UKC

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2020/nov/26/grouse-shooting-to-require-...

Very good news and a good start to get the murdering bastrds under control

Self-regulation failed...now there's a surprise!

If they could be encouraged to demonstrate good ecological practice (within burning heather moorland) more generally beyond not shooting bird of prey, that could be welcome, along the lines of 'Show us your management plan' followed by 'Show us how you have followed it'.

see also  https://markavery.info/2020/11/26/scotland-starts-the-proper-regulation-of-...

BASC are going hard for the whole misinformation angle, almost to the point I'm not even sure they read the report.

https://www.gov.scot/publications/grouse-moor-management-group-report-scott...

It'll be interesting to see what happens to grouse numbers if licencing has the desired effect of eliminating raptor persecution.

I don't really see why the industry is whingeing. If they simply behave like they're supposed to they'll keep their licences. Nobody admits to flouting the law so what's the problem?

And

Followed by "show us yer deeds"... 

I don't see why having a license will prevent them from killing off raptors. Its done on the sly at the moment and it will carry on being done on the sly. 

Good start. Let’s see if the system has any teeth.

Or claws and a sharp beak

Well at the moment they can do what they like as prosecution is so hard. If a Licence can be removed to deny the estates their income if they keep having raptors dieing of poison on their land... I guess the proff will be in enforcement (and any court challenges)

That will be the challenge in how this licencing is actually done.

It could work though. For example on several occasions the general licence (for shooting birds such as crows, rook, magpie etc) have been restricted on certain estates where the evidence pointed towards wildlife crime even if it couldnt be proven at an individual level. If that got extended to removing the licence to shoot grouse then it would have an impact.

Another example would be in Scotland at the moment there is some legal issues around covert surveillence making it harder to catch the criminals. A condition could therefore be they have to agree to it being an option or no licence.

I am cautiously optimistic. I think licencing could be a reasonable balance but it does risk just being a way to kick it into the long grass and pretend they did something useful.

I imagine grouse numbers will end up so low that the whole viability of driven shooting will be in doubt, already a struggle for some estates after particular cold/wet winters and spring, never mind with more golden eagles eating all there grouse.  

No raptor killing most likely means no grouse shooting.

Disclaimer: I grew up in an area with multiple grouse shooting estates and worked as a beater during my teenage years.

This will cause a lot of hardship to lots of people in low pay jobs already feeding the high cost of rural living. However this is long overdue and the use of these estates is going to have to adapt at some point. The senseless killing of these birds of prey just to maintain a sport for a few wealthy individuals goes against the grain of improving the environment. 

There are responsible game keepers out there but the general attitude I have encountered was "f*ck em, they're losing me money". The fact that many of these estates have decided to ignore the law for so long doesn't fill me with confidence that they will change without much stricter enforcement.

If they lose their license then it's their own fault.

Then so be it? Is it really so important to go out and shoot bred, stocked and managed birds? Just go and shoot deer - there are millions of those and they're needing removed for better general biodiversity.

While I get the emotional view of "preserving tradition", things change and the way we view things that we once normal, commonplace and accepted.

Maybe the landowners and land managers would really buy into rewinding and ecotourism if they engaged with it some already have and do. 

Key to this will be ensuring jobs for locals so that most people are kept on board. Estate workers are generally low paid so if they can be employed in fencing, drainage and peat bog management type roles then there's probably a higher chance that real change will be possible. 

Ultimately economics will play out. if the cost of fines is very high or if only a very small number of grouse for shooting are sustainable alongside raptors then only a handful of estates could balance the books. 

I suspect some estates will end up sticking a few wind turbines up, declaring their green credentials and carry on some low intensity shooting.

Heather burning is not good ecological practice. The Moorlands should not be all heather. Grouse farming to provide quarry for shooting is not compatible with conservation.

The fact that they also about raptors make them worse. It's not the only problem.

Yup, traditions change with changing terms; I agree with your post.

Not much “tradition” around here.  Unless employing bus loads of domestic staff from out of the region and catering to an exclusive foreign clientele is tradition.  Almost none of the money that flows through some of the businesses behind our local grouse moors even hits the region, let alone stays here.

Not sure what your point is? There is already a strict ban on raptor killing, it's just been unenforceable to date. Licensing is a means to enforcing the existing law, not creating further restrictions.

