Dear Mark
Thank you for the invitation to respond to your blog, which I picked up on Twitter.
When we made the decision to terminate the existing tenancy in 2016, we felt that we sent a strong signal about our sense of purpose in delivering the High Peak vision. That sense of purpose remains the same. We made clear in our statement then that “we will start the process of looking for a replacement in 2017, when we will be happy to receive applications from partners who can demonstrate how moorland management and shooting can deliver great nature conservation in a way that is compatible with public access.” That is what we are now doing.
If you read the letting particulars it should be clear that we want an innovative partner – this is not about the status quo. That said, we do not have a policy of stopping all shooting. We look forward to seeing what applications that we get and whether we find anyone who meets our criteria. I suggest that you take a view on whether we have done the right thing if and when we select one or more partners for the land.
I hope that is helpful
Kind regards
Andy
Andrew Beer
Director of the Midlands, National Trust
[registration_form]
This will all come down to the selection criteria – if NT are serious in their intent (i.e. about selecting a law abiding, pro-wider picture tenant), then the way in which the winner is selected will be critical. I wonder if Andy would publish these now.
It is a missed opportunity that potential tenants (or indeed the NT themselves) have not been asked to propose / cost up a ‘wildlife tourism’ based model.
Andy can you put up a link to the “letting particulars” please.
Andrew – here you go and I’ve now been able to add it to the post too. https://www.nationaltrust.org.uk/features/grouse-moor-management-opportunity
Andy is this innovative approach worth perusing in the eyes of the NT?
Here is a (non blood sport) version of grouse “shooting” with a camera fixed to the barrel and blanks, if you want all the excitement of noise and the smell of the cordite. Thus maintaining all the tradition and tweed of the grouse shoot. With no dead grouse on the ground.
The ShotKam (shotkam.com) is a neat piece of kit that takes pictures along the barrel of the shotgun showing the accuracy of your aim (usually for training purposes).
They would not need to intensively keeper the “vermin” for the odd extra grouse as there would not be the attrition of numbers of grouse as with a regular shoot. So you would not need to charge less for later shoots.
In fact when you think about it it would make more sense as a commercial event without the need to kill, kill, kill. You can have more drives. (Disturbance aside.)
The cameras are wifi linked already and I am sure they could be modified to make an immediate comment when a “hit” is recorded if you “shot” the grouse. Rather than the current confirmation of the sight of a bedraggled dead grouse flying through the air. Or worse still a wounded grouse gliding off.
It would cost no more than a better shotgun and you only need a few.
What do you think?
(What do conservationist think in the light of the NTs insistence on tradition?.)
You never know the NT might lead the way to a new approach!!
Its the grouse moor management that does the environmental damage… the mass slaughter of grouse is a relatively modern invention. Its a sham tradition.
The Trust should be, as a minimum, ensuring that the moor is “walked-up” only and that destructive muirburn and predator control should cease.
The maximum effort would involve restoring the moorland to a low intensity traditional farming model.
I think that sounds really good and would comply well enough with the NT particulars. With so many fewer grouse needed then intensive moorland (mis)management wouldn’t be required. We really should apply. We wouldn’t have the costs associated with intensive management and so maybe the lease would be affordable. In the particulars under Lease Proposals i think it is interesting it says “if your proposal supports or requires a different occupation or letting structure then we will give consideration to any suggestions as part of the assessment process.” I think it is time that Mark Avery became a grouse moor manager!
I am not anti shooting but currently driven grouse shooting has poor and increasingly intensive management practices on most moors and is predicated on a lack of the larger birds of prey that are killed or discouraged despite their protection. The NT seem to be missing the point of that. The photographs show large areas of bare peat that need restoring as an aside ( and rewetting).
Surely for the NT to be totally confident that their moorland vision is being followed and truly taken into account without the usual hoodwink by tenants on other estates of lip service to raptor protection but no raptors other than Merlin and Kestrel. They should manage the moors themselves, employ the keepering team, strictly supervise them and let the shooting on a day basis through a reputable agent.
To me anything else is too big a risk that we remain in an unacceptable status quo. I would also have no pheasant releases in the woodland. To me that is the required innovation.
So the NT are looking for someone who can “demonstrate how moorland management and shooting can deliver great nature conservation in a way that is compatible with public access”. That is the problem. No-one can! So we can already make our minds up if the NT is insisting on a shooting tenant.
This is an ambitious statement from Andy Beer – and it may, or may not, be deliverable. So, key aspects will be the tenant selection process, and then the proposed management by the tenant and the NT together for the SSSI/SAC/SPA moorland. Also really important will be the monitoring of the wildlife and the management activities.
Perhaps, give the NT a chance to try their new approach, but keep a close eye on it.
Dytiscus – tricky isn’t it? Can I have my membership subscription reimbursed if it doesn’t work out very well at the end of a few years? I’m guessing not.
I think Andy Beer mises both a vital point in his sttaemeny and an opportunity.
He does not mention once the views of the NT membership on this issue or his snub to Moorland Vision. In fact he grants you more authority than us.
“I suggest that you take a view on whether we have done the right thing if and when we select one or more partners for the land”.
What the NT is in danger of achieving is a large net loss in its income when disenfranchised members decide to support other, more suitable, charities.
Is the NT aware of any grouse moors in Britain that currently come close to achieving this goal of conservation-beneficial ‘traditional’ moorland management? How much of a gap is there between current ‘best practice’ and the NT’s rather vague ambitions for this project? What is the likelihood of this gap being bridged? Given that one of the current farming tenants is unwilling to be open about the HLS agreement and that “the farm tenants have relied on predator control undertaken by the shoot occupier”, will the NT also be re-evaluating its approach to whether or not farming tenants are meeting the goals of the High Peak vision?
‘Is the NT aware of any grouse moors in Britain that currently come close to achieving this goal of conservation-beneficial ‘traditional’ moorland management?’
Whatever ‘traditional moorland management’ is but there are a couple of low intensive, environmentally based grouse moors in Scotland. The difference is that the vision comes from top down, the landowners. I can’t imagine any shooting tenant having the same commitment or holistic approach, why would they? Would it make any money?
NT are doing deals with a criminal based industry, what could possibly go wrong?
Surely there is a complete disconnect between land managed for shooting and that for wildlife. Are there any existing shooting estates managed in the way the NT is proposing or will they be breaking new ground? It seems to me the NT are trying to keep the game shooters happy and the conservationists onside with some buzz words.
Of course, the NT will be involving Natural England in the process to select the new shooting tenant. And NE must approve the shooting licence and its conditions since it is on SSSI land. Of course??
So that’s it, NT does not oppose killing wildlife per se, leading to end of my membership just like RSPB. NT demonstraies toadying or control by big landowners and their clients who need to show a male member enhancement in shape of a Purdy.
Just come back from doing a two-day stint at Countryfile Live: this NT post could have been lifted straight from the posters of the Countryside Alliance (why, childishly, am I always so tempted to drop the “o”?).
The NT needs to decide where its priorities lie: conservation of landscapes and wildlife or commercialisation = destruction of the landscape and wildlife.
with not one pair of HH on a grouse moor in England there is no way NT’s position is sustainable – there is no way they can guarantee a law abiding shooting tenant, and, of course will hife behind the ‘someone else did it ‘ excuse w.hen no HH suceed. The only way to be clean – and live up to the Trust’s ideals is to suspend shooting until the HH population recovers. Worth remembering that NT thought they’d be great managers of a big chunk of our NationalForests in2010 – where would HH in England be today had they suceeded ?