Hunting is in a spot of bother

[sunleychops]

This photo doesn't do justice to how ugly this is. Left to it's own devices, the moor in the distance would be covered in purple heather, as large parts nearby are. The areas cut in the heather to breed grouse spoil it completely.

View attachment 101450

Big fan of uncontrollable wildfires then are we?

Just admit you know absolutely jack shit about moorland management and be done with it.

 

[sunleychops]

Better in terms of biodiversity? Or carbon capture? I just look at them and wonder where the trees are tbh. It is well understood that 'edge' habitats are most biodiverse but these are not provided by moorland in traditional management as far as I can see. I know that a lot is made of ground-nesting birds doing ok on grouse moors but that's at the expense of a lot of other species. In Scotland species like capercaillie and wild cat are absolutely on the brink and little effort is apparently made in traditional systems to provide habitat for them, as it doesn't suit grouse. It'd be interesting to see over a longer term how non-shooting management does, as most of it's pretty recent in relative terms.

Wild cat numbers are being hit predominantly with interbreeding with domestic cats.....

 

[Millionwords]

Big fan of uncontrollable wildfires then are we?

Just admit you know absolutely jack shit about moorland management and be done with it.

Why so rude, there are people that have posted in this thread with considerable ecological knowledge stating that them becoming desolate and single species is incorrect.

Accusing folk of knowing nothing whilst also not offering anything pertinent to the discussion is unhelpful and rude.

 

[SilverLinings]

Big fan of uncontrollable wildfires then are we?

Just admit you know absolutely jack shit about moorland management and be done with it.

That is not a useful or civilised contribution to this discussion, and certainly won't result in people agreeing with your side of the argument.

 

[hairycob]

My experience of hiking on grouse moorland is that I see much less wildlife, both in quantity & diversity, than I do in my intensively arable farmed area.

 

[palo1]

My experience of hiking on grouse moorland is that I see much less wildlife, both in quantity & diversity, than I do in my intensively arable farmed area.

That is such an interesting observation @hairycob as my experience (albeit in Wales) is completely the opposite. Here on Grouse moorland there really does seem to be huge diversity, yet in similar areas that belong to the NT or local wildlife trusts there is noticeably and shockingly so, much less 'life'. Our hill grazing is a conservation area and has locally important populations of several species of bird and plant life - it is grazed and managed how it has been for many, many years too; ponies and sheep (more sheep than ponies). Several DEFRA policies and incentives damaged the hill (largely relating to grazing numbers and bracken) but thankfully those have changed and there has been a restoration, particularly in recent years of a better natural balance.

I don't think one size fits all and certainly in some areas, under some management, grouse moorland is performing better for some vulnerable species than under other management systems. The NT and other organisations also, openly, rely on keepered moors for support during periods of crisis - for the expertise and manpower available for example during incidents of wild fire. The area of NT bog and moorland that I am particularly familar with is eerily empty of the birds, mammals and plants that I see elsewhere which is both confusing and worrying in my view.

 

[CrunchieBoi]

Wild cat numbers are being hit predominantly with interbreeding with domestic cats.....

Only because the keepers made their population so vulnerable in the first place.

 

[CrunchieBoi]

Without grouse moor shooting, there would be no moorland and they would rapidly become omnispecies, desolate wastelands

Whit? ?

 

[Burnttoast]

Wild cat numbers are being hit predominantly with interbreeding with domestic cats.....

Now, yes. Historically, no. Replacing habitat must be part of any attempt to revive populations, along with a better effort at TNVR.

 

[Burnttoast]

Given that heather moorland is an anthropogenic landscape not a natural one I can't see what the objection would be to returning parts of the uplands to earlier ecologies. In Scotland pine woodland usually had a understorey containing heather, while birch-dominated woodland was characterised more by bilberry, which doesn't do well in a regime involving burning. I find the argument for grouse moor management being necessary for birds like the curlew to be specious. The management of land for driven grouse shooting only occurs in the UK but these birds exist across Eurasia, often in much more treed landscapes than we might assume.

 

[palo1]

Given that heather moorland is an anthropogenic landscape not a natural one I can't see what the objection would be to returning parts of the uplands to earlier ecologies. In Scotland pine woodland usually had a understorey containing heather, while birch-dominated woodland was characterised more by bilberry, which doesn't do well in a regime involving burning. I find the argument for grouse moor management being necessary for birds like the curlew to be specious. The management of land for driven grouse shooting only occurs in the UK but these birds exist across Eurasia, often in much more treed landscapes than we might assume.

