Jump to content




See all Safaritalk Special Offers

Message to Guests.

Welcome to Safaritalk where we have been talking Safaris and wildlife conservation since 2006. As a guest you're welcome to read through certain areas of the forum, but to access all the facilities and to contribute your experience, ask questions and get involved, you'll need to be a member - so register here: it's quick, free and easy and I look forward to having you as a Safaritalker soon. Matt.


Photo

Driven Grouse Shooting a UK Disgrace?


  • Please log in to reply
123 replies to this topic

#1 Towlersonsafari

Towlersonsafari

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 606 posts
  • Local time: 02:22 AM
  • Gender:Not Telling
  • Location:Northamptonshire
  • Category 1:Tourist (regular visitor)
  • Category 2:---

Posted 05 May 2016 - 07:30 PM

The Case against Driven Grouse Shooting

 

Ladies and Gentleman of the Jury, I would like today to convince you of the inequity, the evil no less of the peculiar British Pastime of Driven Grouse Shooting, especially as currently practiced on ,what can only be described as , an industrial scale.

Here the aim is to  kill as many  Red Grouse ( a subspecies of the Willow Grouse) as possible with the sportsman hiding in butts or blinds , shotguns at the ready,whilst the grouse are driven by beaters towards them. Guests paying for a day’s shooting can pay, collectively, up to £30,000 for a day’s adventure killing  about a million birds in the UK every year.

Today there are  over one million hectares of land devoted to grouse moors  in Scotland,(Scottish Land and Estates 2013). I hope to convince you that the collateral damage caused to Birds of prey, to ground predators , Mountain Hares and to the environment as a whole, including damaging valuable carbon storage and increasing flooding, is in a modern enlightened society something that can no longer be accepted. I hope to persuade you that at worst grouse moors should be vigorously licenced, at best they should now be confined to history along with bear baiting ,cock fighting and the Feudal system.

To help those who do not reside in the Uk, Grouse shooting and sporting estates in the form we can recognise now, grew up in Victorian times where wealthy landowners in Scotland and the North of England invited guests to shoot grouse or deer. From the start large scale burning of heather to encourage new growth and drastic predator control was practiced. For example on the 6500 acre Glengarry Estate from 1837-1840 kills were recorded of 246 pine marten,198 wildcat 48 otter 27 White Tailed Eagle and 15 Golden Eagle. The killing alas, even though it is illegal continues.

 

From the historical Victorian model an increasing practice has developed to lease out moors or sell them to shooting consortium's, or to have specialist firms run the estates for maximum profit. It is to describe   these businesses  that I use the justified term “industrial”

 

To make a grouse moor pay, and to allow large numbers to be shot, you have to have large numbers of Grouse. It is illegal to kill Birds of Prey in the UK, for any reason, and it is illegal to disturb their nests.Yet every year such birds, from common buzzards and Red kites, to Golden and White Tailed Eagles are illegally killed on or near grouse moors  according to the RSPB, 11–15% of the hen harrier population on the Scottish mainland are destroyed each year.

 In Scotland, the illegal use of poison during 1981–2000 was disproportionately associated with grouse moors.

 In the central and eastern Highlands of Scotland, where grouse moor management predominates, the golden eagle population has continued to decline to levels where increasingly large areas of suitable habitat are unoccupied by breeding pairs.

 In the absence of persecution it is likely that the population could expand to fill this increasingly vacant but apparently suitable habitat and would have a secure long-term future.

 In the Yorkshire Dales, average productivity for peregrine nesting attempts on grouse moors was only 0.68, compared to 2.07 for nests at least 2 km away from grouse moors.5 T

 

The list goes on, Ladies and Gentleman. In 2014 around 20 buzzards and Kites ere found poisoned in the Black Isle area of Scotland. In one incident.

 In February this year a man was seen on a moor in a National Park, the Peak District dressed in camouflage gear with a shotgun lying in wait near a decoy male Hen Harrier, a distinctive pale bird of great beauty. When he realized he was being filmed he left.. There can only be one reason for this , to try to attract male hen Harriers to kill them. Here is the link http://www.bbc.co.uk...yshire-36141199

You will no doubt make your own mind up, members of the jury, after seeing the film yourself.  In England last year 5 male Harriers breeding on protected land mysteriously disappeared.  England ,a country that should have over 300 birds breeding has less than 10.It is their misfortune that they chose to breed and hunt over moorland.

But what of Mountain Hares?  In spite of all the efforts to the contrary Red Grouse numbers on intensive Grouse moors have always fluctuated. One of the main problems that may affect large congregations of Grouse may be Tick disease.  Inspite of the fact that there is no evidence to support the contention that Mountain Hares in  numbers add to the Grouse getting  Tick disease and in spite of the fact that Scottish National Heritage asks for voluntary restraint, or that mountain Hare numbers are decreasing, in winter large numbers of hares are chased and shot by 4 wheel drive mounted “ sportsmen”  Anyone wanting to see what a truck load of dead mountain hare looks like can see here. It does not look pretty

https://raptorpersec...he-angus-glens/

Ground predators including wild cats can still be caught in traps set on grouse moors.

