect it is marginal compared with the huge effect of the 'grips' that were put in a few decades ago. The intention then was to drain the moors to allow more sheep to be grazed and so increase food production. It was driven by government through grants and other incentives. Now we discover that, because of subsequent developments (climate change, more severe weather episodes, building on flood plains etc etc) we want the moors to soak up and hold back rainwater after all so the grips are being filled in again. Farmers like to mock clueless interfering townie politicians and a friend of mine always chuckles as he tells how the politicians are now paying him to fill in the very grips they paid his dad paid to dig.
> and is offset by the impact elsewhere (decline in raptor populations, drainage and flooding issues (Hebden Bridge?!), rights of way and access restrictions).
I think if you are looking for a culprit for downstream flooding it would be fairer to blame sheep than grouse. Modern management, such as burning may have some impact of water retention, but I suspect it is marginal compared with the huge effect of the 'grips' that were put in a few decades ago. The intention then was to drain the moors to allow more sheep to be grazed and so increase food production. It was driven by government through grants and other incentives. Now we discover that, because of subsequent developments (climate change, more severe weather episodes, building on flood plains etc etc) we want the moors to soak up and hold back rainwater after all so the grips are being filled in again. Farmers like to mock clueless interfering townie politicians and a friend of mine always chuckles as he tells how the politicians are now paying him to fill in the very grips they paid his dad paid to dig.
In reply to Wiley Coyote:
There is a strong and fairly sensible argument that if you fill in the grips and keep the moorland in a saturated state then rainfall will simply flow straight over the top. With a degree of drainage the land has a greater capacity to soak up the rainfall and act as a buffer.
> I think if you are looking for a culprit for downstream flooding it would be fairer to blame sheep than grouse. Modern management, such as burning may have some impact of water retention, but I suspect it is marginal compared with the huge effect of the 'grips' that were put in a few decades ago. The intention then was to drain the moors to allow more sheep to be grazed and so increase food production. It was driven by government through grants and other incentives. Now we discover that, because of subsequent developments (climate change, more severe weather episodes, building on flood plains etc etc) we want the moors to soak up and hold back rainwater after all so the grips are being filled in again. Farmers like to mock clueless interfering townie politicians and a friend of mine always chuckles as he tells how the politicians are now paying him to fill in the very grips they paid his dad paid to dig.
There is a strong and fairly sensible argument that if you fill in the grips and keep the moorland in a saturated state then rainfall will simply flow straight over the top. With a degree of drainage the land has a greater capacity to soak up the rainfall and act as a buffer.
In reply to Cary Grant:
Moorland is not a natural and wild landscape formed over billions of years. It is a plagioclimax habitat. You can't farm grouse, they are a wild and natural resource. It is of course not essential to providing greater biodiversity, but it is part of the reason we continue to have large areas of moorland and rich biodiversity within it. Of course it is an economic activity, it is economic activity that has shaped our moorlands over hundreds of years. I have never suggested that the culling of wildlife is to do with a failure of nature. We live in a managed landscape that is not wild and has not been for perhaps thousands of years due to human influenced activity. I'm sure if you do a little searching you will find evidence that rank moorland does not provide great biodiversity.
Moorland is not a natural and wild landscape formed over billions of years. It is a plagioclimax habitat. You can't farm grouse, they are a wild and natural resource. It is of course not essential to providing greater biodiversity, but it is part of the reason we continue to have large areas of moorland and rich biodiversity within it. Of course it is an economic activity, it is economic activity that has shaped our moorlands over hundreds of years. I have never suggested that the culling of wildlife is to do with a failure of nature. We live in a managed landscape that is not wild and has not been for perhaps thousands of years due to human influenced activity. I'm sure if you do a little searching you will find evidence that rank moorland does not provide great biodiversity.
Post edited at 14:25
1
1
In reply to timjones:
Interesting - and presumably next to impossible to work out the optimum level of gripping for maximum long term benefit - but I don't think it alters my main point that gripping to improve grazing has had a far greater impact than burning for grouse management.
> There is a strong and fairly sensible argument that if you fill in the grips and keep the moorland in a saturated state then rainfall will simply flow straight over the top. With a degree of drainage the land has a greater capacity to soak up the rainfall and act as a buffer.
Interesting - and presumably next to impossible to work out the optimum level of gripping for maximum long term benefit - but I don't think it alters my main point that gripping to improve grazing has had a far greater impact than burning for grouse management.