Phew!! That is difficult to read tbh, especially as whilst you are partially correct in saying that heather moorland is an anthropogenic landscape, it is still one that has value to nature. I know that in rewilding circles there is an acceptance of 'winners and losers' (ie loss of some species) but that feels like an incredibly blunt tool and one that totally dismisses the human element and the cultures of our landscapes. That I think it difficult philosophically, morally, economically notwithstanding the absolutely urgent need to support biodiversity and nature. The 'objection' to returning parts of the uplands is visceral for those people who live and work there - I am not sure if you are part of one of those communities, but emblematic species such as the curlew are incredibly important to communities as well as within their own natural systems. In part at least, it is a matter of identity. It isn't at all easy to impose that level of change on communities and landscapes, even with the most aggressive rewilding agenda.

It is likely too that birch dominated woodland would bring it's own issues, even if you remove upland grazing. Birch can be horribly invasive and support specific ecosystems in the same way that heather moorlands do. Why is that 'better' I wonder? Is it because there is a desire to wipe out the impact of human activity? It feels hard to read that communities and landscape level histories could be so easily and confidently dismissed to be honest, for what feels like rather 'remote' ideals. I am generally a fan of rewilding and regenerative farming but the desire to see wholesale change in rural areas when there is so much basic work to be done on human culture, activities and attitudes toward nature more widely feels hurtful in a strange way.

I confess that as part of an upland hill farming community, this all feels a bit personal too.

 

[ycbm]

Without grouse moor shooting, there would be no moorland and they would rapidly become omnispecies, desolate wastelands

?

This comment is even more hilarious in the light of you later telling me that in spite of living in it and seeing it daily for over 3 decades, I know absolutely nothing about moorland management. Only you were a lot less polite

Let me guess, you kill birds as a passtime or your salary is paid by people who do?
.

 

[Burnttoast]

Phew!! That is difficult to read tbh, especially as whilst you are partially correct in saying that heather moorland is an anthropogenic landscape, it is still one that has value to nature. I know that in rewilding circles there is an acceptance of 'winners and losers' (ie loss of some species) but that feels like an incredibly blunt tool and one that totally dismisses the human element and the cultures of our landscapes. That I think it difficult philosophically, morally, economically notwithstanding the absolutely urgent need to support biodiversity and nature. The 'objection' to returning parts of the uplands is visceral for those people who live and work there - I am not sure if you are part of one of those communities, but emblematic species such as the curlew are incredibly important to communities as well as within their own natural systems. In part at least, it is a matter of identity. It isn't at all easy to impose that level of change on communities and landscapes, even with the most aggressive rewilding agenda.

It is likely too that birch dominated woodland would bring it's own issues, even if you remove upland grazing. Birch can be horribly invasive and support specific ecosystems in the same way that heather moorlands do. Why is that 'better' I wonder? Is it because there is a desire to wipe out the impact of human activity? It feels hard to read that communities and landscape level histories could be so easily and confidently dismissed to be honest, for what feels like rather 'remote' ideals. I am generally a fan of rewilding and regenerative farming but the desire to see wholesale change in rural areas when there is so much basic work to be done on human culture, activities and attitudes toward nature more widely feels hurtful in a strange way.

I confess that as part of an upland hill farming community, this all feels a bit personal too.

Well, I did say parts. A mosaic of habitats is always biodiverse by its nature, including areas of heather. Woodland is what's currently missing from much of the uplands and the desire (insofar as I can call it that) in many quarters is for a more varied landscape (visually and ecologically). In Scotland the upland landscape has changed from almost entirely treed to almost entirely open over the course of the Holocene, and the vast majority of the changes have been driven by human activity. While subsistence farming was the norm in the late medieval/early modern periods woodland existed in different forms in the valleys, just above the head dyke and up on the hill, even though some of it seems to have been pretty degraded by winter grazing/use of woodland products, so the landscape was much more varied than that seen now and arguably more biodiverse. That landscape too was anthropogenic, just not one familiar to people alive now. Landlords had no trouble sweeping that 'inefficient' vernacular landscape away in the name of improvement. We could return to something like that, if the imperative was not to farm grouse.

