UKC

In Hebden Bridge

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leeds-45155349

What about this quote:

Glynn Evans, from the British Association for Shooting and Conservation, said the benefits of grouse shooting are "massive and varied".

"Grouse shooting supports rural communities; families, schools, shops, garages," he said.

It actually supports very few people and most of the grouse are thrown in the bin because they're full of shot. Anyone been on the moors and seen where the overgrown heather has been burnt off for new growth will see the surface is rock hard and any rain will just roll off contributing to the flooding we've had particularly in Calderdale. Perhaps its because that it now costs about £3k for a days shooting.  A rich man's so called sport seems more important than contributing to the flood relief. The Government meanwhile is spending millions in the valley, it remains to be seen if it will be effective.

Here we go.... 

Can you evidence that it supports 'very few' people? Or the numbers of grouse that go in the bin?

If anyone wants to chuck pheasants in the bin, I'm happy to oblige!

Peasants or Pheasants?

3 or 4 full time gamekeepers, a couple of admin staff, part time drivers to take the lazy buggers up to the butts - hence the ugly landrover tracks appearing over some moors and part time beaters for the few days a year that  they actually shoot. Hardly large employers.

As for the deceased grouse I dont see any in the shops around here or in the supermarkets It would be interesting to find out how many grouse are killed and how many are eaten. However the fun is in killing them not eating them isn't it?

Take lazy buggers up the butts?

My dyslexia strikes again.

Personally, i'm looking forward to some yummy pheasants especially as my nearest game butcher chargers £3 a brace.

What do you suggest as an alternative use for this land?

A bunch of my mates go for a grouse shoot every year. It cost them £200 each. Typically they come back with around 50 birds that they divy up and all get eaten. I personally don't go because I don't like shooting living things. That is very hypocritical of my though because I eat a lot of meat. 

Blimey. Not saying it was Jess13 but what did I get a dislike for!!

Not hypocritical at all. You don't need to enjoy something to justify doing it. It's the idea of enjoying the act of killing itself, to the extent that people will pay hundreds or thousands of pounds to do it, that I find particularly morally wrong.

I don't know, I've never shot a grouse. But eating venison from a deer that I shot was a lot more fun than walking for miles, lying in a puddle waiting for a shot, then gutting the thing and then carrying it down the hill. 

Setting aside the entirely anecdotal nature of your account of how many people are employed, you seem to ignore that these are real people who have families who rely on their income. They spend their income in the local shops which supports the staff in those areas. Their kids go to local schools, etc etc. That actually seems like a decent number of people for one shoot to employ anyway. 

Also, these rich lazy buggers, who you clearly despise, also bring money into the local area when they come in and go to local shops and pubs.

My local butcher has birds in from shoots and local farmers sell them after the shoots so it's not like the birds are going to waste round here!

As an aside, the majority of people I know who shoot are not rich (don't get me wrong a know a number of people who shoot who are) but it is far more than a bit of sport for the rich.

Why? It seems to me that we human beings are omnivorous and as such need to gain some sort of satisfaction from the act of hunting in order to feed ourselves. Not these days in the first world, obviously but in subsistence cultures getting some sort of pleasure in obtaining meat is or was an evolutionary advantage.

I would agree that killing something and not eating it is wrong unless you're controlling pests or defending yourself.

Does satisfaction at the outcome need to mean enjoyment of the process?

More generally, are we forever to be bound by evolutionary incentives and drives that have little or no modern relevance?

We've come a long way in the last century or two in righting many of the wrongs tradition has left us with, notably concerning the status of women and natives of other cultures. We couldn't have come this far without recognising and correcting centuries-old behaviours and attitudes, so I don't see why no longer deriving pleasure at the death of others should be any different.

Forest.  It’s what it wants to be - the mature heather round here is full of birch saplings when it gets burned back.

Not around here.  You get a tiny number of people employed locally for the whole year, a bunch of people employed for a few weeks during shoots, then a couple of busses full of domestic staff come up from London for two weeks, with the Arab shooters flying in by helicopter.  

Nop.  They’ve got their own mansions kept aside for their week or two per year, fully catered by people from outside the region, never set foot in the pubs.   

The only thing that trickles down is all the brown organics from the over-drained moors, turning our rivers like dirty dish water.  I can’t even see my feet when standing waste deep in the upper Tees.

Our local game dealer gets them in.  I’ve yet to find a way to cook one of the cursed things that makes it worth the effort.  I’ll stick to wood pidgin and the occasional pheasant.  

Yes, a mixed habitat of scrub, forest and more open vegetation giving habitat for a really diverse mixture of birds and animals. Some of these could certainly still be shot - just need to get away from the obsession with a monoculture of grouse.

Given that there aren't any upland commercial deciduous forests I suspect they aren't economically viable. I'm happy to be corrected though.

Also, how many people would such a forest employ?

I'd rather be a grouse that spends it's life out in a natural environment, meeting my end after a bit of a scare than a chicken reared in shed under artificial lighting and fed on crap before being shooed onto a conveyor belt for electrocution. Whether the person who kills me enjoys it or not wouldn't be something that would concern me.

I've actually been mostly vegetarian for over 30 years but I do eat meat and fish occasionally. I also fish for trout on occasions. I eat what I catch. I enjoy fishing, not for killing a living being but for spending a day in nature, for the skill involved in finding a fish and tricking it into talking my fly. I also enjoy the connection I make with the fish, perhaps it's wrong but I do. When it comes to killing, I do it as quickly and humanely as I can.

I've never shot anything but did once have a walk around a rough shoot with some friends of mine. I can understand the enjoyment they got from it, similar in some ways to fishing and nothing to do with taking pleasure in killing. They ate what they killed by the way.

The only thing I've ever shot is Mrs Num Num's mother with my gat gun a few years ago, and I can remember what a thrill it gave me after hitting her plumb spang in the middle of her buttock after stalking her round the back yard when she was hanging out her bloomers.

I'd agree with Glyn Evans about the benefits being massive and varied....I was delighted and would have so liked to have had a trophy photo of me and the pellet bruise for social media but it would have meant breaking cover, and a sniper doesn't do that. Bittersweet.

I’d use it for dogging 

PS I love going shooting,  but shaggings better.

Not to mention the £1 million of tax payers money being paid to the shooting estate  to err manage the moor  party by burning SSSI//SPA blanket bog. 

True I'm afraid 

Forest becomes less commercial as you gain altitude and move north. But there is still forest that is more than commercially viable at 500m asl and if you  drew a line from lillehammer to Helsinki. 

Trees grow to around the 900m in the nordics, they are substantially dwarfed by this height, but will survive both the temperatures and the wind battering.

300m asl or less then 200 hectares would comfortably provide a living, less if it was all prime ground, but you always get some marsh, bare rock etc.. that reduces growth. 

But then if people owned larger tracts you will have contractors for planting/thinning/harvesting, local mechanics for repairs, hardware stores, plus forest research, nurseries... 

Then down the line saw mills, small local power plants running on waste wood. Local population in rural areas would increase. 

Then there is increase in wildlife and probably increased tourism. Reduced flood risk too. There is no negative. 

Compare all this to the 'grouse' model. 

Isn't commercial forestry about as sterile a monoculture as a grouse moor?

Only the UK model!! It does not have to be a spruce monoculture that is grown tight and high, never thinned, then clear felled at 50/60 years. Thinking of Tilhills m74 style forestry management. 

About 50 years ago the Nordics realised that this mono culture style tree farming doesn't work long term. All the eggs on one species, problems with disease and pests. Not to mention limiting wildlife as you say. 

These days pine, larch and spruce are normally planted. Birch, oak, Rowan, aspen, alder, whitebeam... All find their own way in. The bigger problem in the nordics is keeping wildlife out like elks and some deer species that want to nibble them when first planted, not the lack of wildlife.

FSC and other sustainable certifications have rules on margins, water courses and setting aside old forest (not so easy in the uk). 

Granted it would take time in parts of the UK to develop, but if you don't start, it wouldn't ever happen. 

So have shooting as well to control numbers?

Of course. Plenty people from other countries pay to hunt elk, deer, wild boar in Scandinavia. But it's not just a sport for the rich elite. Roe deer stag season starts at sunrise this Thursday in sweden, there will be a lot of very average earning people booking a day off. 

Sounds like a win-win model for Scotland then; commercial forestry, commercial shooting and diversity of flora and fauna.

You don't like people doing what they are entitled (perhaps legally, metaphorically and literally) to do.

So you find a few a emotive unsubstantiated reasons to have a rant.

Bless, you poor little thing.

I'd defo rather be shot than have a sharp hook stuck through my mouth, dragged about on a cord for 25mins before giving up due to exhaustion and finally killed by being battered to death with a stick. 

Or pummeled unconscious (or possibly to death) by a fellow human being for the entertainment of the braying masses.

All-in-all that was a poor response, not least because you yourself have succumb to your own unsubstantiated rant. Let's raise the bar for debate rather than lower it.

With regards to substance, it is widely accepted that the floods that have wreaked havoc in Hebden Bridge are largely down to the burning practises up on the Moors. Maybe it is legal, but I doubt those who's homes are affected would agree that it should be - it doesn't really seem right does it?!

I have some sympathy with your post but as a professional forester I feel I should clear up some of these points, apologies in advance! It is quite an unfair assessment given that nearly 100% of UK commercial forestry is managed to FSC standards as you mention. Commercial forestry managed to FSC standards is endorsed by most major environmental NGOs, even Greenpeace. 

Grouse shooting and commercial forestry aren't really competing for ground in the UK, although they may be further south as you say. Unfortunately for the economics to stack up it does have to be monoculture spruce in the UK uplands (obviously working to FSC sustainability standards where only 75% of the forest can be a single species, the rest is long term retention, broadleaves, open space and other conifers). Nearly all of the commercial forestry you see is managed to FSC, otherwise the timber isn't worth much money. It's been an excellent way of aligning growers with ethical forest management. We are growing trees on land bought to grow trees on (an important distinction from Scandinavia) which is fairly valuable as sheep farming ground.

Luckily with the current environmental standards we can make money and support a billion pound industry but also sequester carbon (4x as much carbon is stored in soils than the trees), grow a sustainable material as a substitute for steel/concrete, prevent flooding and provide wildlife habitats.

In the UK the major limiting factor is the wind, which isn't often a problem in scandinavia (although they had a huge windblow event a few years ago). You essentially have to clearfell on any site with a wind risk and unstable soils (ie uplands) but where it's possible other options are tried such as continuous cover and multiple thinnings. Those sort of things tend to be on uncommercial ground (amenity forestry or estate ground where they didn't pay for the land) as it has to be good enough to grow other species well enough or withstand multiple interventions and not blow over, therefore being on a brown earth soil and worth more as a dairy farm.