Post edited at 14:25
In reply to Ben87:
The issue of "farming" grouse is an interesting one. You can't farm them in the sense that pheasants are reared very much like poultry before release, but it does beg the question of when the detailed manipulation of their conditions (including routine medication) becomes farming. Predator control, annual management of the feed crop, detailed knowledge of numbers, location and condition of livestock -these are things that are as familiar to sheep farmers as they are to gamekeepers. As far as it goes, the only difference is really that rearing grouse commercially is more difficult to do indoors. I'm not sure how (for example) routine prophylactic antibiotics in grit squares with the "wild" species concept.
A thought- does that still happen? I know it's been effectively done away with in poultry production.
The issue of "farming" grouse is an interesting one. You can't farm them in the sense that pheasants are reared very much like poultry before release, but it does beg the question of when the detailed manipulation of their conditions (including routine medication) becomes farming. Predator control, annual management of the feed crop, detailed knowledge of numbers, location and condition of livestock -these are things that are as familiar to sheep farmers as they are to gamekeepers. As far as it goes, the only difference is really that rearing grouse commercially is more difficult to do indoors. I'm not sure how (for example) routine prophylactic antibiotics in grit squares with the "wild" species concept.
A thought- does that still happen? I know it's been effectively done away with in poultry production.
In reply to Wiley Coyote:
It's all highly complex, the unintended consequences of changes that are made with good intent can be interesting.
> Interesting - and presumably next to impossible to work out the optimum level of gripping for maximum long term benefit - but I don't think it alters my main point that gripping to improve grazing has had a far greater impact than burning for grouse management.
It's all highly complex, the unintended consequences of changes that are made with good intent can be interesting.
Post edited at 15:06
In reply to toad:
Medicated grit is used to fight strongylosis in grouse and the associated population crashes. It is withdrawn 28 days before shooting, usually by using double sided grit boxes. I see your point in how does this fit into to a wild species concept but then you could probably say the same about other wild species that are managed.
I should add that this is a parasitic infection.
Medicated grit is used to fight strongylosis in grouse and the associated population crashes. It is withdrawn 28 days before shooting, usually by using double sided grit boxes. I see your point in how does this fit into to a wild species concept but then you could probably say the same about other wild species that are managed.
I should add that this is a parasitic infection.
Post edited at 15:16
1
In reply to timjones:
That's a bit of an oversimplification, certainly in the context of peat. I'm a bit too close to the subject to quickly write a summary, so can I leave it at that? Plus remember that rewetting is about more than just changing the flood hydrograph characteristics, the chemistry of the water, particularly carbon, seems to change favourably after blocking and the environmental benefits, such as the recovery of moorland specific plant species also need consideration. Much of the peat drainage in (for example) the Peak is through either piping within the peat body (underground erosion passages not visible at the surface, a feature of degraded blanket peat) or gulleys that have formed in the peat, as a result of historic draining and past and current burning practices. to complicate matters, some of these gulleys have been recognised as significant geological features in their own right, so indiscriminate blocking isn't permitted by EN in any event.
It's unlikely that either NE/ NRW/SNH , the EA/SEPA or (where relevant) the water company would want to encourage any new gripping in blanket peat
> There is a strong and fairly sensible argument that if you fill in the grips and keep the moorland in a saturated state then rainfall will simply flow straight over the top. With a degree of drainage the land has a greater capacity to soak up the rainfall and act as a buffer.
That's a bit of an oversimplification, certainly in the context of peat. I'm a bit too close to the subject to quickly write a summary, so can I leave it at that? Plus remember that rewetting is about more than just changing the flood hydrograph characteristics, the chemistry of the water, particularly carbon, seems to change favourably after blocking and the environmental benefits, such as the recovery of moorland specific plant species also need consideration. Much of the peat drainage in (for example) the Peak is through either piping within the peat body (underground erosion passages not visible at the surface, a feature of degraded blanket peat) or gulleys that have formed in the peat, as a result of historic draining and past and current burning practices. to complicate matters, some of these gulleys have been recognised as significant geological features in their own right, so indiscriminate blocking isn't permitted by EN in any event.
It's unlikely that either NE/ NRW/SNH , the EA/SEPA or (where relevant) the water company would want to encourage any new gripping in blanket peat
In reply to Ben87:
There is of course an argument that crash cycles are a consequence of maintaining artificially high populations in the first place. Lower grouse populations would probably be inherently healthier and not subject to boom/bust - but then fewer grouse= less revenue. Withdrawal periods before harvest/ slaughter is again a very agricultural concept. I guess it comes back to the the wild/farmed species discussion again.