 

[palo1]

Well, I did say parts. A mosaic of habitats is always biodiverse by its nature, including areas of heather. Woodland is what's currently missing from much of the uplands and the desire (insofar as I can call it that) in many quarters is for a more varied landscape (visually and ecologically). In Scotland the upland landscape has changed from almost entirely treed to almost entirely open over the course of the Holocene, and the vast majority of the changes have been driven by human activity. While subsistence farming was the norm in the late medieval/early modern periods woodland existed in different forms in the valleys, just above the head dyke and up on the hill, even though some of it seems to have been pretty degraded by winter grazing/use of woodland products, so the landscape was much more varied than that seen now and arguably more biodiverse. That landscape too was anthropogenic, just not one familiar to people alive now. Landlords had no trouble sweeping that 'inefficient' vernacular landscape away in the name of improvement. We could return to something like that, if the imperative was not to farm grouse.

Mmm well I can agree with parts of this, though my experience of living in an upland area gives me pause for thought about how realistic it is to hope to re-tree many parts. But yes, a varied landscape is definitely desirable. Although I understand a bit of why people become preoccupied with grouse moorland I can't get my head round why this is considered the most important issue, even on just a UK scale - those areas are minimally populated and managed with a degree of priviiege which I understand makes them an easy target but as a priority for biodiversity/improvement? Really? There are so many other, more impactful activities and agendas to pursue if we are serious about supporting nature and trying to do something about climate change. I think we really need to prioritise rather than polarise. I have no desire to lay blame at my neighbours door and I hate the way that that can so easily happen but some of the key issues for nature are more connected with intensive arable production (and yes, we need those crops too). In the UK there is a very difficult equation to solve around land use more generally BUT uplands/moorlands/grouse moors are the wrong focus.

On a personal level I really struggle to stay level headed when I live somewhere that is considered a battle ground, we try incredibly hard to give room for and to support nature here, as do most of our neighbours yet when I drive to the nearest city, I am literally astounded by the wilful disregard for the environment; traffic pollution, plastic, unnecessary consumption, light pollution (which is a serious issue for biodiversity), a culture of 'smartness and neatness' that requires huge investment in artificiality (plastics and bleach/other cleaning and sanitisation products). It is hard. Our water comes out of the mountain. We add nothing to it - we don't routinely purchase or wash synthetic fabrics, use our loo very considerately in relation to cleaners etc. We know what our soil has in it and how to support invertebrate life so that we can feed our stock appropriately. We have to be extremely careful with any animal medication (which we have to record in our records) and feed our stock on home grown fodder and limited externally bought in feeds, look after our land, cultivate hedgerows, trees and allow things to be all a bit wild and woolly. We are not unusual in that - most of our neighbours are exactly the same yet just down the road, tarmac, bleach and plastic reign supreme. Surely that is where we need to focus?

 

[Burnttoast]

Mmm well I can agree with parts of this, though my experience of living in an upland area gives me pause for thought about how realistic it is to hope to re-tree many parts. But yes, a varied landscape is definitely desirable. Although I understand a bit of why people become preoccupied with grouse moorland I can't get my head round why this is considered the most important issue, even on just a UK scale - those areas are minimally populated and managed with a degree of priviiege which I understand makes them an easy target but as a priority for biodiversity/improvement? Really? There are so many other, more impactful activities and agendas to pursue if we are serious about supporting nature and trying to do something about climate change. I think we really need to prioritise rather than polarise. I have no desire to lay blame at my neighbours door and I hate the way that that can so easily happen but some of the key issues for nature are more connected with intensive arable production (and yes, we need those crops too). In the UK there is a very difficult equation to solve around land use more generally BUT uplands/moorlands/grouse moors are the wrong focus.

On a personal level I really struggle to stay level headed when I live somewhere that is considered a battle ground, we try incredibly hard to give room for and to support nature here, as do most of our neighbours yet when I drive to the nearest city, I am literally astounded by the wilful disregard for the environment; traffic pollution, plastic, unnecessary consumption, light pollution (which is a serious issue for biodiversity), a culture of 'smartness and neatness' that requires huge investment in artificiality (plastics and bleach/other cleaning and sanitisation products). It is hard. Our water comes out of the mountain. We add nothing to it - we don't routinely purchase or wash synthetic fabrics, use our loo very considerately in relation to cleaners etc. We know what our soil has in it and how to support invertebrate life so that we can feed our stock appropriately. We have to be extremely careful with any animal medication (which we have to record in our records) and feed our stock on home grown fodder and limited externally bought in feeds, look after our land, cultivate hedgerows, trees and allow things to be all a bit wild and woolly. We are not unusual in that - most of our neighbours are exactly the same yet just down the road, tarmac, bleach and plastic reign supreme. Surely that is where we need to focus?

