Driven grouse - two sides of one coin

75% of upland heather habitat is found in the UK - mostly on grouse moors

The Glorious Twelfth [12^th of August] celebrates the opening day of the Red Grouse [Lagopus lagopus scotica] shooting season. Most of the shooting takes place on grouse moors in upland Britain.

Grouse moors are areas of managed habitat characterised by heather & other low-growing vegetation for the purposes of shooting grouse. The season runs from the 12^th of August to the 10^th of December annually. In its driven form [DGS - driven grouse shooting] beaters are employed to drive or flush birds towards the waiting guns in small shelters or 'butts'. Participants pay upwards of £5000ppd for the privilege. The ecological impact of this exclusionary activity is increasingly coming under scrutiny.

In a campaign against DGS the BBC's Chris Packham [also the VP for the RSPB - Royal Society for the Protection of Birds] and Mark Avery, a former director of the RSPB, have called for the banning of driven grouse shooting. A related petition has garnered more than 85 000 signatures. Opposing the campaign is You Forgot the Birds, an organisation that represents the views of the shooting industry, fronted by Sir Ian Botham.

Traditionalists argue against DGS

In an emotional, public spat both parties skirted the facts relying instead on insult rather than substance. Describing those involved in shooting as 'the nasty brigade' & in turn attacked as an extremist is an exercise of petulance or the flinging of mud in the hope that some sticks. The public deserves better.

'Denying the truth doesn't change the facts' -  

• The Red Grouse is mostly found in heather moorland. 75% of heather moorland is found in the UK; most of it on the grouse moors & as proponents will argue, a consequence of grouse management. 60% of England's upland Special Scientific Interest Sites are managed grouse moors. The economic incentive, provided by the shooting of grouse, protects this habitat. 
• The grouse industry employs approximately 1500 - 2500 people.
• Routine predator control of foxes & stoats is legal and common practice.
• Other ground-nesting birds eg: the curlew & lapwing have benefited from grouse-managed moors. 
• The rotational burning of the moors encourages fresh growth. New shoots provides high-quality nutrition for the population of grouse. 

You could argue the semantics of grouse management, generally, but on the whole certain species of birds have done very well. Studies on a former grouse moor, in fact, recorded an 80% decline in bird numbers.

That's fair enough. It's also nonsense. Those who do the shooting, particularly when the birds are coming thick & fast, describe the shoot as exhilarating. The social / business spin-offs are equally cherished. I've had the privilege & I don't recall discussing employment or habitat protection, much. I do, however, remember saying 'Good shot' & occasionally 'He swings through the line but he's thinking of buying a grouse moor...' & that's the point. The shot is there for the sport and the craic. 

'Tell the truth or someone will tell it for you' - 

• Deliberately burning the moors affects the water-table and the rivers downstream. Burning also reduces moss growth and the associated number of macroinvertebrates. This has a negative consequence for water quality & the food chain.  
• Rivers draining burnt areas are usually characterised by lower ph levels & elevated levels of manganese and iron. 
• Peat affected by burning loses some of its absorptive characteristics and run-off, as a consequence, becomes problematic downstream.

That's fair enough but it's also a smokescreen from which naturalists build an argument. The ethos that the sanctity of sentient life is absolute is of greater significance ie: sport-shooting is inhumane, cruel & an abomination. The fact that most sport-shooting activities are exclusive & therefore exclusionary, is also reminiscent of social class structures long since disparaged.

In the early 1900s, when grouse were traditionally shot over trained dogs, heather was burnt less often to hold birds for longer. The heather was older, less nutritious & concentrated the birds in limited feeding zones. Inevitably an epidemic of disease decimated the grouse population. Investigations showed that the disease was less virulent on moors subjected to deliberate burning & or grazing. A correlation between infection and reduced resistance from malnutrition was shown to exist. Systematic burning of the grouse moors, as a consequence, became common practice.

The value of a grouse moor increases with the number of birds on offer. Gamekeepers optimise the habitat for the proliferation of grouse. Wet areas are drained. Heather doesn't do too well on sodden soils. Gamekeepers & groundsmen are also responsible for predator control. This is where the debate loses shape.


Sic utere tuo ut alienum non laedes* - 

*Property in Land or the Law of Real Property gives landowners the right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions.