Thinning is on the basis of ground conditions and silvicultural benefits (straightness, quality, size etc), by far the UK's most productive forests are thinned at age 20 and felled at about 40 but they are on some of the better ground available. In the UK we are confined to the bit between decent agricultural ground and upland sheep farming, as has been mentioned you can grow good commercial spruce in Wales at nearly 600m, in Scotland is more like 450m/400m depending on where you are. 

In my time as a forester managing FSC certified forests and producing thousands of tonnes of timber I have protected/worked around Pine marten, Golden eagles, peregrines, red squirrels, goshawks, buzzards, kites, owls, badgers, otters and plenty more. There is a lot more for 'commercial forestry than it looks!

One of the biggest problems we have is stopping the deer eating all our trees 

Thanks.  Really interesting post.

Once I get going I just can't stop, my friends and family hate me! I can completely understand both sides though, that's why we 'conceded' so much time, effort and land to the non-productive elements of forestry to try to make it work for all parties. 

As an environmentally minded type of guy personally I don't feel like I am conflicted at all in my work which is nice, and I do get so see some 'nice' forestry every so often! 

Well as someone who could also describe themselves as a 'professional' forester and forest owner, I would suggest that fsc and pefc standards are low base line bench marks that easily exceeded by any keen forester, but having seen a vast amount of UK forest working and running through it climbing, orienteering or mtbing I'd be surprised if it all even loosely meets the criteria. Especially when it comes to management of boundaries and water courses. But without actually walking the ground on site it's impossible to discuss precisely.

As someone who works forest at 300m asl at roughly the same latitude as the northern part if Scotland there is no horticultural or climatic reason why commercial forest can't be viable in any part of the UK. Indeed colder winter generally favour spruce as they grow better after a winter hibernation and it kills several pests. 

Yeah yeah.. But the UK is still importing timber for a whole range of uses, whilst vast tracts of land are massively under utilised. I don't mind, some of our timber probably reaches the UK as I've seen our cooperative sellers wood in B&Q.. My gain.  

You are joking aren't you? Gudrun just over 10 years ago was a once century event, but we get serious winds every year. You plan your harvesting and planting etc to avoid or at least reduce exposed sides. We have wind blow to some level every year. This winter we had a freak storm of 50cm of heavy wet snow, rather than just slide off branches like powder does it sticks and piles up, lots of branches off pines and birches were torn off, snapped tops off spruce. Drought and fire risk has been a big problem this summer. The UK weather is varied, but not that severe.

You can leave pine and hard woods. Plus you create you boundaries between different ages in the valleys and dips, not the exposed ridges.

Isn't this standard practice in any forest?. You get better yield overall, remove disease or pest risk trees and obtain a modest income once or twice before final harvest. 

Of course and in some there is practically nothing. Where does all that wildlife go when you clear fell all those hectares in one foul swoop. You also only cite mobile animals, what about less common tree species, other plants, insects, fungi, amphibians etc.. diversity isn't just about poster species the rspb stick on adverts. 

Of course, somethings are the same. 

I think you have fallen into a trap of thinking relatively low level mono culture is the only viable approach to profit. Sweden thought the same 50 years ago and has long since moved away from it.

I don't know the maths, never had sheep (other than orphaned lambs) but I don't see how sheep could be more profitable than trees. What are these land prices you talk of? Here it's roughly £15k / hectare for forest and there are no shortage of takers. 

You should arrange a Nordic tour, ideally in autumn or winter so you can feel the wind in your hair.  

You should genuinely try and arrange an exchange trip through your employer with similar company in Scandinavia, combine it with a trip to elmia in June.

 https://www.elmia.se/en/SkogsElmia/

It's sound like you are doing beneficial work yourself. But I'd politely suggest there is more the UK could be doing overall, if it broaden it's horizons and got rid of some misconceptions too. Most of the land people claim won't make good forest was forested before man's intervention. 

Your profile says: "Climber and Environmentalist 'stuck' in London."

Your response above is a little lacking, given your credentials. Care to elaborate?

Does it (all) have to stack up commercially, lots of other reasons why it is good to be planting trees, not least flood protection as mentioned above. 

On what?

I my 'environmental' work is on climate change and predominantly based in other countries.

To Rob Greenwood.

If the OP wanted to discuss the issue of how action on some land (burning heather on moorland) can cause problems on other land (housing in the valley due to flooding) and what could be done about it then I would happily chip in my 2pence worth in a a reasonable manner.

Whilst they throw in comments about 'rich people' '3k for a days shooting' and a snide remark about whether it is even sport or not, I won't engage in a reasonable manner as their reverse snobbery is oozing from their words and clouding their judgment. 

"Two foresters in a room will never agree on anything" springs to mind! (although I don't disagree with much of what you have said) Really interesting stuff though!

My colleagues have been to Elmia but I've not been yet, I did do a tour of France a couple of years ago that was very interesting. 

We do leave pine and hardwood as the retention element of the forest, and restock with an aim to meet FSC/UKFC. We are felling in phases to introduce age structure as the vast majority of the forests are 70s planted and currently non-compliant. Our major issue is that it was all planted at the same time, and it all blows over once it reaches 35-45 depending on the forest. To achieve FSC we have forest plans (which give formal approval for felling) with the understanding that it is replanted with the correct FSC species mix/watercourse zones in the restocking plan, it's part of the transition/restructuring. All new planting schemes have to adhere to FSC or they won't be approved. A 100% spruce wall to wall spruce forest does have a better net storage of carbon than a restructured FSC (plus more timber) but FSC rightfully has other aims.

With regards to differences between here and scandinavia, anywhere north and west of Aviemore grows extremely slowly, YC14 spruce, and YC6 pine compared to our south scotland forests growing at over double that rate and heavily thinned. The ground conditions are often wet and peaty with no real long term frost and the scandinavian harvesting machines we use just sink, could be an indicator of the differences but I wouldn't really know. To grow decent mixed species we need to go further south or onto more fertile soils, the truly commercial mixed species forests are at lower altitudes in Wales, Shropshire and the south west were Douglas fir and others out perform spruce. They cost more to plant though as they are more susceptible to deer and frost though, a higher planting cost needs to justify a compounded return at the time of felling. 

The sheep issue is to do with inflated land prices for sheep farming grants, if we want to spend £8 million on a farm to plant we need to be 100% sure the spruce will grow at a high yield, otherwise sheepfarming and taking grant are more efficient an investment. Even then, a forest is worth quite a lot more but farmers are often hostile to forestry and availability of land is scarce. We are 20-30% self sufficient on timber depending on exchange rates from Europe/Krona.

Without giving away too much of what I do/who I work for, as an investment fund manager but also qualified and chartered forester I am not ashamed of the environmental credentials of my industry, a rare privilege in this day and age.

Thanks for the posts though, really interesting! I'll look into some trips 

I completely agree, it doesn't have to all stack up at all. Flood prevention does actually stack up commercially as it saves houses from being flooded but that's one for the environment agency really, or a philanthropist could buy all this land and plant it. I'm talking about sustainably growing timber though, and it does have to stack up financially or we won't be able to find anyone to buy the land and plant it. Growing trees and growing nice amenity forests take a different approach from the land owner, there is lots of space for both, and they both have lots of benefits over sheep farming (but grouse moors aren't really in my remit!)

Do you eat what you shoot?

I've always thought the motto 'take the higher ground' was a good one within debates such as this.

You just made a personal attack, then signed off with a somewhat dismissive (and quite possibly sexist) remark. If you know your stuff, which by all accounts you do (given your job), then I would have expected a lot more.

http://www.treesponsibility.com/ have been doing great work reforesting calderdale over the years

Really interesting site. I actually volunteer my time/forestry knowledge to a locally owned forest/community project but at 200ha it's very small in the grand scheme of things. Places like Carrifran wildwood are very exciting though http://www.carrifran.org.uk/

From an interest point of view that is, flooding isn't such an issue right there but it's a great project

Ground conditions are probably similar, peat and thin soils. The difference is the winter when most work is done. It will stay below zero day and night for several months. You cut the parts which drain well outside of winter if you can. So a slightly more flexible approach is required. But if you can drive on frozen snow covered ground then damage is near zero.  

There is a big variation in grow rates across the nordics it's not all as slow as the average (obviously).  

No shortage of deer here, some spray the tops with an environmentally friendly repellent, a few tufts of sheep's wool on the tips seems to work, or even a bit a masking tape around the tip that's been soaked for days in repellent. All labour intensive though and only really done on pine here. 

Even though I do farm too, to say I'm not a fan of CAP wound be an understatement. 

The lead in time to any income is the biggest barrier. If farmers just planted 0.5% of their land per year, they creep into it pain free. Often forest can be grazed as it grows too. 

In some senses, the UK is paying at least twice for its uplands, it pays subsidies, has less income than it could long term and then has to fix the damage when major flooding occurs that could be mitigate, if organisations like the national parks weren't so stuck in the Victorian era. 

The last two points especially, I couldn't agree more! I could chat for days about deer protection but I fear we have strayed from the point, cheers for the info though

I'm thinking the contribution to flooding through surface run off is possibly more important than who is employed and what gets thrown in the bin? I know of a few ecologists, and none of them support burning as a mean of heather management, due to the vertebrates, invertebrates and mosses and other plant life which get killed during the burning. 

And talking about shoots...

Until recently I lived next door to an upland pheasant shoot. It wasn't a very big one - basically a 400acre sheep farm which bought in 3-4000 birds a year for 10-15 shoots.

It employed 1 person part-time to "raise" the pheasants - he worked about 16 hours a week doing this. There was also 1 person employed as farm manager - basically he did all the farm work and on shoot days he drove the "guns" around. As for other employment opportunities, about 10-15 beaters were used on a shoot - each got £25 and the joy of a free pork pie and can of cheap lager in the cow shed. And of course a Beater's Shoot Day where they could both beat and shoot at the same time, pretending to be just like the Proper Guns.

The guns would come from far and wide - you could always tell that they were as they had pristine Range Rovers and wouldn't pull over on single track roads - their off-road vehicles were obviously unable to drive onto a verge, and were always wearing brand-new country gentleman clothing.

They'd be driven to a field, where they'd stand about with their Purdeys and the like, waiting for the beaters to drive pheasants that had effectively been herded the day before from cover. Then they'd blast away, like shooting fish in a barrel.

After lunch they'd all stagger out, usually a bottle of claret or more sloshing around inside them (ready for their drive home!), and attempt to blast more pheasants - at this sort of time I was glad not to be a beater standing just up-gun from this lot. More than once I heard the clatter of shot on my roof, and once a pheasant landed on it. The shooter actually had the brass neck to come round and ask for it!