I suppose the main cause of antagonism is the grouse moor, rather than moorland per se - one of the other places I visit regularly is Exmoor, and the scale of that landscape brings lots of different habitats up against one another, including the moor, which I suspect both soothes people's feelings about the treatment of the land and actually does help biodiversity. There's something about the apparent single-mindedness of the management of the driven grouse moor, and the appearance of much of the Scottish hills (too many deer too), that rankles with some people. And there is definitely room for improvement/change and some people living in those areas who do want to see that change (eg the Langholm community buy-out). I suspect but don't know that your uplands area is not quite like that?

I don't know how you get around the fact that most people aren't all that interested in nature, don't really understand it and have lives that don't/can't make room for it, but some people in urban areas are trying. And those that are interested have little scope for autonomous action, if all they have is a small garden, which must be part of why they become interested in what's happening 'over the fence'. I find it very depressing in general though. Before I became ill I was volunteering on a project to improve habitat connectivity in south Norfolk, planting new hedges and surveying existing hedges with a view to advising on their better management. There was lots of really degraded soil, maize planted as cover crops, essentially abandoned woodland and hedges, loads of pheasant-rearing-related plastic rubbish, plenty of winged crows flapping around in the brambles, all pretty sad. And that was on the participating farms.

 

[sunleychops]

?

This comment is even more hilarious in the light of you later telling me that in spite of living in it and seeing it daily for over 3 decades, I know absolutely nothing about moorland management. Only you were a lot less polite

Let me guess, you kill birds as a passtime or your salary is paid by people who do?
.

Neither, actually.

I just take an interest in these matters and enjoy arguing with the Packham brigade

 

[Millionwords]

Neither, actually.

I just enjoy arguing

Fixed that for you

 

[sunleychops]

Fixed that for you

Well, I'm not going to just sit on my hands when a conversation about a psycho hunt supporter mowing someone down, transcends into a shooting bashing session.

This is exactly why country sports are absolutely doomed, So much division and in-fighting.

 

[Millionwords]

Well, I'm not going to just sit on my hands when a conversation about a psycho hunt supporter mowing someone down, transcends into a shooting bashing session.

This is exactly why country sports are absolutely doomed, So much division and in-fighting.

Its only you fighting, everyone else was having an informed and interesting discussion. Which is how people learn.

Not by slinging insults left, right and centre.

 

[Fred66]

This article, whilst obviously written from a position of an interested party, does make for interesting reading.

https://www.gwct.org.uk/policy/brie...hooting/conservation-on-grouse-moors/#block-5

It makes some good points about positive impacts of management of grouse moor on some other rare species.

 

[Sandstone1]

Maybe a shooting thread would be more appropriate?

 

[Tiddlypom]

Anyone care to set up a new thread entitled 'Shooting is in a spot of bother'?

Because the 'sport' ? of shooting is certainly under great pressure, although technically it is still legal.

 

[palo1]

Anyone care to set up a new thread entitled 'Shooting is in a spot of bother'?

Because the 'sport' ? of shooting is certainly under great pressure, although technically it is still legal.

I don't think 'technically' is correct @Tiddlypom - it is legal activity as well as part of a significant rural industry. You may not like it but there is no 'technically legal' about it!

 

[sunleychops]

Anyone care to set up a new thread entitled 'Shooting is in a spot of bother'?

Because the 'sport' ? of shooting is certainly under great pressure, although technically it is still legal.

Nothing 'technically' about it.

it is 100% legal.

 

[Sandstone1]

Nothing 'technically' about it.

it is 100% legal.

If immoral.

 

[HeresHoping]

"If immoral."

Every bird we shoot gets eaten. How is that immoral?

 

[palo1]

If immoral.

That is entirely a matter of personal principle. Thankfully in our liberal democracy there are many, many issues of conscience that we are free to make up our own minds about. It is often considered intolerant to force your own moral framework on other people; that is why we consider minority rights an important thing to be protected...

 

[stangs]

"If immoral."

Every bird we shoot gets eaten. How is that immoral?

The bird would beg to differ

 

[YorksG]

The bird would beg to differ

Would it? I was unaware that birds were capable of abstract thought, much less that they subscribe to a human based moral code. Where did you find the evidence for this, please.

 

[Burnttoast]

That is entirely a matter of personal principle. Thankfully in our liberal democracy there are many, many issues of conscience that we are free to make up our own minds about. It is often considered intolerant to force your own moral framework on other people; that is why we consider minority rights an important thing to be protected...

On the other hand there are plenty of purely moral/ethical issues we do legislate on. Pretty much all animal welfare law falls into that category.