Don't care is being made to care

We have to thank the SNP grass roots membership, the regional groups proposed en-mass a motion at the upcoming conference of a 'total ban'. The executive tried to stymie by rewording. Looks like additional pressure was applied behind the scenes and the result is this Ministerial announcement.

What happens is entirely another question. The minister is bowing out from politics at the end of this term. On similar allied issues affecting landed power the Scot Gov. has announced changes to much fan-fare supposedly providing greater protection; hill-tracks, mountain hare culls, beaver protection ect, but in reality its been smoke and mirrors and no change on the ground. There is plenty of time for the intention to be watered down during consultation, and the devil will very much be in the detail......I wouldn't be surprised if it was kicked in the long grass. 

But for now its good to see the SNP membership get fed up with their government and actually tell them to start governing. 

This is a long overdue step in the right direction, much needed in England as well. Do I think everything will now be perfect - no, but probably some chance of being better.

Not all gamekeepers are killing birds of prey, unfortunately many are. I came across an estate once where they only employed keepers with wildlife crime convictions.  

Driven grouse shooting has largely become a criminal activity, one part of me sees this as handing out permits to heroin dealers; however, we shall see....... 

Let's hope you're wrong and the estates are able to maintain their workforce. Killing off rural communities to "save" the environment would not be a good outcome. The road to Hell is paved with good intentions.

Point was pretty obvious, grouse shooting is unlikely to be viable in most parts of Scotland without ongoing raptor persecution, as highlighted by Langholm study a few years ago, was just replying to Eric as he asked what effect it would have on grouse numbers, seems a fairly likely or plausible outcome.

Hard to understand negative reaction to my post when just stating facts, as someone 100 percent anti shooting who is training to become an ecologist it's a bit bizarre to see.  

2 out of 3 houses being holiday homes, empty for 3/4 of the year kills rural communites...

Shooting organisations and lobby groups often hold up shooting estates and their mountian management as the solution to all issues - conservation and employment etc. but seem to be very selective with who they compare their industry with.  Adventure sport dwarfs sport shooting in bringing people into rural areas, contributing to local economies and GDP - yet often in conflict and they never mention it.

The ScotGov's published report and their response, I think anyway, was pretty good.  That they listened to the RSPB, anti-raptor persecution groups and conservationists over shooting lobbists isn't a bad thing...

Thanks very much for mentioning Langholm. I looked at the report: http://www.langholmproject.com/jointraptorstudy.html

and it's pretty clear that a commercially viable grouse population is not compatible with uncontrolled numbers if raptors. Fig 2 in the linked report is a pretty clear illustration of the relationship between grouse and raptor populations.

Thinking a bit more about this I'm starting to take Scraggy Goat's comments more seriously. The report notes that government ministers visited the project three times and there is of course a report with a pretty clear conclusion. The government must be well aware that enforcing a ban on raptor control will finish most grouse moors. However as far as I'm aware there are no plans in place to replace the jobs lost (5 keepers on Langholm for example). 

Langholm of course has now been bought under a community buyout with the intention of turning it into a nature reserve. I believe the community received £1.6 million in aid towards the £6 million purchase price. I wish them every success of course and hope it provides more jobs than currently exist but one wonders about the several thousand other rural jobs that must now be in jeopardy. You can't turn every grouse moor into a nature reserve even if the money were available.

Yes outdoor leisure generates more cash but in slightly different places. While many visit Glencoe and Fort William, not many visit the moors above Peebles or Wanlockhead and never will.

I would imagine driven grouse shooting in Scotland would be finished within a decade if licencing is effective and enforced.

In Langholm hen harries killed 30 percent of adult grouse and 40 percent of chicks on a yearly basis.  For a industry that functions on killing hundreds of grouse on a daily shoot it's hard to see how it could be sustained over the next decade if raptor persecution was ended, likely outcome would be as bird of prey numbers increased yearly, grouse loses would increase proportionaly until you got to the point the industry collapsed with probably subsequent resultant collapse in raptor population due to lack of available food as grouse are essentially farmed and there numbers in wild would be small if driven grouse shooting ended, but certainly would see a larger long term hen harrier population etc than we have now.

Yeah the Langholm community buy out is great news, I have not looked into the detailed plans for the estate but would be good to see if they are able to create jobs for local community through wildlife tourism etc.