 

Now I would like to turn to the environment in general.

By keeping a flock of sheep on such moors, to act as “Tick mops” the grouse moor owners qualify for agricultural subsidies, so we can pay them for the privilege.

Another benefit of being classified as agricultural land means that the planning laws are less controlling so those magnificent wide open vistas can and are despoiled by temporary 4 x 4 tracks scaring the heather, new grouse butts, and even electric fencing  Electric fencing can kill large endangered birds such as Capercaille, and concentrate Red deer so that they cause more damage in other areas. You will have to decide members of the jury, if you find fences in a “wilderness” visually acceptable.

 Another condition affecting Grouse is a parasitic worm. One of the methods now used to combat this is to coat the grit Grouse eat with the medication derived from Flubendazole. It is often placed on grit in the environment. Nobody knows what happens if it gets into the food chain, or if there is an environmental impact in the medium or long term.

Finally, members of the jury indiscriminate burning leads to  reduction in sphagnum moss and damage to the peat layer. The water run off is quicker and the ability to hold water is reduced. A five year study by the University of Leeds found (The EMBER study) found burning impacting adversely on peat quality and composition, and on water quality. In June 2015 the UK statutory advisory Committee on Climate Change said,

“Wetland habitats, including the majority of upland areas with carbon-rich peat soils, are in poor condition. The damaging practice of burning peat to increase grouse yields continues, including on internationally protected sites.” (Committee on Climate Change 2015

 

Ladies and Gentleman of the Jury, I ask you now to consider your verdict.You may think that allowing Driven Grouse Shooting to continue in its current form is on a par with Maltese hunters shooting spring migrants, or indeed Elephant poaching.

I invite you to condemn it

 


  • offshorebirder likes this

#2 Caracal

Caracal

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 461 posts
  • Local time: 12:22 PM
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Victoria, Australia
  • Category 1:Tourist (regular visitor)
  • Category 2:---

Posted 06 May 2016 - 01:47 AM

@Towlersonsafari - you make a good case for the prosecution but before a Jury can reach a verdict it needs to hear the case for the defence.


  • Bugs, kittykat23uk, Towlersonsafari and 1 other like this
"Moments that touch the soul are always short but they echo pleasantly afterwards"
Stephen Pern - Another Land, Another Sea Walking round Lake Rudolph.

#3 douglaswise

douglaswise

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 392 posts
  • Local time: 02:22 AM
  • Gender:Male
  • Category 1:Tourist (regular visitor)
  • Category 2:Researcher

Posted 06 May 2016 - 08:12 AM

I had hoped that @Towlersonsafari's diatribe would have been strangled at birth by @Game Warden. It is so stuffed with distortions and half truths that it is hard to believe that it wasn't motivated by other than an extreme animal rights agenda.  If one starts from this point of view, those who shoot for pleasure  become enemies and, because shooting for pleasure is costly, they become "class" enemies to boot. If readers want a rational debate on the up and down-sides of grouse moor management from the conservation perspective, I would be delighted to participate.  Until my retirement over a decade ago, I was heavily involved in grouse research and feel, therefore, that I have something to offer.  However, I'd rather not start by having to make a point by point rebuttal of an emotionally-driven rant.


  • Bugs, Paolo, KaingU Lodge and 3 others like this

#4 Caracal

Caracal

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 461 posts
  • Local time: 12:22 PM
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Victoria, Australia
  • Category 1:Tourist (regular visitor)
  • Category 2:---

Posted 06 May 2016 - 09:57 AM

@douglaswise - my post had been an attempt to seek a rational input from anyone with knowledge of grouse shooting. What I had been hoping for was a calm explanation of any benefits there may be from "The Glorious Twelfth".

 

I actually have an open mind until I hear both sides but terminology with "diatribe" "distortions" "half truths" "emotionally-driven rant" does nothing to assist me with determining the facts that you obviously consider are seriously missing.

 

I'm starting to regret that I asked for a counter viewpoint.


"Moments that touch the soul are always short but they echo pleasantly afterwards"
Stephen Pern - Another Land, Another Sea Walking round Lake Rudolph.

#5 douglaswise

douglaswise

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 392 posts
  • Local time: 02:22 AM
  • Gender:Male
  • Category 1:Tourist (regular visitor)
  • Category 2:Researcher

Posted 06 May 2016 - 10:41 AM

@Caracal - I fully appreciate that you were quite genuinely asking for an alternative viewpoint and that my reply was, from this perspective, totally lacking in information of the type you were seeking.  For this, I apologise.  I was, in fact, hoping for a response from @Game Warden.  If he considers driven grouse shooting to be a suitable and relevant subject for a Safaritalk debate (and, given his previous recent reference to the death of a kite in Yorkshire, he may well consider it relevant)), I would be happy to participate.  However, that said, I'd rather start a new and non-emotionally-charged debate on the subject rather than responding to a characterisation of grouse shooting that is so wide of the mark that rebuttals would be endless and still likely to leave readers confused.  I will not respond further until @Game Warden makes a judgement call.  In other words, I'm pleading that "driven grouse shooting" is not guilty and am reserving its defence. 