Once they'd finished shooting, they were offered any pheasants but invariably there were 200+ or so left over. Local butchers didn't want them as there were so many available, so the farm manager would bury them in a pit.

So employment-wise, 1 bloke, part-time plus a few days at well below minimum wage for a few beaters. 

I'd love to attend a grouse shooting demo.

I've often wondered how they get their little feet round the trigger.

Some of us are slightly in danger of being prejudice against people just for being a certain way (in this case, posh). Fair enough if you don't like the hobby but a lot of people don't like climbers, mountaineers, mountain runners, mountain bikers and all sorts, you only need to look on the BBC comments section to see people saying it's irresponsible and we should pay insurance for mountain rescues and the like. Maybe it's for good reason but we would be unlikely to convince grouse shooters that grouse shooting is unsustainable by calling them all Range Rover driving drink drivers*

*Tongue in cheek there!

I think the most telling word in your rather unpleasant contribution is “entitled”.

I wouldn't say all!

But like any stereotype, there were a number who conformed to it...

My main problem with the whole idea of a managed shoot was that the birds were raised simply to be blown out of the sky in as easy a way as possible. 

When I was in my teens I used to go hunting on a mates farm - there'd be just the 2 of us with a 9mm garden gun each (i.e. a bolt action shotgun). We'd crawl about all day as quietly as we could and would come away with a couple of rabbits each which we'd take home and eat.

These "guns" (though none of them really conformed to Wham's idea of "Young Guns" ) have little or no intention of eating what they shoot, they're just killing for its own sake. As for the owners of the farm, they made no money at all from it - it was simply to get kudos from other landowners!

But each to their own - they'd probably be far more appalled at my enjoyment of free improvised jazz...

Haha fair enough! Definitely no smoke without a fire in that stereotype... 

As someone who eats some meat I can't complain about animals being killed. I can also understand the killing of animals if it is needed to protect livestock or crops.

However, I do complain about the killing animals in a highly controlled environment for pleasure. Is this  a mark of a civilised society?

Dave

Never apologise for derailing a thread on a topic that's been done to death on here many time before with a well-informed discussion of something more interesting.

If you want to get in to deer protection feel free.  Any thoughts on the possibility of Eurasion Lynx being reintroduced into Kielder Forest?

I'd love to see Lynx reintroduced, not convinced people's concerns are especially well founded about them but that is quite standard when it comes to change! Sheep farmers are apparently going to be compensated for any loss but I can't really see it affecting anything in any great numbers realistically. I have forests over that way, can't see any negative impacts on landowners either. We'll likely have more forestry impact from potential Golden Eagle releases in the Borders but it's not an insurmountable constraint on working environments, we manage it up in Argyll for instance

I really like things like this but we will never have much real 'rewilded' land in the UK, and that definition is fairly arbitrary, I'd just like to see more wildlife, a step in the right direction

What are your thoughts on the planned pedestrianisation of Norwich city centre?

Unlike Scotland, the Nordic countries also have resident populations of large predators which keep deer and elk on the hoof, so to speak. In Scotland deer tend to move when they have eaten everything around them. In Finland and Norway (and elsewhere up there) they move constantly otherwise they risk being eaten themselves.
 

Only about 350 wolves at present spread over a few counties the size of Scotland so there is limited impact. Plus they only live in a relatively small area of upland that isn't prime forestry. Cars kill more deer and elk than wolves every will. 

Not really. We don't have wolves but have lynx where I am. Populations might be alert to predators, but they don't migrate around. I see the same roe deer all year, recognisably by their markings, antlers etc.. roe deer are a little territorial if left to their own devices and the fallow deer herd is no different, it roams a large area perhaps 50-75km2 but it does not really move off out of it for years at a time. 

It doesn't really matter in way if they do roam, it's the totally volume of food consumed that has the impact. Plus the ratios within it of trees, grasses, lichens, mosses and fungus. It varies between species and the seasons, as each has their different favourites. 

It's not my direct area of expertise, but if indeed clearing land (let's keep it simple) causes a flood risk then it needs to be properly analysed and appropriate regulation (for mitigation) put in place.

HOWEVER, the OP was very emotive and seemed more concerned about the fact that wealthy (in their opinion) people were using the land for a sport that they disapproved of. This deserves a disparaging response.

Yes, if we are referring to the landowner, they are absolutely entitled. 

If we're into cheap jibes you sound like a 'forelock puller' . Since when have the rich and entitled been holy cows not to be criticised. Grouse shooting is a rich man's 'sport' ,the demographics of who or who doesn't go grouse shooting might make interesting reading but I doubt if it would point to it being a classless 'sport'. 

I also take issue with the word sport in this context. Sport indicates some sort of challenge or competition and the only  challenge with grouse shooting is how many you can kill with as little inconvenience yourself (beaters,landrover tracks etc).

If you had read my second post you would have realised that I am concerned with the environmental impact of managed moorland . 6 years ago I was a victim of floodwater coming off the moors inundating my van and destroying the engine. I doubt if the local landowner gave a thought about my livelihood . The water pouring off the moors that day was incredible. Having walked these moors many times since I have not noticed any change except for a few new trees in the cloughs ,the water will still run off the tops causing untold damage. Widening the river in the valley will just transfer the problem downstream. The moors should be allowed to soak up some of the water quickly and water run off slowed down in the cloughs. On the grouse moors what I see is drainage channels dug to make run off quicker not soak away. So all this just so a few people can enjoy killing some defenceless birds? What really sticks in my craw is the fact that the estates get a subsidy to maintain this 'industry'.

So all this just so a few people can enjoy killing some defenceless birds? What really sticks in my craw is the fact that the estates get a subsidy to maintain this 'industry'.

I rest my case.

I think that scenes like this will become more widespread as time and tide turns against killing sports. The excuse that it brings in lots of money and provides lots of jobs has been comprehensively demolished by Monbiot, Packham and others. With facts.

There is also strong, but not as yet peer reviewed research that links (the recent) wildfires and their spread with the prevalence of grouse moors in those areas. Remember that when local youths start a fire it's vandalism, and when landowners do it it's "responsible moorland management".

Think about this...If that pheasant shoot wasn't next door to you, it could have been 400 houses instead. 

I wonder if many of the people that enjoy the views and scenery of the countryside realise that a lot of it looks like that due to the relationship between shoots and farming. Both of which have the end result of killing animals. 

I don't participate in shooting these days but I do have a good understanding of it from taking part in my teens. I think that a lot of people with such strong views against it probably don't fully understand it and the ways in which it shapes our countryside, which covers a large percentage of the UK.

For anyone that I know who has or does take part, it has never been about taking pleasure from killing. And I would say most have a true love of the countryside and respect for the animals involved. Which I know some people won't understand.

Also, people from all walks of life are involved, not just the people who turn up in their shiny Range Rovers.

Great post, thanks.

Here in Weardale they run amok ring barking trees in heavy winters, particularly 09/10, 10/11 and 17/18.  I get the impression a serious cull wouldn’t go amiss...  

Deer stalking in forests seems to be more skilled and harder work than grouse shooting.  More popular in the states I think with with slug guns and recurve or compound bows.   I wonder if it could be commercialised?  Not very compatible with open access I suppose!

Hi Ed and others,

There's been some research called EMBER at the University of Leeds (funded by NERC and Yorkshire Water) on increased run off from moorlands caused by the bi-annual burn of moorland, drainage ditches and access roads. It isn't conclusive by any means.

http://water.leeds.ac.uk/our-missions/mission-1/ember/

The economic contribution of grouse shooting to the rural economy? That figure depends on who does the study.

These guys will give you a high figure: http://www.moorlandassociation.org/

Mark Avery will give you a low figure: https://markavery.info/blog/

What isn't in doubt is the killing of birds of prey or any predator that feeds on grouse chicks. In the spring, the moors just behind me as I write (Walshaw, Heptonstall, Widdop moors) are full of traps, Fenn traps (small critters) and Larsen traps. I've filmed the traps, I know where they are and I have had run in with a very aggressive gamekeeper at Gorple when out taking photographs — we shook hands at the end of the episode. It's a Richard Bannister owned moor and the story of his battle with a toothless natural England and Defra is worth reading, again it cost the taxpayer millions and Bannister still continues to get substantial subsidies.

Have a read also of what Bob Berzins (climber and fell runner has been up to) on Walshaw moor recently.

https://markavery.info/2018/02/21/wuthering-moors-62-deep/

and here about the recent fires.

https://markavery.info/2018/07/30/guest-blog-wildfire-and-moorland-manageme...

Grouse shooting is a rich persons sport. Most of the moorland estates obviously have wealthy owners and also quite often get healthy tax payer subsidies to manage the moorland, usually for grouse shooting. 

Here is a very recent map of grouse moor estates in England and how much tax money they get.

http://grousemoors.whoownsengland.org/

To me it isn't about rich or poor people, or the killing of the grouse (I've shot game and worked in an abattoir in the dim distant past, I also eat meat now and again). I do despair a tad when I hear those arguments. 

To me the arguments for better management of our uplands is all about climate change and increasing ecological diversity for the good of the planet — our collective endangered planet. Moorlands are sinks for carbon, they reduce flow down to the valley, and they can support a wide range of plant and animal species. They are also beautiful places as we all know and the work done by the Moors for the Future project — http://www.moorsforthefuture.org.uk/ — is incredible, one only needs to go for a walk on the Kinder Plateau or Black Hill to see the work they have done creating a mosaic of vegetation and the water retaining dams in the gullies.

One last link - Mr. Gove.... Papers show UK environment secretary suggested owners voluntarily end controversial practice of burning heather to head off threat of compulsory ban

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/aug/12/michael-gove-accused-of...

All the best,

Mick Ryan

Hebden Bridge - well just above.

Thank you, that is a discussion worth engaging in. 

That's in the past. The countryside is impoverished of wildlife, apart from deer. Hedgehog numbers are down, foxes have moved to the towns, badgers are under attack, invertebrate and plant diversity and numbers are down, pollinators are under threat.

The Old Country Ways, are just that, in the past and held on by those clinging to a tradition that is well past its sell-by date.

Some farmers are great and take their stewardship seriously, some are absolute criminals and couldn't give a f*ck.

M

We have stalkers who pay to stalk deer in all of our forests, and some that we pay for. It's a bit of a relic from estates which essentially farm deer to take clients out and shoot stags. They will leave lots of hinds to draw in the stags for the rut and take clients out, obviously that's quite incompatible with growing young trees. In forests it's essentially pest control trying to keep them off of the restocked trees but it's an unwinnable war given the numbers in Scotland. I think Grouse/pheasant shooting takes a lot of skill but it's not really doing a 'job' for the environment like deer control. Venison is about as organic and free range as it's possible to be, which is a bonus!