I am probably wrong about subsequent collapse in raptor numbers once grouse shooting ends and I am forgetting about collective killing of all other wildlife on grouse moors, I am sure there will be plenty of mountain hares etc available for raptors once grouse shooting ends.

We'll see what happens.

I note that a community buyout of moorland surrounding Wanlockhead has fallen through due to doubts over its economic viability.

Possibly - if estates invested in things other than provision for shooting they could attract a different market.  I find the argument that if estates cant stalk/shoot birds then its game over for rural communites to be a little lacking.  With the land that estates have at their disposal I could fill a few sides of paper with busienss ideas.  Just because game birds has been the only economic activity in an area (because game birds are the economic activity in an area?) doesn't mean has to be so forever more.

For example - Mountain biking is big around Peebles, an estate that caters for the shooting crowd isn't going to attract bikers (or as many at least).  You could probably make some good monies providing overnight pitches for campervans with basic facilities, as with elsewhere in Scotland.

Re. the economic effects I seem to remember reading an analysis a few years ago that suggested that grouse shooting while providing some low paid jobs actually acted as a drag on the local economy by stopping other things happening. What we actually need is a more rational approach to bio diversity rather than wreaking bio havoc so as to have inflated numbers of grouse/deer/whatever at the point of the “season” starting.

Be good to know what the other things might be. I've never really received a convincing reply to that question.

Livestock farming and forestry aren't going to take the land back to its natural state and you've got to get real about how many of these places could make any real income from tourism. Rewilding might provide employment for a decade or so but after the land is rewilded, what then? There are only so many nature reserves that people will pay to visit.

This might not be about spreading the same number of outdoorsfolk and tourists between more nature reserves. A Scotland with a richer environment and perhaps less hostility to outdoor access (one can be made to feel very unwelcome on shooting estates) may engage more of its population in an outdoor lifestyle and attract more tourists from outside.

Remember that grouse shooting in its current form is really just another form of tourism. It provides an outdoor experience for paying visitors, almost all from England or overseas. 

There is no reason why sustainable walked-up hunting of grouse in rewilded ecosystems couldn't continue in much of the Scottish uplands, as is popular in complete ecosystems in Scandinavia. To be tolerable ecologically and climate-wise it would require that management was much less intensive. If it was much cheaper than the current big-bag driven days, it could be accessible to locals rather than outsiders (again like in Scandinavia), and could be a valuable part of the rural economy in the same way that angling and wildfowling currently is.

Intensive management for driven grouse shooting, requiring dead eagles and degraded peatlands, can't continue. Licensing now gives the impetus (which didn't really exist before) for entrepreneurial types to come up with alternatives.

Did you selectively read the study report then??

PS lots of shoots manage quite well without carrying out illegal activities. 

I have not studied anything on environmental effects of grouse shooting In years, but I would hazard a guess that many law abiding estates benefit from the illegal activities of neighbouring estates as evident from what we see currently.  I guess if all illegal killing suddenly stops next year we will have a good idea if grouse shooting will be sustainable for the many good estates within the next decade.

We have been here before when the SLE's types proclaim the roof would fall in on the rural economy, in fact they say it almost every time a piece of legislation is proposed. Grouse shooting has always been tied up with land ownership, wealth and status.

Hence I think the reason the SNP Gov. has been so reluctant to tackle any land, or land/environment issue, they didn't/don't want to take on a well resourced opponent, particularly when the fight could be PR spun, any politician worth their salt will have looked at the sudden mobilisation of the Countryside Alliance in its early days (before we all realised they are complete bunch of jokers) and thought; 'shit where did that come from'....and made a mental note that outlying communities really do think they are being ignored (and lets face it they have been by both Westminster and Holyrood), don't antagonise them, or provide the spark to ignite the anger of feeling neglected.

Plus very well educated successful owners, lobbyers and hired economists/lawyers have no doubt been feeding them convenient figures to 'show' how pivotal they are to local economies, plus no doubt donations to SNP coffers. Result extreme hesitation.