> Medicated grit is used to fight strongylosis in grouse and the associated population crashes. It is withdrawn 28 days before shooting, usually by using double sided grit boxes.
There is of course an argument that crash cycles are a consequence of maintaining artificially high populations in the first place. Lower grouse populations would probably be inherently healthier and not subject to boom/bust - but then fewer grouse= less revenue. Withdrawal periods before harvest/ slaughter is again a very agricultural concept. I guess it comes back to the the wild/farmed species discussion again.
In reply to toad:
Of course as with any species, if you have high populations artificially or not then disease and infections spread easily. Withdrawal periods are in place to protect public health as grouse end up in the food chain.
Of course as with any species, if you have high populations artificially or not then disease and infections spread easily. Withdrawal periods are in place to protect public health as grouse end up in the food chain.
In reply to toad:
I never said it was simple
And of course there are reasons for rewetting, but it does need to be done carefully when development downstream has been carried out over many decades and based on the existing upland drainage systems.
> That's a bit of an oversimplification, certainly in the context of peat. I'm a bit too close to the subject to quickly write a summary, so can I leave it at that? Plus remember that rewetting is about more than just changing the flood hydrograph characteristics, the chemistry of the water, particularly carbon, seems to change favourably after blocking and the environmental benefits, such as the recovery of moorland specific plant species also need consideration. Much of the peat drainage in (for example) the Peak is through either piping within the peat body (underground erosion passages not visible at the surface, a feature of degraded blanket peat) or gulleys that have formed in the peat, as a result of historic draining and past and current burning practices. to complicate matters, some of these gulleys have been recognised as significant geological features in their own right, so indiscriminate blocking isn't permitted by EN in any event.
> It's unlikely that either NE/ NRW/SNH , the EA/SEPA or (where relevant) the water company would want to encourage any new gripping in blanket peat
I never said it was simple
And of course there are reasons for rewetting, but it does need to be done carefully when development downstream has been carried out over many decades and based on the existing upland drainage systems.
Why do Grouse moors receive EU farm subsidies? if grouse management can't be deemed farming.
1
In reply to daftdazza:
I'm not a politician but here is a quick copy paste for you that might have something to do with it.
'Britain contains 75% of the world’s heather moorland, which is rarer than rainforest. Its fundamental value to conservation means that 49% of grouse moors are designated as EU Special Protection Areas for the rare birds they support and 49% as Special Areas of Conservation due to the plant species. Nationally, 66% of grouse moors are protected as Sites of Special Scientific Interest; 45% carry all three designations, making them one of the UK’s most important habitats.
Grouse moors provide a vital habitat for nesting birds including the merlin, shorteared owl, hen harrier, golden plover, lapwing, curlew, snipe, redshank and duck. Well managed moors are a haven for reptiles, including adders, lizards and slow worms, and the control of bracken means that ling and bell heather, cross-leaved heath and bilberry can thrive.'
I'm not a politician but here is a quick copy paste for you that might have something to do with it.
'Britain contains 75% of the world’s heather moorland, which is rarer than rainforest. Its fundamental value to conservation means that 49% of grouse moors are designated as EU Special Protection Areas for the rare birds they support and 49% as Special Areas of Conservation due to the plant species. Nationally, 66% of grouse moors are protected as Sites of Special Scientific Interest; 45% carry all three designations, making them one of the UK’s most important habitats.
Grouse moors provide a vital habitat for nesting birds including the merlin, shorteared owl, hen harrier, golden plover, lapwing, curlew, snipe, redshank and duck. Well managed moors are a haven for reptiles, including adders, lizards and slow worms, and the control of bracken means that ling and bell heather, cross-leaved heath and bilberry can thrive.'
In reply to Ben87:
It's a really good job the shooters put so much effort into keeping the grouse population down just so that all of this can happen. Hats off to them, I say.
> Grouse moors provide a vital habitat for nesting birds including the merlin, shorteared owl, hen harrier, golden plover, lapwing, curlew, snipe, redshank and duck. Well managed moors are a haven for reptiles, including adders, lizards and slow worms, and the control of bracken means that ling and bell heather, cross-leaved heath and bilberry can thrive.'
It's a really good job the shooters put so much effort into keeping the grouse population down just so that all of this can happen. Hats off to them, I say.
1
1
2
2
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Loading Notifications...