I have seen bark stripping of mature trees in Argyll during really hard winters, it's essentially an animal welfare issue as the deer are starving to death. The numbers in that locality have gone down a lot since then as the neighbouring land owner couldn't afford to replant their young trees every year... 

On the open access front it is surprisingly not too bad, a friend of mine has experience in one very popular mountain spot up north says the Gillies are very accepting of hill walkers and generally aren't much of an issue, part of the privilege of working on such beautiful land

Sir, have a like.

I have two questions from that - after observing shooters & horseback hunters at first hand, it is very much to do with the thrill & pleasure of the chase and the successful kill. If I'm wrong, what is it about killing animals that draws you and others to do it?

You say that you respect the animals you kill (which some people "won't understand") For those of us (me included) who don't understand how you can have respect for an animal you kill for fun, here is your chance to explain the nature & meaning of that respect. Over to you.

It would never be 400 houses... The farm is in a tiny hamlet in an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. The hamlet is at 1000feet above sea level and the farm extends to around 1400feet, so not exactly prime development land.

Not only that, but this farmer cares not 2 hoots about preserving the countryside - he doused a newt-breeding pond with glyphosate, as well as 15 acres of fields because he'd failed to top the thistles for 4 years on the trot. Then after ploughing and re-sowing with mixed grass seed he was surprised to see that there were twice as many nettles and thistles as before. 

So while many farmers do make an extremely positive contribution to conservation and the general health of the countryside, this particular one had the attitude of "it's my land, I'll do whatever I want with it and won't be beholden to nanny state regulations" (he said that to me once!), which meant he could spray whatever weedkiller/neo-nicotinoid/growth retardant he liked at any time (rain, wind etc) without a single though as to whether it would in any way contaminate the water supply we shared...

But having talked to his farm manager on many occasions (he agreed with my assessment of Mr Gentleman-Farmer as a prize eejit), he told me it was standard practice to bury much of the harvest of a pheasant shoot as neither the shooters nor the local butchers wanted that many.

I was really referring to people taking part in shooting there, as opposed to farmers...

I guess there are good and not so good people in all walks of life...some farmers will care and some won't. Just like some people will take their Mars bar wrappers home from Stanage and some won't. 

I guess my main point is that it's easy for people to have strong emotionally charged opinions in reaction to what they may percieve as 'people getting pleasure from killing things', and having an industry built around that. But I think a lot of these people may not have had much or any involvement with the countryside other than dipping into it from towns and cities, and are therefore not best placed to make these decisions.

I'm not saying Grouse Moors are a nicely balanced eco system either...but what would happen to these areas if people didn't have a vested interest through shooting etc...would they really just sit there returning to their natural state or would they get sold for housing. 

Thanks for the extra info.

I quite like the heather moor environment, but not completetly scorched. My issue with grouse shooting is the destruction of everything that may predate grouse. The regular shooting of raptors (yorkshire is a blackspot for this) is criminal, but rarely results in prosecution. If it'e not a grouse - its vermin and must be destroyed.

Its unlikely that grouse moors would be sold for housing in any event, due to all sorts of practical issues , but its worth noting you could never build on many of the pennine moors as the legacy of pollution blowing over from former victorian industry means much of the area has high levels of heavy metal pollution. 

Incidentally no one has yet mentioned the problem of lead shot. Both from an environmental perspective, but also tiny fragments (not just whole pellets) in the birds we eat.

There's a reason (or fifty) you won't see a house on top of a moor.. and it's not because shooting already happens there.

Was the demo good? I’ll pass on the sentiments when I’m loading for an acquaintance during a couple of grouse days in Yorkshire next week, I’m sure it’ll make a load of difference...

Until the anti-shooting/hunting lot can afford to buy up the moors and run them as they see fit (which will never happen as JSA & GoFundMe begging doesn’t stretch quite that far), then grouse shooting is here to stay.

Field sports contribute many millions to the economy each year, support thousands of jobs & rural communities and aid conservation efforts. That predators need to be controlled to let other species thrive is an unavoidable fact (ask the RSPB, they cull plenty of corvids & foxes on their reserves), but if that means that there’s more waders & other ground nesting birds on moorland then so be it. 

Plus, shooting is just too much fun not to do. Go beating, get stuck in & give it a try. Take a brace or two home and enjoy the fruits of your labour. I can’t wait. 

When I said farmers, Matt — I really meant and those associated with them, farm boys, country folk etc.

There's emotion both ways, a negative emotional response to the killing by some, and a strong positive emotional response to the 'hunting-shooting-fishing' ways of the past.

That may be the case with some people, but there are a lot of knowledgeable and very informed people who live in town, city and rural hamlet

A mosaic of upland vegetation of grasses, sedges, mosses, sphagnum, shrubs, trees, ponds, bog, streams, open rock. Similar to what is being done by Moors for the Future. Good for the Earth, wildlife, people, plants, insects. With some recreation, walking, mountain biking, climbing and even limited walk-up shooting. 

Most of these areas are not suitable or desirable for housing.

Hi Fozzy,

The tide is very firmly against the management of the uplands for shooting driven grouse and its negative management.

Other forms of shooting will of course continue. With possibly even limited walk-up shooting on the moors - that will be popular eh....it would actually take effort and a high degree of skill. I'd probably do a bit myself...with steel shot, or maybe even a bow.

M

I’d hardly call a small yet highly vocal bunch of misinformed activists a ‘tide’. Look at how many MPs (from multiple parties) enjoy shooting and you’ll see why it’s not going to ever get banned. 

And I’m guessing you’ve never tried driven grouse? Claiming that it doesn’t require skill just shows your lack of knowledge; they are incredibly fast, turn without warning and are the most exhilarating quarry you could pit both barrels & 28g of no5 against. Don’t get me wrong, waking them up over my spaniel with a small bunch of mates is superb sport (the same goes for pheasants & partridge), but seeing a huge covey coming in at eye height is truly brilliant. 

Eeeeeuuuuugggghhhhh

I don't doubt the joy of it Fozzy, but the costs are very high and the evidence is mounting — we are talking management of moorlands for driven grouse shooting here, not shooting.

You would think that, but you are either misinformed or hiding your head in the sand, either way, you are wrong. 

This from Gove on the INglorious 12th.

<<The accusation from campaigners concerns the owners’ practice of repeatedly burning heather on their moorland estates to help boost the numbers of grouse for shooting.

The owners face the threat of a compulsory ban on the practice after the European commission launched an investigation.

However, Whitehall papers show that Gove suggested they should end the practice voluntarily to head off the threat of a ban.>>

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/aug/12/michael-gove-accused-of...

Wait until all that juicy CAP funding dries up post brexit, I bet the MPs won't be quite so favoured then!

You must have different grouse to the dopey ones on the moors around me, whose flight speed seems to be somewhere between a heron and shopping bag!

I thought lead shot was now banned, but perhaps not in the UK. I can see the hunting groups in the UK resisting as it brings the range down a little using steel.

The same with fishing weights. I thought there was a move away from lead, although perhaps this is voluntary by manufacturers. 

Lead is banned over wetlands, foreshore etc, so steel or bismuth (if you’re minted) have to be used for wildfowling. The problem with steel is that it has a much lower density (and therefore lower impact force) than lead, meaning you have to use higher pressure loads which can’t be fired through older guns which can’t handle the pressures nor will their barrels stand up to the harsher steel passing through them. Steel requires the use of plastic wads rather than fibre, which is obviously less than ideal but is a big issue in the shooting community at the moment & alternative eco friendly solutions are being developed. I use 36g of no3 steel for estuary wildfowling (and a fox with very bad timing), which aren’t too bad through the semi auto but I’d rather not have to put them through my game gun! 

Low-intensity cool burn removes the growth but doesn’t affect the underlayer of peat. It creates new growth which is food for a multitude of animals and a varied habitat. What does damage peat, however, is moorland without firebreaks and vast amounts of old heather catching fire, as what per last month on Saddleworth. 

Cards on the table time: I am definitely no scientist. But "Low-intensity cool burn" sounds like a full house at bullshit bingo.

https://www.gwct.org.uk/advisory/briefings/driven-grouse-shooting/heather-b...

House!

Cool burns really only exist in the minds of the moorland association. Burning is pretty much always a Bad Idea. Theres also some recent research to suggest controlled burns exacerbate the effects of wildfires. 

 Theres also some recent research to suggest controlled burns exacerbate the effects of wildfires. 

That sounds like an interesting idea. Where can I read up on it?

Is that the animals which have flame retardant fur and breathing apparatus?

You know there is more to wildlife than a few furry or feathered friends. Some place have grasses, herbs, flowers, insects, mosses, lichens, amphibians ..   even trees..

Much of the argument at the moment, and the reason Gove is trying to get a voluntary agreement with English moor owners, concerns burning of blanket bog rather than dry heath where there is more of an argument for traditional muirburn.  All the studies I've seen suggest burning of blanket bog & wet heath is bad for nature (as a former student of the late Charles Gimingham I've read quite a few studies of moorland)

But all too often even controlled burning gets out of control & its more & more difficult to justify its continued use.

Another study showing consequences of managing for grouse shooting

Seven decades of mountain hare counts show severe declines where high?yield recreational game bird hunting is practised

Watson & Wilson 2018

Journal of Applied Ecology

https://besjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/1365-2664.13235

May not be open access so here's the end of the summary

"Long?term field counts suggest that intensification of game bird management has resulted in severe, recent declines in mountain hare numbers, exacerbating longer term declines associated with land?use change. Management practices founded on misinterpretation of earlier research are the probable cause. Regulation of hare culling would provide a framework for formal tests of whether culls affect grouse surpluses. It would also provide an opportunity to examine mountain hare populations' resilience to culls of varying size and seasonal timing."

Of course, unless it’s rabbits then the dogs get them. 

To give some context. I've hunted for quite a few years. Mainly small game. Taken a few deers. I have also shot pheasant. I'm a member of the BASC in the sense that they give me 3rd party public liability by paying in the same way I use the BMC. Everything I have ever shot (apart from 1 fox) has gone to the pot. I don't enjoy taking life from loving things but I get more satisfaction from eating meat I have harvested in a humane, sustainable way than I do from shop brought meat (although most meat I consume is shop brought). All that being said I am against driven grouse and pheasant shoots. Its not hunting in any way shape or form in my opinion. There's no stalk, no land skills. Just a bird in flight thats been beaten to you and is easy pickings for any half decent shot running a large enough pattern spread. It's killing for fun in my eyes. Just my 2 penny's worth

What’s wrong with it being fun? 

If only there was a 100x dislike button, sir........

Because there is no hunting to actually enjoy? Other people parade the birds in front of you to shoot at, you might as well have a double clay launcher sat on a wobbler, in a field next to town and the grouse moors can be put to a better purpose. 

You’ve obviously never shot grouse then, go and try it then come back and tell us how easy it is.

