There is rather too much talk about birds and too little about everything else in the discussions about the harm caused by driven grouse shooting. So have a look at the evidence submitted by a distinguished entomologist with many years experience (can you spot anyone remotely similar speaking up for the unsustainable management of our uplands which is needed for driven grouse shooting?). Here are some quotes:
- DGS should be banned, but walked up grouse shooting (prohibiting the use of beaters) be allowed to continue with a restriction on the number of people shooting within, say, each 5km square on the same day to limit the intensity of shooting within each moorland area.
- DGS should be banned because the large number of grouse required for this kind of shooting has led to the intensive mismanagement of grouse moors with all the adverse consequences and resulting damage listed below1. Despite many years of meetings between conservationists and representatives of the shooting community the problems continue and are even increasing2. Numerous attempts have failed to find a way in which DGS can continue without illegal persecution of raptors, without massive killing of mammalian predators and Mountain Hares, without more intensive burning regimes that damage the flora and fauna of moorlands and without drainage that changes the hydrology of catchments; but raptors are still killed illegally and grouse moors continue to be mismanaged while the rest of society picks up the costs.
- Drains are cut to increase Heather cover at the expense of Sphagnum areas in order to favour the feeding habitat of Red Grouse. This is particularly damaging to the large assemblage of insects7 and other invertebrates associated with wetter areas, pools, flushes, seepages and their margins. These invertebrates are of great interest and value in their own right, but are also part of vital food webs that sustain plants (e.g. via pollination) and insectivorous mammals and birds9. The uniform Heather-dominated moorlands created for DGS are therefore impoverished with regard to their invertebrates with important adverse consequences for the diversity of wildlife in these areas.
- …from published papers and my personal observations, the management regimes used to produce high densities of Red Grouse for DGS are strongly negative upon invertebrate communities that are the most species-rich component of moorland faunas as well as being essential for healthy ecosystem functioning in these areas.
[registration_form]
This makes absolute sense, so do we think would Buglife join the campaign?
Mark, many thanks for posting these ‘gems’. I have been ploughing my way through the submissions on the petition website but it is a long and tedious exercise!
I also check out the submissions from your correspondents when they can be identified from their proper name. I am rather disappointed that after all your help and encouragement some of your regulars have not written to the petition committee. I believe that even short comments along your advised lines are valuable.
I look forward to the debate.
Thanks Richard, I realised I couldn’t remember whether or not I sent in a written submission, so just emailed something in! Very remiss of me. Also noticed that the petition has went up from 123,076 to 123,077 – an omen hopefully.
What I have noted is the diverse reasoning given, underpinned with evidence, to change the status quo with regards to Driven Grouse Shooting. The hen harrier is obviously a charismatic and totemic species which the public relates to. But the loss of smaller, less charismatic species is equally worrying. I conveyed this in my submission.
I just hope Monday’s debate allows the evidence to be aired and any attempt for filibustering to be squashed. Am not overly hopeful, but one never knows. It would reflect terribly on Government and individual Ministers if they dismissed the overwhelming evidence submitted to change the status quo.
Richard
I dearly hope that Parliament will listen to the science but fear they may not unless we create a united, irresistible force for change. It is a matter of some regret that the RSPB fudged the issue by naively joining the Hen Harrier joint recovery plan (which tolerated criminality) and by suggesting licensing, which equates to the ‘middle of the road’ and will be attractive to MPs who don’t really understand the issues. The least said about the Hawk & Owl Trust’s hand-wringing the better, though it is still not too late to dump Merricks and get on board. Scientists, raptor study groups, animal/bird campaigners and taxpayers need to come together as one to convince politicians that there is no alternative: it is time to consign driven grouse shooting and it’s inherent slaughter of wildlife to the past.
Ian Mclean has a wealth of ‘useful’ knowledge that could be exploited for the purposes of ecotourism etc. His evidence is focused and it seems reasonable to allow some shooting to continue, perhaps for a little while. Personally, I do not like to share my nature walks with men with guns. I find these characters rather frightening as this seems to be all about conspicuous (lost?) virility. The idea of washing up in a hotel used by these types is another major turn-off. And the harm they do to the Scottish tweed industry is incalculable.
has anyone ever quantified, what the level of increase in household insurance premium is, due to the increased likelihood of flooding caused by increased drainage and run off from the moors.
it would be interesting to know exactly how many of their supposed millions of increased GDP they actually do make at the expense of the rest of society.
were that then put to the public and MPS. it might be interesting to see the effect on any vote, of an mps actually voting to give money to people so they can be charged greater insurance premiums and be flooded more often