Generally grouse shoots have been valued by the size of 'the bag', the value is astronomic compared to the actual agriculture productive capacity of the land. This has lead to in recent decades industrialisation of grouse moors to be wealth generators...even if on paper (cough) operationally many break even or worse, the increased bag resulted in a very nice appreciation in land value.  Hence the explosion of land-drover tracks, miles of fencing, new butts, umpteen grit stations ect. Which of course by a simple Trust structure could be inherited free of tax liability, further making them attractive and maintaining an artificially high price.  The question is will the market rerate the value of the shoot post-legislation (if effective), or will the value remain high as the cache of owning a chunk of Scotland, having a retreat from the pressures of modern life (needed since Victorian times......) will still be attractive.  But current owners will be fearful of potential loss of nominal value.

While many deride it, there is obviously a lot of skill in being a good 'grouse shot', and participants are very attached to their sport as much as climbers.  So with the possible devaluation of asset wealth, the irritation of being told what to do, intrusion into an exclusive pastime we can expect a fight behind closed doors. The pheasant industry will also be wondering where to throw their hat; there are many farmers running small (and large) shoots to diversify, and in some cases keep the farm afloat.

IMHO the impact on rural economy will be muted, estates will still need factors, and land mangers/keepers, house-keepers, intermittently cleaners and cooks. But estates don't actually generate much employment, and only occasionally hire in plant and external services. Their lower agricultural holdings will still be functioning, and do contribute more locally. The economic bark will be more than the bite; more likely a nip (unless your an owner, in which case a rerate could cost you millions).

The bigger question that will decide rural economy is what agricultural or environmental subsidies will these areas get post Brexit, and how will it be distributed top down or heaven forbid bottom up;  in comparison grouse shooting is a flea on an elephants back.

The wild bird shoot that I help keeper does well, and we’ve also got a flourishing population of kites, sparrowhawks, kestrels, buzzards, tawny owls, little owls & barn owls.
Robust & legal predator management alongside long-term landscape management for conservation alongside farming activities doesn’t tend to make headlines though, does it. 

The difficulties of nuance on the internet, I'm afraid. I've re-read your post and I think you could have been more explicit, but I appreciate that given your sympathies, I'd be a bit narked as well

"You can't turn every grouse moor into a nature reserve even if the money were available."

Why not? Keep the deer numbers down and the natural habitat will restore itself.

There are  jobs in deer management and the gradual increase in tourism and outdoor activities will more than compensate. Wildlife would increase and wildlife tours could be marketed more. Increase in tree cover leads to more insects in rivers which leads to more fish and heyho  the trout and Salmon rivers are restored. More fishermen equals more tourism and money into the economy. Its a win win. Ecology in action.

Its diversification, moving with the times.

Its only the likes of Michael Gove and his ilk that want to remain in the 19th century.

How would you finance your plan?

By the way, your theory about fishing is way off the mark.

Id be interested to know why you think my comments about fishing are wrong. 

If you read my post, it's basically self financing like a lot of these things. Grouse moors left to nature will restore themselves, (if there are less sheep and deer.)

I live on estate land, just north of Glen Livet. I walk regularly on the high moors in the area - there are barely any grouse, anywhere, I might encounter 1 or 2 in an hour's walking. Likewise, mountain hare and ptarmigan. They only shooting here now is captive bred birds - unsustainably large numbers of pheasants and partridge are released. Even the Glen Livet Estate (Crown Estates) information boards try and justify the killing of ptarmigan and mountain hare as somehow controlling the tick population whilst deer roam freely. I've seen 1 hen harrier this year, but lots of buzzards and carrion crows who survive on the ample roadkill of pheasants and brown hare. Shooting parties buzz-around at weekends, paying disregard to all and sundry, blocking lanes with their vehicles as they see fit, shooting over houses - lead pellets rattling the slates before they bugger-off for their liquid lunches and let normality return. 

In reply to geode:

Or we could just get on with it & reap the benefits (as we do on the land I help manage) without worrying about proving anything to urban busybodies who think that the countryside is purely a theme park that they can dip into when they fancy but are somehow entitled to have a say in how it is managed. 

The shooting of Ptarmigan is legal?

Bingo. Of course anyone who dares question the sacred right to kill things have to be an urban busybody and not a country dweller since anyone knows the only people who live in the country have to shoot things.

Says the person who is wanting to run it as a rather violent theme park for people with guns.

Given the massive subsidies to the countryside from those urban areas I would say they should have a rather large say in things.