As for driven pheasant - try shooting high birds, once again not easy, and even the easy shots at driven pheasant provide an end product which is an organic, genuinely free to roam bird - Chickens you buy in a supermarket (even the free range ones) don’t have the quality of life a pheasant has, and if you eat them ...

Of course shooting has to be a miserable pastime doesn’t it, a few lads and lasses together with a bit of banter just won’t do. Please don’t come anywhere near our shoot.

Wrong ... next.

You mean a non-native bird that is released in to the wild en-masse every year? Great!

neither are chickens - but they don’t get released into the wild do they - I’d sooner be a pheasant than a chicken.

I kind of agree. If you're going to shoot stuff you might as well enjoy it. 

On the other hand, I find the idea of the distinction between shooting something "sportingly" and "unsportingly" a bit weird; I doubt the bird is too bothered whether it is shot on the ground or while it is flying!

That reply makes no sense at all. What've kept chickens got to do with pheasants? 35 million non-native birds are still released in to the wild every year, without so much as a dodgy signature on a scrap of paper. Try doing it with it with a white tailed sea eagle and it's years of crossing Ts and dotting Is.

Chickens are not indigenous to the U.K. 

Nope. Shot for 30 years. A high bird is no different to high clay, only because of beaters etc.. The line of flight is more predictable. And yes I do shoot game, but never at organised shoots.

Get yourself to a big shooting range and try hitting clays launched off towers, or from multiple directions at same time etc.. there is no difference. Granted if you turn up in pink cords or plus fours, eating your lunch out of a wicker hamper, you'll stand out a bit, but don't let the glares distract you from your shooting. 

They are not released in to the wild, are they? They don't compete for food or prey on our native fauna? Am I missing something or is your argument incredibly flawed?

Where do you shoot?

The ravages of the pheasant population on the native fauna ... please. Have you ever seen a field full of free range chickens - they’ll scratch it up and strip it bare in days. Pheasants get fed from feeders at shoots, and just generally peck their way around through the day doing no damage. Your wrong to direct your concern at released pheasants, direct it at chicken farmers.

I’ve never had a chicken nearly kill me on my motorbike by flying right at my head from a long grass verge at almost zero range.

My main dislike of pheasant comes from just what a menace they are on the roads.  Damned sight tastier than chicken mind.

Chickens will scratch up and strip bare a farmers field in days, that's no concern of mine. The concern of mine is when my car hits multiple pheasants on country roads, resulting in expensive repairs, how come it's never chickens if they're such a blight? Why aren't I allowed to send the bill to the prat who released them all? How come I can see pheasants roaming around New Mills, but never chickens? There aren't even any pheasant shoots near here! 

Please, give over.

Your on a motorbike. Just accept your an accident waiting to happen.

The only damage I’ve ever seen pheasants do is peck out young wheat crops on field margins, and that was minimal. They do no damage whatsoever to woodland, and thrive in mixed managed woodland, with decent cover to lurk in combined with being fed on open rides. 

I run a (very) small shoot on 180 acres, shooting 2 days a year plus 1 for the landowner as payment (the chap I’m going to be loading on the grouse for next week). I put down 200 birds a year & get a return of 40-50% if we are lucky, walking them up mostly but some mini-drives. The feeders are a haven for other wildlife, with loads of LBJs using them well after the season ends & I continue feeding through the ‘hungry gap’. The wild field margins & small patches of cover crops create fantastic habitat for various other birds & small mammals, which has led to a thriving owl population, as well as plenty of kestrels, sparrow hawks & red kites. Corvids & foxes are shown no mercy, but that’s also why we have loads of hares (which aren’t shot), and plenty of thriving wild broods of partridge & pheasant, especially this year.  

Do I do it for money? God no. Because I love it? Yes. And because it’s bloody good fun with a few mates, our dogs and a couple of frosty Saturdays? Yes indeed. 

You have a tin foil car? in a collision between pheasant and car I know for certain who the loser is.

The point I’m making, the challenge you have raised to releasing pheasants as being “bad” doesn’t stand up, pheasants have virtually no impact on our man made environment, but other practices do, I.e. chicken farming, your concern seems to be you don’t like pheasants wandering around - my advice enjoy them fir the colourful addition to our countryside.

Yet all the millions of chicken that are eaten have a much greater impact on the environment than a few driven pheasant shoots ever could - yet you all tuck into your chicken dinners thinking your not damaging anything. The hypocrisy is pretty much there to see.

All over. I started on rabbits, pigeons etc.  in the dales as a youth. Now i shoot in sweden, rarely on ranges though. The best range or at least one of is where I did my shooting test for my licence here (yes, there is a competency test and a written exams on wildlife & the environment ). 

Imagine you are stood in the middle of clearing 50m wide, 2 tree height launchers in towers hidden the trees, one left one right. Two launchers in pits in the centre and two more ground level launchers on left and right boundaries. Electronic etc.. random or controlled launches.  That is sport, your whole range of vision is your potential target direction, every species of game covered. That's a real shooting challenge. 

I’m with you brother. The I’ll informed nonsense on here (and to be fair in lots of other places) is a bit depressing. 

Forward looking countries are wiping out their invasive species, returning their lands to ecological harmony, meanwhile here in the UK folk of your ilk are keeping us in the 18th century. No, pheasant shouldn't be enjoyed as a colourful addition to the countryside.. they shouldn't even be here! 

There's no hypocrisy, I'm well aware of the damage farming does to our countryside too. Damaging it for eating is one thing, damaging it for 'fun' is another.

Oh god, George Carlin where are you when I need a good quotation.

Do you say the same for rabbits, brown hares, fallow, sika, CWD & muntjac deer, carp, grey squirrels, domestic cats or grass snakes? None of those are native species either. 

And I eat pheasant, duck & partridge 2-3 times a week during the season. I eat venison weekly (and have a lovely muntjac in the chiller that I shot last night. Should I have been miserable when doing so?). I’d much rather shoot and eat meat living free outdoors than buy mass produced chicken that’s 8 weeks old when they are slaughtered. 

Don’t forget wheat - wheat isn’t an indigenous crop either - better get rid of that too.

I totally agree with you. Blithely thinking that 35 million non-native pheasants introduced every year has no effect on our invertebrates is ill informed nonsense.

Yes, ultimately.

Keep on shooting and eating the non-native species, that was kinda the point I was making. Thankfully our non-natives are much tastier than say, New Zealand's rats! I would even go so far as to agree with you about eating a native that you've shot over a mass produced chicken, if you're sticking it in the freezer. I don't have an issue with shooting per-se. 

What I do have a problem with, is allowing the non-natives to thrive or purposely releasing them. Alongside the persecution of native species and upland mismanagement for the benefit of 'the few', but that's a whole other debate.

I don't think many here will find fault with that. But that's not the same as maintaining tens of thousands hectares of uplands as a near mono culture, just so an extremely small number of people can shoot a handful of days per year. 

Yes, a field full of wheat (ideally with carefully managed borders and hedgerows) for food is slightly different to mass killing for 'fun'.

Seems to me that fixating on food, when discussion grouse shooting, is missing the point entirely. People wouldn't pay hundreds of pounds or more for a few shot-ridden grouse to eat. The reason people do it is for entertainment; it's a leisure pursuit, and therefore the use and sustainability of the land, and the potential for employment, would better be assessed by comparing it to other leisure pursuits that potentially could take place on the same land. I accept that some people may shoot on non-commercial moorland, may eat what they kill and for some it may be a significant proportion of their food intake. But as far as I can gather the grouse moors and the 'industry' aren't managed with these people in mind.

Why?

We do kill most of them though - so happily for your bugs they remain to fight another day.

Nail on the head.  Some grouse moors bring in a lot of foreign money.  My uneducated guess is that it’d be a century or two before replacement forest would be competitive as an international leisure destination.  

You might surprised. You could build footpaths, bike tracks, clay pigeon shoot...  now while the land has good access and is overly drained. Then fix the water courses, build ponds, remove sheep, plant trees, sow seeds. You could have a mixed forest that is 15-20m high in 25 years time. The mobile species will find it, others can be transported from places where they plan to build a motorway or train track. 

If 35% is 'most' in your book, then you're quite the optimist! 

In answer to 'why', one requires food to live and breathe, one doesn't require fun.

Further to your constant reference to chickens, aren't pheasants reared in much the same way as chickens before being released? ie, terribly. Isn't it true that birds raised for sport, rather than consumption aren't subject to the same laws and minimum requirements as those we eat?

The ones raised next door to my old house were routinely dosed with huge quantities of antibiotic as a preventative...

https://labourlist.org/2018/08/sue-hayman-its-time-to-end-grouse-moor-pract...

I'm an Eagle. With Lazer eyes. Beat that you pheasanty Tw*t. 

You do realise that there is no purpose to life and it's widely recognised that you should live it for fun? Maybe you missed the memo?

I do, however I don’t do it by subjecting another life to various miseries. Aside the odd terrible joke or belittlement when a partner screws a route up!

Oh yes you do.

Exactly. There's a huge difference between a small walk up shoot that uses a limited amount of responsible pest control and the large estates that deliberately kill everything, including protected species, to maximise profit.

Will anything sway your opinion towards 'our' side? Are you open to ideas?

Care to respond to any of my earlier points?

I have lost a headlight and a windscreen to suicidal pheasants. Granted the pheasants were in no position to exchange insurance details following the collisions.

You’re presuming that moor owners would actually want to do that. Why would they? If you own a grouse moor, it’s because you want to shoot grouse on it. Their moor, their choice. 

Removal of CAP payment, change in national park or aonb policy, some tax incentives for reforesting. Just dangle the appropriate carrot... £$ ! 

That may be so Fozzy, that they legally own a moor, but they are also restricted what they can do to it by legislation, as these moors and most upland areas in private hands have a far greater importance.

Some moorlands do not have private owners as you know, but people buy the hunting/management rights. They are losing those rights

Some great reading for you here, in between your shooting and munching on game.....

https://stoptheshoot.com/case-studies/

Enjoy

Their moor, their choice. Hence the incredible lack of hen Harriers, disappearing sat tagged eagles etc. Their moor, their choice.

Works the other way too.

It’s going to be interesting to see how Ilkley Moor now fares after shooting & the management funding that comes with it has been withdrawn after a bunch of loudmouthed townie bullies forced their ignorant views onto the council. I’m not too sure that the local council that’s now responsible for it will be able to maintain the same level of investment as the shoot put into it. 

As as for changing legislation, dream on. Too many people with more money & power than any anti will ever have enjoy shooting too much to ever let it get banned. 

They wouldn't. It needs government intervention with appropriate funding/compensation and the threat of confiscation.

I find the whole concept of land ownership rather bizarre anyway.