  • Bugs likes this

#6 Game Warden

Game Warden

    Administrator

  • Root Admin
  • 16,407 posts
  • Local time: 02:22 AM
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Sat by the PC
  • Category 1:Tourist (regular visitor)
  • Category 2:---

Posted 06 May 2016 - 10:53 AM

Since I've been called to adjudicate, a debate is a debate, and as Safaritalk is a forum for people to post topics they wish to discuss, discuss the issue, or not. If you do so, do it in a manner which is considered well mannered and conforms to the Safaritalk rules. I don't know much about the issue, @Towlersonsafari has put forward some points for discussion, yet the manner of your response @douglaswise with phrases like strangled at birth may well quash anyone's will to respond. I think @Caracal's call for opposing opinion was an invitation for further discussion, whether or not you wish to take part.


  • Kavita, Caracal, SafariChick and 3 others like this

"Return to old watering holes for more than water; friends and dreams are there to meet you." - African proverb.

 

How to create your gallery album and upload images.

 

How to post images in the text.

Want to tag another member in a post? Use @ before their display name, eg @game warden


#7 Towlersonsafari

Towlersonsafari

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 606 posts
  • Local time: 02:22 AM
  • Gender:Not Telling
  • Location:Northamptonshire
  • Category 1:Tourist (regular visitor)
  • Category 2:---

Posted 06 May 2016 - 11:18 AM

I think that because it is not a subject that  attracts much attention, I do think it is worthy of debate, and I would in all honesty welcome opposing views especially from someone as well qualified as @douglaswise, whose passion on matters that interest him, and indeed somewhat mischievous tone I do respect and enjoy even if I seem to always be on opposite sides of the debate!

There is a petition via the UK government to ban driven grouse shooting.that will never happen in my lifetime  but I do think independent regulation is now mandatory. Another issue I did not raise as it is not just a grouse shooting one is the use of lead shot in shooting in the UK generally-I think lead shot has been outlawed in a lot of Europe and certainly in fishing lead weights are i think not used and there are alternatives but even small amounts of lead are dangerous in the environment  and particularly in the food chain



#8 Steve 27752

Steve 27752

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 18 posts
  • Local time: 01:22 AM
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Ascot, Berkshire, U.K.
  • Category 1:Tourist (first-time visitor)
  • Category 2:---

Posted 06 May 2016 - 06:16 PM

I have no problems with grouse shooting.


  • Tomas likes this

#9 Bugs

Bugs

    Order of the Pith

  • Members
  • 3,478 posts
  • Local time: 03:22 AM
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Africa
  • Category 1:Resident in Africa/Former resident
  • Category 2:---

Posted 07 May 2016 - 11:35 AM

I must say that I am interested in @douglaswise response. I suppose that is why I enjoy Safaritalk, there is always someone who can contribute a more logical perspective. 

 

I don't know much about grouse shooting, but have a very good friend who is a fanatic shooter, and spends a small fortune on doing so each year. To me that only translates to giving grouse a desirable value and hence they are looked after. 

 

I find some of the stereotypical bigotry towards shooters in UK very similar to that of hunters who visit Africa. 

 

I would like to ask  - what the implications would be if you completely stopped shooting in the UK?  


There's none so blind as those who will not see.


#10 Towlersonsafari

Towlersonsafari

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 606 posts
  • Local time: 02:22 AM
  • Gender:Not Telling
  • Location:Northamptonshire
  • Category 1:Tourist (regular visitor)
  • Category 2:---

Posted 07 May 2016 - 02:46 PM

Hello @Bugs I think the UK situation in respect of driven grouse shooting which is a peculiarly British activity can be used as a lesson of how not to do it. Please note that I have made no comment on the ethics of shooting per se in my submission nor have I said shooting per se is wrong to advance my case.All the points I raise can be independently verified.They are not rants or half truths.Sadly they are facts.The decision the UK needs to make is that are there any advantages to this form of land use and do they outweigh the disadvantages? I Would say no they don't. As to grouse having a value.The law in the UK is that nobody owns grouse even if it is on their land until it is dead! I know sustainable use is a subject dear to your heart but this I would argue is unsustainable use.

#11 douglaswise

douglaswise

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 392 posts
  • Local time: 02:22 AM
  • Gender:Male
  • Category 1:Tourist (regular visitor)
  • Category 2:Researcher

Posted 07 May 2016 - 10:45 PM

Subsequent to @Game Warden's response, I have decided to address various criticisms of grouse shooting while acknowledging that, insofar as predator control is concerned, there will those that will still find the comments relevant to this aspect of the subject to be less than satisfactory.  I am somewhat time-constrained because I'm off to the Pantanal later in the month.  I will therefore point out various useful sources of literature. For those who are seriously interested in the subject of driven grouse shooting and in understanding its place within the wider aspects of moorland management, I cannot recommend the website of The Moorland Association strongly enough. (I'm not au fait with the creation of links, but the website is easy to find by googling the organisation's title.  Perhaps, if the debate goes further, someone who is more computer literate than I can provide a link.) For details of grouse research and, in particular, for consideration of the benefits of predator control, I would recommend visiting the relevant sections of the website of The Game and Wildlife Conservancy Trust, in particular their Langholm and Otterburn studies).