Whilst the landowner's rights of peaceful enjoyment is absolute [Article 1 of the First Protocol] legislation provides for the public resolution of land use when there are competing interests among stakeholders. Specific legislation eg: UK environmental law, deals with cross-border issues eg: water pollution.

In the UK Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSIs) ie: important wildlife & geological sites; cover over 8% of the UK. Almost 30% of SSSIs are in the care of private landowners. Prior to 2003 just under 60% of SSSIs were considered to be in good / recovering condition. Since then 95% of SSSIs are considered to be in favourable condition. Specifically on the grouse moors only 25% were considered favourable prior to 2003. Today 95% of grouse moors are considered to be in good / recovering condition.

Best practice management on the grouse moors now includes targeted conservation work to restore wetlands, peatlands and water quality.

The financial correlation between the 95% success* ratio on the grouse moors and the grant from the Higher Level Stewardship Scheme [ie: taxpayer-funded] is a given. The scheme rewards landowners for conserving important habitat. It's a contentious issue. Even so, the scheme also provides for the blocking of drainage ditches [grips]. Drainage ditches are directly associated with excess run-off and the negative consequences that has on the environment and resident communities downstream. Depending on what you read many argue that there are few remaining natural, highly-absorptive blanket bogs on managed grouse moors. Either way grip-blocking is being expanded.

*defining success is equally contentious. The grouse moors are sometimes regarded as a monoculture of young ling heather [Calluna vulgaris] promulgated at the exclusion of everything else. In that context, knowledge-gaps make it difficult to assess the impact on biodiversity on managed moors. Notwithstanding, we do know the following:

• Understanding & optimising burn cycles is key.  
• Some bird species, incl. species in decline elsewhere, are maintaining their populations on the grouse moors.
• Burning does impact scrub & woodland cover. The Meadow Pipit & small mammals eg: voles, which prefer grass, are also negatively effected. On this point Hen Harrier numbers are correlated to the general availability / numbers of their traditional prey ie: pipits & voles. In a geographically-limited study, published in the late 90s, the authors found that raptors killed circa 30% of adult grouse in winter and another 30% in summer. Some 40% of grouse chicks were taken by Hen Harriers specifically.   

Raptors & the grouse moors are at the centre of this human-wildlife conflict. If the published figures are taken at face value, the incentive to illegally control raptors is real. In the last year electronically tagged raptors have routinely gone missing over the grouse moors. Circumstantial evidence of illegal persecution maybe but the motives are compelling even so. Over the same period no individual was successfully prosecuted for illegal persecution ie: the killing of raptors on the grouse moors. Current legislation makes provision for an onerous burden of proof & this needs redress. Imposing vicarious liability on landowners / gamekeepers should improve the success rate in the courts. Social factors usually drive conflict and yet, despite evidence, they are often ignored.

In April this year the European Commission started an infraction procedure against the UK government. The complaint relates to the poor application of its Habitat Directive w.r.t blanket-bogs. The focus is on peatland burning and the effect that has on dependent biodiversity. Notwithstanding the semantics associated with Brexit, many recognise the need for constructive, collaborative change. Rhetoric from both perspectives muddies the discussion.

Traditionalists decry the unsporting nature of driven grouse. Their reasoning is fairly obvious. Although published information on 'walked-up shooting' [over trained dogs] & grouse numbers is lacking, this practice seemingly eliminates the need for large bags. Artificially manipulating the habitat, to increase the proliferation of the bag, may be less ruthlessly applied as a consequence. If the social rewards from a day's sport shooting is considered complimentary / progressive in the 21^st century, then more emphasis should be placed on the excursion rather than the competition associated with the numbers of birds killed. That burden falls on the shooting estates and a universally-adopted industry definition of sustainable utilisation. The dictates of shooting etiquette demand no less. State subsidies, where applicable, should be transparent and concomitant on the restoration of the natural habitat. Licensing of shooting estates is a given. Non-compliant estates forfeit the right to host shooting members of the public. Concurrently, the knowledge gaps w.r.t the effects of intensive management on biodiversity as a whole, must be independently addressed. Scaremongering; personal attack & biased points of departure, effused in the agenda-steered press, is neither constructive nor conducive to resolving the current human-wildlife conflict.

Prattling on about the 'dark satanic moors' or posturing in the press to undermine the integrity of a rival, are acts of deflection. Cool heads; substantive change and the rigorous enforcement of the law is a better point of departure.