Compare land owners' rights and the legal situation in 1930, 1950, 1990 and now.  Are you so sure?

 The fact is landowners can generally get on with things as they wish unless their behaviour affects everyone else.  Since moors are important in terms of bio-diversity, flooding, CO2 storage, leisure, and fire-fighting (and associated costs). I'd suggest unless landowners start behaving a lot less short-shortsightedly and selfishly, they will find many new regulations come into force and much less public money is available to them.  As one example even Gove in a Tory government is on the verge of much stricter regulations around heather burning.

It was managed by the council between 1997 and 2008, and quite well from what I have read.

The tax payer is already heavily subsidising the ‘management’ of the moors so to say it’s now on the tax payer to fund it is a bit pointless. Personally I’d be happy to stump up a bit extra in council tax if I lived in the area, knowing that it was being looked after properly, and nothing was being persecuted in the process.

Funny how they’re loud mouthed townie bullies when they won’t allow shooting on land that is essentially theirs. Does that make the landed gentry loud mouthed bullies also? Just arguing the opposite point?

I think moorland use might change quickly if they found themselves with unlimited liability for any flood damage downstream as a consequence of their land use or lack of flood mitigation measures. 

"The day was just ending and I was descending
Down Grindsbrook just by Upper Tor
When a voice cried "Hey you" in the way keepers do
He'd the worst face that ever I saw
The things that he said were unpleasant
In the teeth of his fury I said
"Sooner than part from the mountains
I think I would rather be dead"

He called me a louse and said "Think of the grouse"
Well I thought, but I still couldn't see
Why all Kinder Scout and the moors roundabout
Couldn't take both the poor grouse and me
He said "All this land is my master's"
At that I stood shaking my head
No man has the right to own mountains
Any more than the deep ocean bed"

Ewan MacColl 1932

Agreed really with the first bit, if you want to do something that requires subsidies to make it work then you are rather at the mercy of the people providing those subsidies. It doesn't take much to have legislation which follows sensible environmental standards and have very few subsidies. The use of subsidies is fine for short term, or to kick start something we want but I'm not a big fan of industries relying on subsidies to the point the will never stand up on their own (although I'm sure they have their place somewhere).

That said, while we might not like it, we do have to be sensitive to the rights of people who own the land or anything else for that matter. It would have been valued and bought on the basis of an activity or land use, dramatic changes could cause people to lose a lot of money. It's all very well having goalposts for people to aim for but moving them once they get there is unfair (even if it is unlikely that I will have the sort of cash they have to own big areas of land). 

You can sue currently if you can prove the landowner was doing something actively or negligently, ie putting new drains in which fire all the water directly at you house or not maintaining a dam which bursts and floods your house. I don't think we will ever see landowners and farmers being liable for water that happens to fall on their land though as it would be hugely punitive and open a massive can of worms. It could be said that people living on flood plains are the ones who should pay for the damage of flooding, it's very hard to apportion blame and that is fairly well covered by the insurance industry  

This is exactly what grouse moor owners have done, particularly above Hebden, several articles and pages are linked in this thread.

Interesting, has it been tested in the courts or is that in progress still? 

Nope - remember if you eat vegetables you have to kill them first.

Really, get a Range Rover - they don’t succumb to pheasant attack’s so easily (when they’re out of the repair shop).

Gosh, that's brilliant.

You haven’t made any apart from the fact pheasants irritate you because your car might get hit by one - and since you drive you clearly don’t care about the environment and global warming.

But true.

Yes I have. Is this all you're capable of, moving from one nonsense little insult to the next? Like I said..

"Further to your constant reference to chickens, aren't pheasants reared in much the same way as chickens before being released? ie, terribly. Isn't it true that birds raised for sport, rather than consumption aren't subject to the same laws and minimum requirements as those we eat?"

Any answers? 

Also any to the fact that only 35% of released pheasants are accounted for (shot), not 'most' as you so claim. A number which I obtained from a pro-shooting website, none the less. I feel I must be completely open and also report that I did read a higher figure on another pro-shooting site, but don't get excited as it was only 37.5%. 

Or if you'd prefer, I'm only 5ft 8, maybe you'd like to make a jibe about short guys instead.

I agree defining liability for flooding would not be easy. But I bet we both think of a good and bad example, it's the drawing of a definitive line between is the challenge. 

For example, Nantygwyrd is short 1km ish stream that was grade 4 ish feeding into the Llyn just west of plas y brenin. About 20 years ago the farmer herring bone drained the catchment and massively increased the run off volume and speed. Any paddler will tell you the outcome, but defining that in legal jargon isn't so easy.

I'm sure such goings on have happened hundreds of times over around the hills.  

Subsidies. I'm sure you are aware some Scottish estates run at a loss, I know of one around £200k, but if you make £10m a year in the city it is not an issue. So subsidies are in some instances a bonus not a necessity.

I think change will only come through legislation to improve the habit, for species, flood mitigation etc. 

Like a machine gun?

Ugly Land Rover tracks as opposed to the road width scars across the fells worn away by endless boots. And no, your supermarkets will be stuffed with food that’s done thousands of air miles, or been grown under agri-industry polythene draped fields. Much more environmentally friendly.

Is it’s nationality an issue. Are there not border controls? We’ll have thousands of unregulated birds migrating from Africa next. 

Blimey, that’s an expensive bird. Assume you shop at Fotnums? 

I wouldn't worry, they're likely to be shot over Malta or France..

What - eggs get hatched in a hatchery - well big deal, then the fledglings are fed and the poults are sold for release into the wild - the difference being chickens aren’t released.

Any pheasants that don’t get shot generally are quickly hovered up by foxes (which should please you) - Its pretty clear to me you have absolutely no knowledge of the activity you are busily gobbing off about.

So it should be bought by the government at a fair market value, either immediately or when it copmes on the market anyway.

Well that's not true for starters there's plenty left around  me in March and on through the summer, admittedly they are sh@t parents but they seem to manage okay and I don't live in a heavily keepered area so there's plenty of predators 

F*cking troll

Thanks for your contribution - kindly move along.

How many are released?

I have no idea but they have obviously not been "gobbled up by foxes" sorry hovered 

Well how big is the shoot, then I estimate the number released, then it would be helpful if you could tell me how many survive the season. 

As a vegetable killer and car driver I will. I won’t, however, be firing loads of steel shot at small birds driven in my direction by underpaid workers on a denuded moorland owned by a highly subsidised landowner.

I think you’ll find it is lead shot ... thanks for your knowledgeable contribution.

I think you’ll find it isn’t always lead as it proscribed in some applications. Thanks for your pompous contribution.

Oh so the only difference in the rearing of chickens and pheasants is that the former aren’t released in to the wild? ..and you said that pheasants had a much more pleasant life!! So it’s true about them having their beaks cut and restrained, having no more than an A4 sheet of paper worth of space etc? 

I’d say you were good at avoiding the point at hand, but it’d be a lie.

why lead shot if you care for the environment?

My original post was about grouse shooting on large estates because I regard it as a special case. The thread seems to have been hijacked by a lot of 'whataboutery'(pheasant shooting,chickens etc.)

My main grouse(sic) being about managed moorland by and for a privileged few and the impact both economically and enviromentally on the land.

Pheasant shooting doesn't quite have the same   impact on the environment (although there must be some). At least the organisers aren't claiming that they're major rural employers and essential to the local economy.

The argument against grouse shooting estates is much stronger because of the greater impact on the environment and the economic costs to the wider community. Moral arguments about the fun of killing defenceless birds will be harder to win because of the way we farm animals and chickens in particular.

You may wish to direct your thread redirection to big, who introduced the topic of pheasants. But I'm with you everywhere else. 

So if your view cannot be swayed by 'us', why are you here? Not to listent to or understand 'our' viewpoints I assume. Are you trying to educate 'us'? If so, with what information?

I really dislike this kind of lazy comment. It's perfectly acceptable to disagree with or dislike something without offering an alternative.

What do you suggest as an alternative use for this land?

A breeding ground for the Hen Harrier which is persecuted relentlessly by game keepers so that some of us can have fun shooting Grouse. The Hen Harrier would reach a healthy natural population if left alone rather than being an endangered species as a breeding bird in Britain.

!?

It's a perfectly reasonable question and "I don't have an alternative" would be an equally reasonable response.

In fact my question led to very interesting discussion from which, I at least, learned a great deal.

My apologies if it was a genuine question, it's hard to tell sometimes when someone is genuinely asking a question like that or just having a dig.

If grouse moors go, then the landowners will diversify.

Wind farms with nice big access roads, commercial forestry, maybe some solar panel farms, clay pigeon simulated grouse drives, 4x4 courses, motorcycle off roading, sheep, deer farms and I'm sure they will think of more.

Bring it on I say, nobody likes nasty grouse moors so you can all have the alternatives, you may get what you wish for.

No problem.

It's a question I've been asking, either myself or others, for years.

People get very agitated about the big estates in Scotland, generally for ideological reasons. Fair enough, but I've never been able to figure out what else you could do with the very poor ground that would not be detrimental to it. For that reason, my feeling is that if someone wants to buy a hundred square miles of peat bog, leave it pretty well untouched but provide some employment then it seems like the best option provided we have controls in place to make sure that access is guaranteed, that the ecology is preserved within reason and that those employed on the estates are treated properly.

The responses above give some food for thought.

Always a good plan.  So much money invested in one activity is risky, wouldn’t you say?

Jolly good - the more windmills the better.  The roads are no uglier than the 4x4 tracks build for driving grouse shooters about, and fade in quickly with time.  Some small part of the West Durham windfarm is in young forest, the access roads are well hidden by trees and make for a simple forest walk

Better than regularly burnt moorland, and locks a lot of CO2 away.

A pox on them.  Rooftops and floating ones on sterile reservoirs please, not on land good for greenery.  Anyhoo the upland moors tend not to be the sunniest of places.  

Random aside - as we move to zero emission vehicles the road network could get covered in solar rooftops - keep the weather off the roads, improving safety, poor weather driving efficiency and reducing weathering damage significantly.  A quick estimate suggests about 8 GW of baseline capacity on the motorway network alone.  This would be ideally placed to feed in to rapid charging stations.  

Bril - summo’s descriptions of the wooldland setups in Scandinavia sound great.

Planning law is pretty tough on these - but I’d be happy for some EV only off road coarses to be developed.

You can farm deer in forestry.  Win/win.  

I do hope so.

Not for shooting grouse - mr know nowt

You know when there’s a mountain rescue and there’s a barrage of ill educated, half witted comments about “what on earth were they doing up there in the first place”, “they should be made to pay for that rescue” well as a shooter I’m finding some very strong parallels with this thread.

For some reason shooting animals/birds in the wild is less worthy than a bolt in the forehead at a slaughterhouse to put organic meat on your plate.