 

At the outset, I should explain that I can fully understand why those without rural roots might find the pastime of those who kill defenceless birds for pleasure to be repugnant.  Countrymen tend to live within the natural (or, in the case of the UK, semi-natural) world and don't grow up with the death-denying culture of many townsmen who are outside observers of nature rather than living in it.  Clearly, for those with animal rights beliefs, shooting pheasants for sport is scarcely less heinous than shooting peasants.  I am not trying to change minds on this issue, but I am very much trying to convince potential critics that driven grouse shooting, on the whole, confers very substantial conservation benefits at minimal public cost.  It is important to appreciate that the management required to produce a shootable surplus of grouse confers similar benefits to a suite of other non-target ground nesting bird species that are that are in steep decline in non-managed areas of moorland. A necessary part of the management package is control of those predators (vermin) that can legally be killed (foxes, corvids and small mustelids).  Such species are widely represented by large populations and the local deaths of those which might impact adversely on grouse are of no conservation consequence.

 

The red grouse is endemic to the UK and it depends for its survival on heather moorland.  The productivity of such moorland varies and hens on wet, blanket bog moors tend to lay larger clutches than those on the higher, drier moors to the east.  There are somewhat over 200 driving moors within the UK, most of which lie in the north of England.  While Scotland has a greater area of moorland, most has less potential productivity and, in consequence, can justify less gamekeeper effort.  While grouse can be shot in these areas, they are less commonly driven and keepers often devote as much time to deer as to grouse management.  The average top quality driven grouse moor is around 2000 ha in area.  It is worth noting that well less than half of the moorland area that could be made driveable is, in fact, used for driving.  The management required is expensive to implement and is usually only undertaken by people rich enough to put more into the enterprise than they can realistically expect to take out.  

 

In spring, birds form territorial pairs in territories of roughly 1ha.  In theory, a productive moor should thus hold 2000 pairs at the start of the breeding season.  In practice, not all habitat is suitable and the actual numbers will be less (say, 1500 pairs).  There is no point in trying to hold more birds than can find suitable territories.  It is not unreasonable to expect a good breeding season to produce a quadrupling of total grouse numbers by the start of the shooting season.  Theoretically, therefore, one might plan to shoot shoot three quarters of one's stock (4500 brace). However, this would be excessive because it doesn't allow for inevitable post shooting losses.  The total bag for the season is planned in advance, such that numbers of days and/or size of bags/day are designed to leave adequate breeders for the following season.  After an extreme adverse weather event or severe disease outbreak, shooting may be suspended altogether for one or even two years to allow rebuilding of stock, thus depriving the moor proprietor of any income.

 

Grouse productivity is determined by suitability of habitat, levels of predation and disease and by weather.  Game keepers can influence the first three to the advantage of grouse, but can only use prayer to prevent adverse weather.

 

 Habitat improvement:

1)  Heather replacement of relatively unproductive black grass.  It is generally not appreciated that grouse moor proprietors typically

have little control of sheep numbers and grazing patterns.  Commoners and crofters with grazing rights survive on the economic edge and are reliant on government subsidies.  In the past, these were based on headage payments such that total sheep numbers became more important than productivity as expressed by lambing percentage.  This encouraged overgrazing and, in winter, this can destroy heather and lead to its replacement with blackgrass.  Fortunately, the nature of the subsidy system has been changed such that it no longer encourages habitat degradation and efforts to reverse the damage have increased.

2)  Bracken eradication.  Bracken is neither useful for livestock or grouse.  In addition the thick mat of dead vegetation beneath a bracken stand enhances tick survival.

3)  Grip-blocking.  It used to be believed that drainage of blanket bog was beneficial to sheep and, to an extent, to grouse. Research has more recently demonstrated that enhanced run-off leads to peat erosion and sedimentation of draining rivers to the detriment of salmonids.  The erosion also leads to deepening of the grips into which grouse chicks can fall without hope of escape.  Wetter conditions also encourage cotton grass establishment.  Cotton grass plays an important role in increasing clutch size.

4)  Encouragement of sphagnum moss now that it is recognised as being important for carbon sequestration.  Furthermore, grouse benefit from boggy patches because chicks in early life need high protein in their diets, which can be provided by the increased density of invertebrates in the of boggy areas.

 

B)  Predator control:

1)  As mentioned previously, the killing of "vermin" is of paramount importance in any attempt to produce a shootable surplus of grouse sufficient to allow driving.  Without the income from shooters, good management wouldn't be affordable.

