Gems from the written evidence 12 – Tweed Ecology Ltd

This one’s a bit different and rather interesting – extracts from the evidence of Tweed Ecology Ltd:

  • Braithwaite’s assessment of Greenlaw Moor Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI), the largest SSSI in Berwickshire is particularly damning: – ‘Botanically, this is moorland at its worst, as the cycle of muirburn optimised for grouse has gradually eliminated almost all diversity, with the last plants of lesser butterfly orchid (Plantanthera bifolia) (2000) and petty whin (Genista anglica) (2002) apparently eliminated recently.  Other losses have been lesser twayblade (Listera cordata) (1968), common twayblade (Listera ovata) (1980) and hairy stonecrop (Sedum villosum) (1952).  It is sad that a code of muirburn practise has not been developed to foster wider diversity.’
  • Juniper (Juniperus communis) is killed by burning.  While muirburn can provide the bare ground required for juniper to regenerate on moorland, too often indiscriminate muirburn can lead to the loss of juniper from sites.  Again, reference to the Short Flora of Berwickshire (Braithwaite, 2014) is instructive:- the Berwickshire distribution (of juniper) shows a strong negative correlation with open heather moorland managed for grouse.  It seems inconceivable that there were not once colonies up the Dye Water and some of its tributary burns’.  The upper Dye Water passes through some of the most productive grouse moors in Scotland.  Braithwaite goes on to say that the remaining junipers in upland Berwickshire ‘grow on steep slopes, some in gorges with remnant woodland, and some on more open slopes, but all in places protected from muirburn’.
  • There is also an unfortunate bycatch of birds in legal traps set for small mammalian predators (stoats and weasels).  The Tweed Catchment Water Vole Survey (Capreolus Wildlife Consultancy, 2007) found both dipper (Cinclus cinclus) and red grouse (Lagopus lagopus) dead in Fenn Traps set on moorland used for driven grouse shooting.  That was just a snapshot from one visit in one day in one year; it is likely that this is a common occurrence for these and other moorland bird species.
  • Driven grouse shooting interests have had decades to get their house in order and have failed to do so.  Ideally, I would like to see driven grouse shooting clean up its act; if it were to do so and illegal persecution were to end, there would be no need for this petition.  I acknowledge that driven grouse shooting results in positive conservation for some other bird species e.g. waders such as curlew and lapwing, but this cannot be justification for the continued support of a rural pursuit rooted in illegality.  I fear that if curlew and lapwing predated red grouse, they would be illegally persecuted too.  I am dismayed at the damage this is doing to shooting in the eyes of the public and I think we are in the last chance saloon and perhaps a licensing scheme for shooting estates is the only option remaining on the table short of an outright ban.  A licensing scheme could also provide for the protection of juniper stands and areas of blanket bog from indiscriminate muirburn.

 

You could write to your MP about the debate on driven grouse shooting today (see here).

[registration_form]

15 Replies to “Gems from the written evidence 12 – Tweed Ecology Ltd”

  1. Reuben Singleton raises important and very valid points. The wider arguments for and against grouse shooting often, it would seem, are focused on the charismatic fauna like the hen harrier. Yet, I wouldn’t mind betting that there are, in European or global terms, rarer species such as mosses, liverworts and invertebrates, which are being equally constrained or extirpated at a population level, with arguably more serious consequences to that species’ global survival.

    This is not to say that the persecution of hen harriers and other raptor species should be considered a lesser evil – far from it. But it is important to recognise that the intensive management of grouse moors extends beyond the obvious and charismatic. I wonder if there is a species that has literally been burned to extinction on grouse moors; or smothered to extinction by heather on grouse moors; or starved to extinction due to the reduction of its food plants on grouse moors?

    Richard

    1. Not really along the lines of your enquiry re inverts or bryophytes etc, but I looked into black grouse on ‘grouse’ moors after the petition hearing, Mark mentioned them at the petition hearing and Stokes/Anderson tried to rebuff him. According to the RSPB there are about 230,000 pairs of red grouse in the Uk against approx 12,000 pairs of black grouse. So the population of the latter under 6% of the former, which might have something to do with land managed for red grouse covering several million acres none of which is actually suitable for the black variety. Mark made the point that they are restricted to the edge of grouse moors – i.e they can’t live within them. When a population is marginalised and reduced to such a degree it can fall below a population threshold where it can become susceptible to local extinction. Liam Stokes claimed that without predator control by gamekeepers the black grouse wouldn’t be able to hold on. Even if this claim is true, big IF there are places outwith grouse moors where black grouse are stable/increasing, it is almost certainly because habitat loss via muirburn has reduced them to a non viable population in the first place requiring intensive care such as that will be on a shooting estate. Would also love to know how many grouse moors have a good wader population, not all of them surely and is it the least or most intensively managed that hold highest numbers? Competing bioblitzes on nature reserves and grouse moors would be interesting.

