Tag: Edward Grierson

Why I signed a petition to license driven grouse shooting, a guest post by Edward Grierson

This latest guest blog comes from AMA student, Edward Grierson, and focuses on the subject of Driven Grouse Shooting. Disclaimer: the words below are not those of the blog owner and queries and comments should be directed to the author, as appropriate. If you would like to submit a response for publication on this blog, please get in touch.

There is no topic in modern conservation more polarising than driven grouse shooting. As it stands, the debate on the subject, for the most part, is between two opposites: those who want to ban the sport and those who want to change nothing about the sport. Nor is there a topic which has been the subject of more discussion from both sides, to the point that this article feels like a flogging a dead horse. I’ve even written about this subject several times myself. Unfortunately, the recent disappearance of three hen harriers near grouse moors in the Borders and Cumbria has reminded both sides that wildlife crime is still rife within the sport[1]. With this in mind, now feels like as good a time as any to discuss a possible middle ground in such a schizophrenic debate. I am of course referring to licensing grouse shooting in the UK.

To understand why I support this approach, we have to look at the other two sides in this conflict. Firstly, there are those who oppose a ban, or any form of legislation, being applied to driven grouse shooting. Essentially, this equates to keeping the sport exactly as it is. And therein lies the problem: with grouse shooting as it is, peregrines are declining in the Peak District[2], red kites are as badly persecuted in Scotland as they were 25 years ago[3], and only three pairs of hen harriers bred in England last year[4]. This is despite the decades of negotiations between conservation organisations and shooting estates, which are still being touted as the solution to solving raptor persecution. Put simply, trying to keep the status quo, when the status quo is so clearly flawed, as with driven grouse shooting, makes no sense.

That being said, neither do I side with those who want to see driven grouse shooting banned. Admittedly, I have a history with this side; I proudly signed the first three e-petitions created by Mark Avery, and when the third e-petition earned Parliamentary debate, I wrote to my MP encouraging them to support a ban (they didn’t even turn up to the debate). More recently, however, I’ve begun to have doubts about it. Not only is it unlikely to be effective in the long term, since it would only apply for one part of the UK, but for a lot of our upland wildlife, it could be a major setback. Curlew, lapwing, golden plover, merlin, kestrel, ring ouzel, black grouse…all these would be far worse off if driven grouse shooting was to be banned. Don’t get me wrong, I want to see more of our uplands, including grouse moors, allowed to revert to natural conditions. But I can’t deny the importance that grouse moors have played in keeping a lot of Britain’s rarest species from going extinct. Not to mention that there are a lot of people working on these landscapes with a genuine love of what they are doing, who don’t deserve to be put out of a job if this ban were to be put into effect.

Which is why I favour licensing grouse shooting: it’s a compromise between two extremes. It’s not likely to put people out of a job or lose important species, as a ban would, but it also provides would-be raptor killers with an incentive not to do so. It also allows for prosecutions to take much less time, as a perpetrator of wildlife crime can simply have their license revoked, and if licenses are issued to both the keeper and the shooting party, it would avoid the situation in which one is prosecuted for the actions of the other. It’s also worth noting that the UK is far behind in enforcing this, in comparison to continental Europe: France, Spain, Germany, Latvia, Romania, Poland, Norway, Sweden and Denmark, to name a few, all require shooters to have licenses to kill game[5], and all still have thriving shooting industries.

It goes without saying that licensing is not the be all and end all in combatting wildlife crime. Other measures, such as increased powers for conservation charities to investigate crimes, also common in many European countries, also need to be implemented. But it’s a big step in the right direction. Taking the middle ground in an argument rarely feels desirable, and to me can often feel as if it lacks a sense of conviction. In this case, however, I’m happy to make an exception, so that both people an wildlife can get the best deal. If I’ve convinced you that licensing driven grouse shooting is the way, you can sign the e-petition here[6].

1.https://raptorpersecutionscotland.wordpress.com/2018/05/22/three-more-satellite-tagged-hen-harriers-disappear-in-suspicious-circumstances/

2.http://www.peakdistrict.gov.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0005/1055570/Bird-of-Prey-Initiative-2016-17-Report.pdf

3.http://www.snh.org.uk/pdfs/publications/commissioned_reports/904.pdf

4.https://www.birdguides.com/news/hen-harrier-breeding-numbers-in-england-still-at-critical-level/

5.https://raptorpersecutionscotland.files.wordpress.com/2017/02/a-review-of-game-bird-law-licensing-in-selected-european-countries.pdf

6.https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/207482

Edward Grierson: The Importance of Community-Owned Land

For most of July, I was on holiday on the West of Scotland where, during my stay, I visited one particular island twice. This was Eigg, one of the Inner Hebrides, and an island with a remarkable story.

Eigg, having been passed through successive landowners since the 12th century, suffered notorious mismanagement in the 1980s and 1990s. This led the islanders to apply, unsuccessfully, to buy Eigg in 1995. After raising £1.5 million, they applied again in 1997, this time with success. This was an incredible milestone itself, but even more incredible was how the Islanders have since turned their fortunes around.

One small but significant step for the Eigg community was being able to control grazing in Eigg’s hills, allowing them to reduce soil erosion into the sea, formerly a major problem. The community has also expanded several woodlands and planted several new ones. But their most famous achievement was the foundation of Eigg Electric in 2008: established by setting up two hydroelectric dams, four wind turbines and a number of solar panels. Currently, 100% of the island’s electricity comes from renewables.This is, however, more than just one island’s success story, and the success of Eigg highlights the need for greater community ownership of land in this country.

The UK has one of the highest concentrations of land ownership of any nation, with 50% of registered land in England and Wales being owned by 36,000 people or 0.3% of the rural population. Taken by itself, Scotland has the highest land concentration in the world, with 432 families owning half the land.

In Norway, it’s a very different story. Norway’s pattern of land ownership consists largely of communes and smaller family-owned landholdings. Unlike crofters in Scotland, who lease land from private landowners, Norwegian farmers and their families typically own the land they farm on and boast a much more stable financial situation as a result. Perhaps then, we can aspire for Britain to be like Norway?

The good news is that there are many communities across Britain who are thinking along the same lines. Certainly, in Scotland, there has been a growing understanding that people can’t manage land for their benefit if they don’t own it- a movement aided in part by the rights-to-buy laws created by the Land Reform Act of 2003. In Glencansip and Dumrunie estates, bought by the Assynt people in 2005, work is underway to build new crofts – like those we would see in Norway, with farmers able to own the land they farm. In many ways, this movement has also been led by a strong environmental conscience, largely due to growing awareness of the Caledonian Forest and how much we have lost. The aforementioned estates are also looking to restore 40 hectares of hazel woodland, and last year we witnessed the buyout of two former conifer plantations: one in Loch Arkaig and another in Aigas. Both now subject to ambitious plans aiming to restore native broadleaf and Scots pine woodland. As of last year, half a million hectares of Scotland was in community ownership.

In England and Wales, however, there has been less progress. I can’t say why this is, but for whatever reason, and although there has been some progress in the form of a  growing number of community woodlands, the call for community-owned land is less vocal. Perhaps then, it is time for a Land Reform Act for England and Wales – to provide an incentive for communities interested in owning their own land.

Like anything, community-owned land is not without risk, and it is entirely possible for communities to make a dog’s dinner of a buyout. But with an increasing number of communities engaging in discussions about land ownership and plenty of successful buyouts providing templates for success, there is plenty of promise for the future of community-owned land.