2)  Illegal control of protected predators, almost exclusively raptors (eagles, harriers and peregrines).  That a certain amount takes place is undeniable and understandable.  However, the extent to which it takes place is impossible to assess.  Its extent is almost inevitably exaggerated by antis and downplayed by the pro-side.  I am aware,for example, that an RSPB official planted false evidence against a gamekeeper (frozen carcass in wrong stage of moult for the time that it was meant to have been found). I am also aware of undeclared killing  by gamekeepers,with which I personally sympathise, but know many of you won't support.  Perhaps, therefore, I could make a plea for compromise and accommodation, which, in my view, is perfectly possible. The raptors mentioned are all generalist predators that don't necessarily reduce in number when grouse numbers decline.  When grouse numbers are reduced through bad weather or disease, circumstances arise which can create what is known as a "predator trap".  This describes a situation in which low grouse numbers can never be recovered from.  When grouse numbers are high, a limited number of raptors can be accommodated.  Golden eagles, as far as I'm aware, have been very rare in England for well over a century, while white tailed eagles were not present in the UK for 150 years until they were re-introduced to north west Scotland, an area with very few grouse and no grouse shooting interests.  Attempts are now being made to transfer others to the east where it plausible to believe that they could have devastating effects on grouse stocks.  A pair of the smaller golden eagles is capable of of killing some 300 grouse a year in the absence of good sources of carrion (it should be noted that it is illegal for landowners and farmers to leave carrion lying about on their land).  As some of the grouse killed will be potential breeding stock, one can assess the cost of a pair of golden eagles to the landowner to be in the region of the cost of employing one game keeper.  In parts of Scotland, particularly those with marginal stocks of grouse, grouse moor management will become unaffordable and stocks of ground nesting species and hares will plunge in the absence of vermin control. It is ironic that hen harriers are, themselves, ground nesting, but they only really breed well on moors that are managed for grouse.  However, they can themselves cause up to 20-30% of overwinter mortality in adult grouse as well as predating heavily on chicks.  When their numbers rise to a level that makes sustainable grouse shooting impossible, keepers lose their jobs and foxes move back on to moorland and wipe out the harriers (see research conducted at Langholm).  There are ways of addressing some of these conflicts, such as by diversionary feeding or translocation of raptors to new locations if their numbers become concentrated in a few.  These suggestions involve cost and have been resisted by organisations such as the RSPB which seems willing to pour considerable funds into policing, but not to spend any members' money in managing moors for raptors rather than grouse  (there is plenty of moorland for this to happen).

 

C)  Significant diseases and their control.

1)  Trichostrongylosis and its control.  Caused by a nemotode parasite, spread by direct cycle, that accumulates in the caeca of grouse, reducing their laying potential or killing them.  Other galliform birds tend to develop fairly rapid and robust immunity and don't suffer in the same way.  This might suggest that this parasite has only found its way into grouse fairly recently in evolutionary terms.  Grouse can be treated  by individually dosing them by crop tube after the shooting season, having been dazzled and caught at night.  Although this is a tedious and somewhat hazardous endeavour, it was nevertheless put into practice on many moors, giving an indication of both the damage that the disease can cause and the value of the individual grouse.  Such dosing kills all worms present at the time it is carried out, but has no effects on stopping new worms from being picked up.  Direct dosing has almost entirely been replaced with medicated quartz grit.  Grit is typically placed in boxes in a grid pattern across the moor, ideally allowing one box/territory.  It can be used as soon as the shooting season is over and must be removed 30 days before the start of the next.  This ensures that no benzimidazole enters the human food chain.  Environmental contamination will be confined to killing a few free living nematodes in the immediate vicinity of grouse faeces and gritting boxes.  It should be noted that the Veterinary Medicines Directorate has licensed the drug for this use and, before doing so, environmental risks are assessed.  Fairly recent improvements to drug concentrations on grit and coatings to weatherproof the product have dramatically improved grouse productivity and largely eliminated or dampened the population quasi-cycles that existed when the disease was rife.

2)  Louping Ill and its control.  An unusual virus disease in that several different host species can become infected (most viruses are fairly host specific).  The infection is spread between hosts by ticks.  If young grouse are infected, there will be a 75-80% mortality rate and survivors will be immune to re-infection.  However, they won't pass on any useful passive immunity to their progeny.  The principal source of virus is normally sheep.  Sheep don't die of infection, but returning future breeders, having been reared on the low ground are susceptible and may abort. There is a vaccine available, but most graziers either can't afford or can't be bothered to use it (its cost benefit analysis isn't that obvious).  On occasions, grouse proprietors buy vaccine on the graziers' behalf and, in addition, often supervise its administration to the sheep.  Tick reduction is another approach to louping ill control.  Unfortunately, the more effective long lasting dips, withdrawn for reasons of potential toxicity, have been replaced with those that are far shorter acting.  Thus, the not inconsiderable effort of gathering moorland sheep to dip them has largely stopped.  Some proprietors have acquired their own flocks and use them as so-called "tick mops".  The sheep are rotated round the moor, picking up ticks as they go, and are repeatedly dipped.  This requires far greater labour input than that required for a typical flock, hefted to a part of the hill, and largely allowed to get on with it without much human intervention.  The third species that can become viraemic and multiply virus around tick bites is the mountain hare.  This species is thus able to transmit infection (via ticks) to both grouse and sheep.  Louping Ill virus is present only in the minority of driving moors.  However, if one does have a moor which one is trying make productive for grouse and that moor has sheep, a high hare density and the the presence of virus, one has a severe problem of disease control.  A few such moor owners have sought to eliminate (in practice, to greatly reduce the density) of their hares.  This is a temporary cull which will stop, either when the virus is eliminated or when attempts to eliminate it and re-establish a sustainably harvestable stock of grouse have failed.  I would like to emphasise that the mass killing of hares is undertaken as part of a disease eradication programme and not for any sporting reason.