  2. I wrote to my MP: James Gray and asked for his opinion on the illegal activities of members of the NGO, the MA and the Countryside Alliance, he replied:

    “May I also suggest that you are careful when it comes to making unsubstantiated claims about members of the Alliance, MA and NGO. Such assertions do little to enhance your case, especially when Dr. Avery’s and the RSPB’s Jeff Knott chose to publicise their evidence last week with the help of animal rights extremist Luke Steele, who has recently served an 18 month sentence for intimidation – amongst other convictions.”

    Would you care to respond, before I reply to his laughable indignation?

    1. Surely you did not expect anything else,those in favour of DGS will make the most of it.

    2. The pattern of illegality by grouse moor managers is clear, so as long as you made no claims about specific individuals (unless of course you can substantiate them ) it’s fair comment and something for the MA etc to address; “if it’s not your members and their employees, who is killling all the raptors then?”

      That said, having been on the receiving end of animal rights extremists’ attempted intimidation myself, if Luke Steele really has a recent conviction for intimidation, and if he really is also closely involved in the anti DGS campaign, then perhaps your MP has a point too. I’d certainly wouldn’t want to appear allied to such a person. Threatening to kill me didn’t get anyone jailed so if your MP is right Mr Steel must have done something pretty serious.

      I should add that I have no knowledge of Mr Steele so I don’t know if the MP is correct or not about his criminal record, beyond noting that the MP seems to be sure of his facts and would be guilty of slander if he got them wrong.

      My experience of the animal rights movement has been decidedly mixed, and I confess I’ve always been a bit uncomfortable with LACS involvement. But I also recognise we would never have got this far without them.

      We’d all be much better off RSPB et al had stepped up as they should have done.

      1. A quick google confirms that Luke Steele does have multiple convictions for crimes against people as well as property. However I didn’t come across any LACS connection – the fact that I wrongly assumed that was what the MP was referring to just shows what a sensitive issue it is.

        If not through a LACS connection I don’t know how or even if Steele has been involved in promoting the petition or not – perhaps Mark can tell us what role if any he had.

        If Steele simply did a bit of tweeting etc as a private individual then I don’t see how that’s anything other petition supporters could be held responsible for, any more than if someone convicted of wildlife crime chose to support the other one.

        I bet every MP in Westminster got a few votes from nasty customers too.

        1. Jbc – Luke Steele has been one of the leaders of the campaign to end grouse shooting on Ilkley Moor. I have met him less than a handful of times. He hasn’t played a major role in our campaign but he has certainly supported it on social media. I didn’t know of his conviction until the last few days and that was after I was photographed with him. I haven’t googled every person I’ve met to check them out.

          1. Thanks for clarification Mark. I agree, its not possible for any of us to check out everyone we meet, any more than an MP could do so.

          2. It seems increasingly a tactic of what Tony Blair might have called ‘the forces of conservatism’ to damn people by association.

            As with most of their tactics there are usually opportunities to turn it straight back at them. Seek them out.

  3. Good man Reuben, knows his stuff! Has a different but equally valid take on the matter.

  4. There is no doubt that we are to obsessed by a few birdies when the damaging impacts extend to several hundred species.
    I think we should be thinking about a new petition on the regulation of muirburn.

    1. Think no one in authority will take any notice of epetitions as 38 degrees turn them out one after another,of course they have to follow certain rules when numbers are reached but they only seem to pay lip service to them as some almost half a million seem to have been totally ignored.

      1. Irrespective of whether an e-petition is successful in influencing authorities, it has brought the matter to the attention of a lot of people whether they chose to sign or not. It has allowed evidence, verbal and written to be put on official records. It has instigated articles/mentions in the media (although not enough) and been widely shared on social media. It has raised the problems of DGS tremendously, and brought many of the bad/criminal practices and their adherents out into the open. The campaign has given the chance for many with differing outlooks and interests to come together. Thanks to Mark and all the others involved we now have a solid foundation to build on. It’s just a start but we wouldn’t be where we are without it. Roll on Monday.

      2. There may be an argument that too many petitions about too many issues leads to a dilution of their impact, Dennis, but in the present case the facts prove you wrong. The fact that over 120,000 people signed Mark’s petition has resulted in a joint select committee enquiry and the scheduling of a parliamentary debate. It would be unduly optimistic to expect the outcome of these to be the final resolution of the problem but it is unarguable that those in authority are being obliged to sit up and take notice. Without the petition Parliament would not have been obliged to scrutinize the issues surrounding grouse shooting in this way.

Comments are closed.