The weather is the only thing wild about a grouse moor. The habit is engineered by man to within an inch of its life. The mere fact that to maintain the population of grouse, there has to been so much human intervention proves this, be it burning, killing pests etc.. 

For many it's not that, it's the whole 'industry' and it's various nefarious practises. As many have said, they don't have anything wrong with killing for the dinner plate, but when it's done to the detriment of so much wildlife, dry houses etc. You're defending the defendable, you're failing to defend the indefensible. 

There are grouse in the skiddaw forest, no heather burning, no predator control. Don’t get me wrong the grouse moors are managed environments, the same as almost every other environment in the U.K. is a managed environment. However it is closer to “wild” than the vast majority of the U.K. environment will ever be. Predator control is important (and not just on grouse moors) and left unattended the fox, weasel, and corvid populations would decimate wild and domesticated animal populations. Raptors are a special case as they are considered to have value in themselves and are of sufficiently low density to be exempt from predator control - the odd one will get shot by errant gamekeepers I’ve no doubt, but the law takes its course when the guilty are brought before it.

For most people killing grouse isn't the objection at all.  It is the effects of how grouse moors are managed on bio-diversity (coupled with widespread criminality with killing raptors) , flooding, CO2 storage, soil degradation and so on that are the problems.  All this while owners sneer at the "city-dwelling" taxpayers who provide subsidies to the owners means changes are needed.

Yes, the odd ones are shot and the even ones are poisoned.

Shot, poisoned, spring trapped? https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=163&v=U8Q1IcKKPK8 ...and no one convicted because it couldn't be proven who it was  in the video. There should be a healthy population of hen harriers on UK managed moors but there isn't, and there's only one reason for that - they're not welcome. 

To say predator control is required in apparently 'wild' spaces is nonsense, do you know how nature works? Lots of prey food, predators thrive.. they eat a lot of their prey, then struggle when it becomes scarce, giving time for the prey numbers to recover. It's a cycle, it's how it's worked since the dawn of time. It doesn't need managing. There's only one species responsible for wiping out others on our island, and that's us. 

Mr know nowt bows to your deep understanding of ecology.

It never ceases to amaze me how so many gamekeepers who are usually dependent on their employer for both their job and house seem willing to risk everything by killing raptors for a bit of a giggle.

A cynic might think it's part of some unofficial job description on the commercial estates...

Never said wild grouse don't exist. Yes they were originally a forest bird.

Thank you. 

I'd speculate a semi urban park has more species than your wild managed for grouse moor.

Not true. What do you think happens in the rest of the world which doesn't manage land for grouse?

Reduce grazing, cut burning. Trees and bushes will provide greater cover from predators, but critically predator numbers remain in balance with prey. 

Yes. They'll switch to rabbits(or other prey)!! if there were less grouse. Which would also give trees and bushes a chance. Win win. 

I'm sure you could tell me the square root of a grouse, but you overall ecology, environmental and habit knowledge to put it politely is a little limited or focused in one precise direction. 

I can imagine that must be frustrating. I'm seeing the same too, but from the 'other side'. Weird.

I don't think that is the main part of the debate to be honest. My impression is it is much more to do with land management. I don't think shooting is less worthy FWIW. If we could all occasionally go into the woods and find a boar or something tasty to keep us going for a few weeks that would be grand. But that's not even remotely possible.

. 

I’d go further - I’d speculate that my “wild managed grouse moor” has more species than the wild unmanaged moor ... why - because the predators are controlled hence preventing them killing all the small mammals and upland birds. But don’t take my word for it the GWCT (yes I know it’s a shooting dominated body) can demonstrate the impact predation has on ground nesting upland species.

In general, predators are hunted everywhere there is commercial animal rearing

They’ll Switch to curlews, golden plovers, lapwing, mountain hares - all of which thrive on managed grouse moors. 

Hares? No, they do not:

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/aug/14/scotlands-mountain-hare...

The situations is a lot more complex than any bland statements

http://ww2.rspb.org.uk/Images/grant_mallord_stephen_thompson_2012_tcm9-3189...

It would not be moorland for long if the burning and grazing ceased. But as you say, they probably wrote their conclusion before they started the species count. 

Nope. Plus if the moor were wilded, they would no longer be managed for animal rearing. 

You don't get it. The idea is to stop managing them. Then you would have hundreds more species.. of plants, insects etc.. you are little obsessed with measuring ecology by large animal or bird, they represent such a small number of total species to almost be insignificant. 

The land management aspect is very positive with support from the EU, English Heritage. Rather than me spouting at you go and have a look at the GWCT website which will give you original research and  the outcome of various studies. Heather moorland is recognised as being an important habitat which is best preserved in the U.K. largely due to management of grouse moors.  Biodiversity is demonstrably improved in managed heather moorland rather than unmanaged heather moorland - that management isn’t done with the intent of increasing biodiversity it is a fortuitous product of the driven grouse shooting. 

Just be honest - you don’t like grouse shooting because it’s “rich toffs” having a jolly good day out, as you’ve admitted you’re not bothered about the killing, and as can be demonstrated it’s actually good for biodiversity to have managed heather moorland - so what’s left for your outrage?

What about compared to a managed mixed species upland forest and grassland?

I’m afraid smarter people than you simply don’t agree with your assertion 

“Heather-dominated moorland habitat supports many biological communities that are either only found in the UK, or are better developed here than elsewhere. 13 of these communities are listed under EC Directive 92/43/EEC on the Conservation of Natural Habitats and of Wild Flora and Fauna. This environment also supports a unique collection of bird species (an “assemblage”), which contains 18 species of European or international importance. The 1992 Rio Convention on Biodiversity ratified the global importance of UK heather moorland.”

“The U.K. is responsible for 75% of the world’s heather moorland. Until the early 2000s heather cover was falling sharply in the UK, generally as a result of overgrazing and/or commercial forestry plantations. Many of the best areas are in our national parks and are protected as Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSIs) or are ‘Natura’ sites – Special Areas of Conservation (SACs) and Special Protection Areas (SPAs) – in recognition of their importance. This is the highest level of EU habitat protection.”

But please go and have a look at the GWCT website - it will provide lots for you to consider. Heather moorlands are important and so are the species inhabiting them.

It would be helpful if you actually engaged with some of the points being made. A small majority will object to "rich toffs" and the like.  Most are concerned about the list of other points made (flooding, soil damage, illegality, CO2 storage, subsidies etc.).  The bio-diversity point is not as simple as managed -="good".  A very few species benefit, most others don't.  See the survey I linked to above. GWCT is a advocacy group for those wanting to maintain grouse moors as they are so are hardly a useful source for balanced research.

Have you bothered to read it?

Read what?

to be on the eu list, it only has to be rare somewhere in the eu. Crested newt is the classic, rare in mainland Europe, but two penny in the UK and is encountered on just about ever road build.

How many of those birds are rare? Red listed, what are they? 

Are near mono cultures. 

Keep them bits, re-forest the rest. Perfect. 

It's a propaganda website. Throwing conservation into the title doesn't make grouse moorland any better. No one is saying Heather as a plant is bad. It's the management of the uplands purely for grouse that is negative. 

I have Heather growing in some fields here, perhaps less than 5% of ground cover. It's good late forage for bees..  But if left unchecked would completely crowd out dozens or perhaps hundreds of other plant species. 

Pompous and condescending - nice.

All this puts the cart before the horse. These denuded impoverished ecosystems only exist because of heavy handed management way into the past. You get unique assemblages of species on poisonous mine tips too.

National parks, the NT etc are guilty of a strange desire to preserve ecological desolation.

Ok I'll bite. I'm presume you are qualified in ecology or some other similar field? 

It's a propaganda website.

Have a "Like" for one of the most bigoted and ignorant comments I've read on this forum in a while.

Plenty of qualifications on show from advisors of the GWCT, which you dismissed as "propaganda website". You can't have it both ways.

I was just asking cander what their credentials were, as they were suggesting everyone else was uneducated on this topic.

And yes, the site is bias towards pro grouse shooting and the current upland management system. 

He hasn't replied back with a specific list of those rare species that wouldn't exist without burning or culling of predator species.. etc... 

Come on! Propaganda may be too strong but its hardly balanced or disinterested 

A wiser head than mine suggested that arguing with the friends of swampy was a waste of effort and time - sadly I have to agree.

Read the GWCT website and take away some interesting and possibly from your point of view challenging information, it’s well researched, backed up by empirical evidence - Langholm moor is a good starting point.

Curlew ... 

Has it occurred to you those posting here might already been aware of the Langholm project(s)? 

Talking challenging information, what have you read beyond GWCT material? BTO, RSPB (have you looked at the link above?), pressure groups on the "other" side? 

I'm hardly swampy, I'm a forester, a farmer, a hunter and qualified in environmental science and other earth/natural sciences. So I base my knowledge on information from a vast range of unbias studies, not just emotional sentiment. 

Langholm is or was purely a project related to hen harriers and nothing to do with any other species. The protected nature of the site was also only awarded because of the Harrier population. As i said your obsession with poster species whilst ignoring the hundreds of plants and insects you burn every year shows your  overall lack of knowledge.

Langholm showed that through management you can maintain grouse and not have kill harriers. 

Eurasian I presume. 'Near threatened', that's ranked 5th on the list of concern. 6th being least concern. 

Hardly heavily threatened or declining and certainly not critical, as numbers are increasing elsewhere in Europe. It's not really a moorland bird, but has adapted because much of its marsh and wetland habit was reduced. 

I knew one of the lead authors of the Langholm report quite well (unfortunately he died in an accident a few years ago) & have met the other (we have several friends in common). I'm fairly sure both would be very critical of your poor understanding of ecology. The GWCT do some good science but they biased (as are the RSPB)

Curlew, 

Hardly heavily threatened or declining and certainly not critical, as numbers are increasing elsewhere in Europe. 

On the contrary in the UK.

Here in the UK, we have seen dramatic declines in Curlew populations over recent decades, resulting in the species being proposed as the UK’s most important bird conservation priority

And here in Wales.

NRW said curlew numbers in Wales fell by 81% between 1993 and 2006. It is estimated 500 breeding pairs remain.

There are fears breeding curlews could be lost from Wales within the next few decades without action.

And grouse moorland management won't change curlews in Wales. CAP reform and less drainage to fields and marshes might though. 

Langholm moor - if you had bothered to read it - once keepering ceased in the 1990s significant drops in Golden Plover, Lapwing and Curlew numbers were observed. Being a good scientist is more than just reading the title. it’s an unintended consequence of the raptor study. Once keepering started again, can you guess what happened.

Curlews in the UK - Moley put you right on that one

George Carlin - you where right.

I've read it. You are obsessed with headline species. How many species do you think live on a single big old oak tree? 