 

I think I've banged on enough about process.  I will conclude by suggesting that species protection is often inimical to good conservation and that obsessing over charismatic raptors at the expense of smaller species is unfortunate.  I would further suggest that you can't have your cake and eat it off a single plate.  However, if I were to be given the typical annual budget that grouse proprietors spend on their management, I could almost guarantee that I could generate enough raptors to keep bird watchers happy without ruining grouse interests.

 

I have not made point by point rebuttals to comments made in the lead post of this debate.  I am sure the author will withdraw some of the criticisms, having gained a better understanding of the subject after he has studied the material to which I made reference.  I am sure others will remain and I will be happy to address them.  In passing, I should note that fence collisions are not the responsibility of grouse proprietors, but of foresters.  I have not mentioned lead, but I have some evidence from my own research that suggests that it isn't of overwhelming importance in conservation terms, but may be worth discussing anyway.



#12 Towlersonsafari

Towlersonsafari

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 606 posts
  • Local time: 02:22 AM
  • Gender:Not Telling
  • Location:Northamptonshire
  • Category 1:Tourist (regular visitor)
  • Category 2:---

Posted 08 May 2016 - 08:32 AM

Thank you very much @douglaswise for responding, especially as you are preparing for a trip. I do hope you and your party have a splendid time!

Edited by Towlersonsafari, 08 May 2016 - 08:32 AM.


#13 Towlersonsafari

Towlersonsafari

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 606 posts
  • Local time: 02:22 AM
  • Gender:Not Telling
  • Location:Northamptonshire
  • Category 1:Tourist (regular visitor)
  • Category 2:---

Posted 08 May 2016 - 09:52 AM

Ladies and Gentleman of the Jury (to continue my theme)  I would like to thank my learned friend for his comments. However I submit that nothing on those per force hurried remarks provides evidence, compelling or otherwise, that disproves the allegations that I have made, supported by independent evidence.

Indeed there have been important admissions.

Illegal persecution of raptors continues.It is not acceptable to illegally kill elephants, why should it be acceptable in Birds of Prey? Hen Harriers do not chose to breed on grouse moors.They choose to breed on heather moorland.To argue that without controlling their numbers, foxes will just kill them anyway is not a logical viepoint. Foxes, as part of their natural ecology, will take ground nesting birds eggs and young.That is part  of the natural ecosystem. To argue that Golden Eagles have not been seen regularly in Northern England for a hundred years, merely makes my point.They have not been seen because of persecution by sporting estates and because of egg collectors.

And the extent of illegal killing should not be underestimated. 

An award-winning scientific study (Smart et al. 2010) highlighted the  low probability of detection of illegal raptor killing  by demonstrating the number of illegally-killed red kites in a sub-population in northern Scotland. Using population modelling techniques the authors calculated that a total of 166 red kites had been illegally poisoned between 1999 and 2006, but only 41 poisoned carcasses were actually found. Other peer reviewed scientific studies (based on data collected by the award-winning monitoring efforts of the Scottish Raptor Study Group, (SNH 2009)) have also helped to inform an estimate of the extent of raptor persecution on Scottish grouse moors by examining the severe effect of sustained persecution on the population dynamics of several raptor species. These include the golden eagle (Watson & Whitfield 2002; Whitfield et al. 2004a; 2004b; 2007; 2008; Watson 2010; Watson 2013b); goshawk (Petty & Anderson 1996; Marquiss et al. 2003; Kenward 2006); hen harrier (Etheridge et al. 1997; Green & Etheridge 1999; Summers et al. 2003; Sim et al. 2007; Anderson et al. 2009; Fielding et al. 2011; Hayhow et al. 2013); peregrine (Hardey et al. 2003); and red kite (Carter et al. 2003). Collectively, these studies render the dispute about the exact number of raptor persecution incidents inconsequential because clearly, raptor persecution on grouse moors in Scotland is sufficiently widespread and prevalent to be causing population-scale impacts.

There has also been an admission that medicine has been left in the environment.As far as I know there has been no study into the effects of  Flubendazole in invertebrates or in the food chain.

Fences are indeed mostly associated with forestry, but due to, in Scotland especially, increased intensification, electric fences and large scale environmental damage on grouse moors is being seen.

As the Cairngorms National Park Authority noted in 2014

, “Whilst fencing can be beneficial in assisting habitat enhancement and can be a short term measure, there are also concerns about cumulative impacts on habitat, deer welfare, access and sensitive upland landscapes. There is a significant risk that deer fenced out on some moors only exacerbates habitat management problems elsewhere. Inappropriately designed and located fencing to manage livestock and deer, just as fencing for other objectives, can impact negatively on the landscape and ability for people to access upland areas.”

As for the large scale killing of Mountain Hares on some estates in Scotland which began in the 1980's  this continues despite no evidence that it increases the density of grouse.

@douglaswise describes an environment where a traditional country sport struggles to survive and has to take measures to ensure that survival.That may be true in his area, but here is a list of some prominent grouse moors in Scotland, and their ownership;

Buccleuch Estate- Buccleuch Estates Ltd.,

 Corrybrough Estate -Tinsley (Branston) Farms Ltd., Lincoln

 Dorback Estate- Salingore Reals Estate Ltd.,

  Farr & Glen Kyllachy -Newbie Salmon Fisheries (Scotland) Ltd.,

 Glendye Estate -Leased to Glen Dye Grouse Moor Syndicate

Glenfiddich & Cabrach- Golden Lane Securities Ltd., London

 Glenlochy Estate- Umena Management Ltd., St Vincent, The Grenadines

 Glenogil Estate- Baron Ferdinand von Baumbach, Munich, Germany

 Invercauld Estate -Farquharson Trust leased shooting tenants

 Millden Estate- Millden Sporting LLP, Glasgow

 Moy Estate -John MacKintosh, Tomatin

 North Glenbuchat- North Glen Estate Limited, Turks & Caicos Islands

 Raeshaw Estate -Raeshaw Holdings Ltd, Jersey

 Roxburgh Estate- Roxburghe Trusts, Edinburgh, Guernsey & Bermuda

 

I would say that this is good evidence of the increasing money to be made from this sport, and the corresponding increasing industrial nature of it. I invite a finding that Grouse Moors can no longer be allowed to be self-regulated, and may not have a place in a reasonable society at all



#14 Tomas

Tomas

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 135 posts
  • Local time: 04:22 AM
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Iringa Tanzania
  • Category 1:Tour Operator
  • Category 2:Resident in Africa/Former resident

Posted 08 May 2016 - 04:35 PM

I will just argue one point in  @Towlersonsafari original post but there are many more to argue against, and some to agree on to some extent. 

The point is about the illegal killings of birds of pray. First I condemn this acts, but that is not the point.

 

The point is, as a former investigator and police I have been in many courts, and a prosecuter that argued that a group should be sentenced for criminal activities done by a unknown small percentage that may or may not be from a certain group would have stayed prosecuter for that trial only!!! This is more the way of people that is ready to brake the law for their beliefs.

I could argue a lot more about the text, but I will stick to this one first and if anyone want to discus or argue with me he/she has to discus that point first and not start anything like:
-BUT is it ok to hunt birds for sport.

Only this point about making decisions on guesses and punish a hole group for  what some few criminal individuals is doing nothing else.


 



#15 Towlersonsafari

Towlersonsafari

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 606 posts
  • Local time: 02:22 AM
  • Gender:Not Telling
  • Location:Northamptonshire
  • Category 1:Tourist (regular visitor)
  • Category 2:---

Posted 08 May 2016 - 06:19 PM

Hello @Tomas please note I do not comment on the ethics of shooting although of course I am personally not keen.And one cannot say all grouse shooting estates are tarred with the same brush but sadly the evidence is that many are and the increasingly industrial nature of the estates are leading to the problems I highlight.Look at the evidence.Look at the reported illegal killing of raptors. Look at where it is happening.

#16 Tomas

Tomas

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 135 posts
  • Local time: 04:22 AM
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Iringa Tanzania
  • Category 1:Tour Operator
  • Category 2:Resident in Africa/Former resident

Posted 09 May 2016 - 04:54 AM

Hello @Tomas please note I do not comment on the ethics of shooting although of course I am personally not keen.And one cannot say all grouse shooting estates are tarred with the same brush but sadly the evidence is that many are and the increasingly industrial nature of the estates are leading to the problems I highlight.Look at the evidence.Look at the reported illegal killing of raptors. Look at where it is happening.

It is not evidence enough you have chosen to write your argument like it was argumentet in court and therefore it should hold at least a little of the same quality when it comes to the evidence in this case it soes not. But my point is that you can not point towards a hole group and accuse them for crimes of a few unknown individuals! Do you think that that is an approach that is sound? 