It was a harrier project nothing else. Compared to what it could be, it is still barren.

End manage moorland. Replace with mixed forest etc and you could boost the numbers of dozens of birds(not to mention hundreds of plants and insects). Not just 2 or 3. 

Have they ever done a grid square survey? A diverse sq km should yield a 1000+ species. After those special low heat environmental beneficial burns I bet you'd struggle to find 10. 

No. Curlew decline isn't because of a lack of grouse moors, it's down to land use, drainage, etc.. Which comes back to CAP, national park, natural England (or welsh equiv) and defra policy, farmers struggling to break even and having to squeeze the land. Even less obvious changes like the swing from hay towards sillage bailing over the previous 30 years has a huge impact on field life. Bigger heavy tractors needing better drained land and so on. 

"Have they ever done a grid square survey? A diverse sq km should yield a 1000+ species. After those special low heat environmental beneficial burns I bet you'd struggle to find 10. "

My all time low for a 4 square metre quadrat when I worked a a surveyor for the former Institute of Terrestrial Ecology was two species in an area of managed grouse moor in NE Scotland - Calluna vulgaris (Heather) & one moss. We were only recording plants so there were certainly a few invertebrates, fungi etc as well but very spp-poor. (this was probably 4 or 5 years after the last burn). In similar areas 4 or 5 spp of plant per quadrat was common.

If we had managed grouse moorland in Wales (there has been hardly anything for many years) it would probably help the curlew breed in those specific areas. Sheep densities and lack of predator control being identified as two possible contributors to their decline. Very possibly these two are linked, but with no sheep and fewer crows and foxes on grouse moors, the curlew appear to do better.

Before anyone jumps on the predator control being unecessary, even the rspb are doing it as part of their trial on N. Wales moorland, and burning for some Molina control.

Heather moorland is part of a mix of habitats, 99% of which are managed - why aren't you railing against farmland, towns, roads, conifer forests, beaches, industrial pollution, It’s because you’re focused on the participants and social hierarchy in grouse shooting - stop using the environment as a vehicle for your political point scoring, and stop interfering with other people’s enjoyment of their legal and legitimate pastime. 

Put words into the mouths of others why don’t you. As a professional geologist I’d be rightly but figuratively get my head shoved down the toilet if I tried that.

I think we have some common thoughts, but the destruction of hundreds of species on grouse moorland can't be justified just because it indirectly increases the numbers of 1 or 2 other species. Curlew could be increased as you say by changing farming practice and we could change the practice on the moors too. Win win. 

Almost no one here has suggested their objections are to "social hierarchy" yet you accuse others of putting words in people's mouths.  You have refused to engage with any of the points brought up, including by several experts, and keep reverting to Curlews as if that is the end of the matter. 

To be honest, this myopic arrogant and selfish attitude means you are doing a pretty good job of confirming the complete unsuitability of those who own, manage, and shoot on moors to be allowed to continue you do so.

If you read some of my other posts you'd see I've been critical of much of the uks mono culture spruce management, I'm certain against the Scottish government allowing trump to wreck sand dunes. I'm also against hs2 for several reasons. 

Nope. I don't care either way. Be it national trust, national park policy or Lord farrquar... it is just blatantly obviously bad land use.

I'm no green party fan. I'm a hunter too, just with a little bit more if an environmental conscience

Hardly interfering. If you can't justify the practice and make the argument, without targeting the person, that does show that you can't really justify managed grouse moors though.

I suppose the easiest thing to do, is say "pick this lot apart with appropriate counter evidence on every statement".

But you probably have better ways of spending your day - I certainly have to get on now!

http://data.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/committeeevidence.svc/evidencedoc...

The moors east of Builth Wells; Llanbedr Hill, Glascwm Hill, Gwaunceste Hill are all intensively managed for grouse. They are covered in landrover tracks, traps, feeders and all the other paraphernalia of the shooting industry.

The moors are burnt. When I last visited the management seemed to have intensified from my previous visit 10 years before. Some extensive areas were nothing but lichen, moss and bare soil with a few heather stalks forlornly waving in the wind. It was silent.

A small group of us walked all around there in june, my first time on those hills, but had heard there was an operation there and saw all the signs you mention. Have to say it looked a bit ramshackle and run down, my thoughts, no sign of grouse at all but sure something still happens there.

Certainly no less bird or wildlife than on my hills, which pretty baren.

farmland, towns, roads, conifer forests, beaches, industrial pollution, I

• farmland - we need to eat.  
• towns - by densifying human habitation more environment is left building free, not less
• roads - You’ll find a lot of wildlife along side roads in the verges and cutting/embankment woodlands
• conifer forests - yup, not a fan south of the highlands.  More and more are being replaced with broadleafed woodland after harvest however 
• beaches - not sure what you perceive as the problem here?  Most coastline is pretty unmanaged, and managed beaches benefit tens of thousands of time more people than grouse moor.
• industrial pollution - like I said elsewhere I can’t see my feet whe swimming in the Tees due to the runoff pollution from the grouse industry

> It’s because you’re focused on the participants and social hierarchy in grouse shooting

I for one couldn’t care less about who it is, except my previously noted point that currently it brings in a lot of foreign money to the UK, and that that will be hard to replace.

I have several friends who shoot. They are neither rich nor toffs.

Correct, except when it is unnecessarily wasteful (burying birds that aren't wanted for the table).

And here is the important bit. I completely disagree that it is good for biodiversity. You seem to think it is. It looks like your opinion won't be swayed much on here, but it's a start at least. I think the tide is turning in the majority though, so in the end I don't think your opinion will actually count for much anyway.

Been steering away from this thread to an extent, however i think the thing that has been lost sight of here is that unlike pretty much any of the other activities discussed, driven grouse shooting seems to be built on a  foundation of illegal activity - the systemic destruction of protected wildlife. Until and unless an alternative business model can be developed, an eventual ban, or at best severe restriction, is probably inevitable. 

To an extent GWCT/ BASC/ MOORLAND ASSOC. are burying their head in the peat by refusing to acknowledge that it is not rogue keepers, but rather a policy dictated from the top down. 

 "stop using the environment as a vehicle for your political point scoring, and stop interfering with other people’s enjoyment of their legal and legitimate pastime"

Once catastrophic flooding, property destruction and moorland species diversity have been ruined, would you still be out there enjoying your pastime? Would you still consider it legitimate? How long do you think it would remain legal?

The environment is not a vehicle. It is real, and it is legitimised by the constant renewal of expertise, science and experience.

The preservation of grouse moors in their current state (despite warnings of extreme heavy rainfall events due to climate change) on the other hand, seems to be backed by nothing more than archaic, outmoded ideology.

(typo edit)

Quite simply because this is a discussion about moorlands and their management, start another thread if you want a whatabout-ism discussion on climbers impact on the environment, or lowland farming, or the melting ice caps.

Some may object to grouse shooting because it is expensive to do and attracts an elite crowd, but once you learn more, that's a side reason that isn't that important. It's the burning of heather, draining the moors and predator control that are the important things to concentrate on.

Yes it is legal, but its effects on the environment are well documented.

Just to resurrect this thread, for anyone that is yet to be convinced of the criminality required to prop up intensive driven grouse shooting, I'd be interested to hear their justification of this:

http://ww2.rspb.org.uk/community/ourwork/b/investigations/default.aspx 

I'm intrigued by the dislikes. Two people who think killing protected species is acceptable?

And he was fined £1200, disgraceful.

They'll carry on doing it with sentences like that!! 

That is quite a lot of money for a gamekeeper, and presuming he loses his job he very probably loses the house that goes with it (wife and kids?), plus I would expect his shotgun/firearm licences to be revoked - not help him in looking for further gamekeeping work.

Very possibly he is rather f****d and the fine would be the least of his worries.

As I understand it he's apparently resigned.

When caught most criminals find they're f****d. It's not like he accidentally shot them, it was clear the owls were his target and his decoys and electronic caller were specifically intended to kill raptors. I don't think I'd get much sympathy if I lost my job after deliberately drinking 8 pints and losing my licence after driving home.

What I would like to see is the real criminal in this case, the employer, get a significant fine to encourage them to adhere to their supposedly ethical stance on conservation. If employers can be prosecuted for employees' breaches of H&S then why not for failing to ensure their employee adheres to the law during the course of their work?

Does anyone actually believe this 'rogue gamekeeper' bollocks the estates keep coming out with? 

Well don't shoot two short-eared owls?

I think my post has been misinterpreted, or I badly worded it.

I don't have sympathy for him at all, I was simply pointing out there are probably more consequences to him than a fine. On the face of it he escaped lightly (he could have been fined more or received a short prison sentence), but in actual fact he may not have got off lightly..

Please take a moment to point out to me where my implied "sympathy" for him is in my post above. Or are you just jumping to conclusions? I don't see it.

Apologies then.

And yes he certainly may have lost more than £1200, though I'm not that callous not to have thought of the impacts to his family.

The fact his name and face are eternally in the public realm is brilliant.

He thought he could get away with it and he didn't.

Ah, noticed this comment of yours, I'm betting you think me one of those dislikes? 

Wrong, I've posted neither like nor dislike from gaz's post onwards. 

Accepted, thank you.

I have always been against these persecution crimes and always will be, but trying to get a conviction is difficult and many will never be happy with the sentence - short of stringing up!

Usually these cases are tried in a magistrates court, magistrates may be local to the area and move in "social circles", also have zero experience of wildlife crime nor any knowledge to understand evidence. Unable to sift the fact from the boll**. 

I've sat through a case with a RSPB officer and BASC expert for prosecution (working together) bringing a case of poisoning against a gamekeeper/shoot owner caught bang to rights. He walked free on the important counts, but the amount of c**p the defence came out with and complete lack of understanding by the magistrates made you cry. Just how it is and however emotive a subject, the law is the law and we have to stick with it and hope things slowly improve.

Apologies, I wasn't implying you were sympathic, just pointing out that's the case for anyone convicted of a criminal offence. He wasn't dealt with any more harshly than he would have been for any other offence.

A very nice response

Given I posted my comment prior to your comments, you obviously think I have psychic powers

Made my day, thanks for sharing.

No worries, thanks. I shall try to word stuff better as well.

Many do on this forum

I knew you were going to say that

Interesting . . . . . 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b0bhkbv7/the-deer-stalker-our-lives

It was indeed, and about time a true, accurate & fully reasoned portrayal of rural life and livelihood was shown without them being painted as bloodthirsty lunatics. 

No problem with deer stalking. If that's all that's going on. Don't 'manage' the land to 'improve' your stalking/prey, or remove 'pests'. If that's the case, carry on!

well: i love game. Unfortunately i dont have the means to go and shoot it myself, but its properly yumm. Or, am i missing the point?