#17 ZaminOz

ZaminOz

    Order of the Pith

  • Members
  • 2,984 posts
  • Local time: 09:22 AM
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Perth, West Australia
  • Category 1:Born in Africa
  • Category 2:Conservationist/Naturalist

Posted 09 May 2016 - 08:16 AM

@Towlersonsafari and @Tomas

While I have no problem with the idea of a few chaps trudging across the moors with shot guns and bagging a few grouse along the way (within the law of course), I just don't think that one can equate driven grouse shooting with hunting, since (as far as I understand it) very little hunting takes place. Shooting yes, hunting not so much.

In that sense I really can't see that much ethical difference between canned "hunting" and shooting grouse in this fashion (in which it seems the quantity of grouse shot - rather than the hunting experience - seems to be the paramount attraction).

 

If quantity of targets shot is the main attraction, there is such a thing as clay pigeon shooting for that.

 

But, its not my scene so I confess my knowledge is limited to what I've seen in a few movies featuring the landed gentry and their expensive Purdy shot guns... 


Edited by ZaminOz, 09 May 2016 - 08:17 AM.

*******
Warning, if any safari camps wish to employ me as a guide, I expect a salary far, far, more commensurate than my actual experience!

#18 Tomas

Tomas

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 135 posts
  • Local time: 04:22 AM
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Iringa Tanzania
  • Category 1:Tour Operator
  • Category 2:Resident in Africa/Former resident

Posted 09 May 2016 - 09:47 AM

Again if any want to engage me in further discussion about the subject they first have to discuss the fact that a hole group or a hole hunting method is bashed because of what some unidentified criminals are doing. That is in my view not ok and no argument against hunting at all or at least a very poor argument.

Then we can taker apart one argument after an other to see if they hold true. And after that we can talk feelings and private opinions because that is an other thing and everyone is entitled to have his own opinion and to feel something about what ever, that can never be wrong. 



#19 Towlersonsafari

Towlersonsafari

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 606 posts
  • Local time: 02:22 AM
  • Gender:Not Telling
  • Location:Northamptonshire
  • Category 1:Tourist (regular visitor)
  • Category 2:---

Posted 09 May 2016 - 12:01 PM

hello @ZaminOz you may think that I could not possibly comment ! Especially as my one attempt at clay pigeon shooting ended predictably in abject failure! And @Tomas, you are  right in that one cannot use a few examples of a class of person as evidence that the whole group of persons is guilty of the same behavior-if only it was a few "rogue" estates illegally killing birds of prey, for example. i think thati have provided good evidence-in terms of the distribution of Hen Harriers in England-or the lack of them, and in terms of the BTO (British Trust for Ornithology) atlas of bird distribution which I have not quoted but can easily be accessed online, to provide evidence that the practice of grouse shooting estates killing birds of prey is so widespread that it needs action. (To stick with the bird of prey theme)

Here is some more evidence-

The Following Date is from the 2008 Golden Eagle conservation Framework-a government funded comprehensive scientific review of golden Eagle ecology and conservation in Scotland. It shows what  percentage of golden Eagle territories are occupied  by region.

In the  territories below no or very little grouse shooting takes place

Western Isles-91%

Western Highlands-89.5%

Argyll  West  & Islands-81.5%

And below are the areas where Grouse shooting does take place-

Central highlands-48%

Cairngorms massif-42.4%

North East Glens-17.6% !!!

Now factor into that the the Central areas and Eastern areas should be better for Golden Eagles as there is more prey, less rain in winter so more flying days, and less reliance on carrion, and you may be convinced that it is the grouse shooting industry as a whole that is illegally killing Golden Eagles.

i did chose to frame the debate in a quasi legal framework, as I am trying to make a case that regulation at least is needed.( and I thought it would be fun) I think that I have provided good evidence but only the reader can decide if they agree-have i proven the case "beyond reasonable doubt"? -which is the criminal test in the UK, or "On the balance of probability"?- or have i failed to convince you?

Incidentally-do you, @Tomas, use lead shot?



#20 Tomas

Tomas

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 135 posts
  • Local time: 04:22 AM
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Iringa Tanzania
  • Category 1:Tour Operator
  • Category 2:Resident in Africa/Former resident

Posted 09 May 2016 - 01:22 PM

@Towlersonsafari I think that killing birds of prey is done by criminals and they should be prosecuted not punish a hole group and so that argument against grouse hunting does not apply!!

When it comes to shooting wild birds a few times a year and shot a lot I do not see any wrong in that me myself prefer to hunt more often and shoot a couple of bird at the time over my setter but that is just my opinion and what I like.

Should driven  hunting where they shoot a lot of birds a few times a year be baned? No I do not think so but like everything else nothing is black and white. Some of this hunt is done on raised birds that have been free just some days and are planted by the PH so the clients can shoot a lot of birds. I do not think this is hunting and a bad practice.

It is not evil it is not bad and it helps to keep the countryside alive.

If someone do not like hunting that is ok but to "hunt" the hunters in a kind of witch hunt is not ok.







© 2006 - 2016 www.safaritalk.net - Talking Safaris and African Wildlife Conservation since 2006. Passionate about Africa.

Welcome guest to Safaritalk.
Please Register or Login to use the full facilities.