Tag: Shooting

Driven Grouse Shooting: the Bluff’s Been Called, by Les Wallace

This post was originally written for  Bowland Raptor Politics. The thoughts expressed here are those of the author alone and do not necessarily represent my own.

Well with clockwork regularity another season’s fledged hen harriers ‘disappear’ over grouse moor. They’re not even making an effort to throttle back in the face of growing censure in fact they seem to be giving conservationists, the public and the law a bigger two finger salute than ever.  Time to return the gesture, but the thing is we don’t have to resort to breaking the law or raw insult we just have to ask as members of the public for what we always should have had. Given that it’s our taxes and too often politicians that are already supporting driven grouse shooting – we need an independent, comprehensive economic analysis to see if we are giving subsidies to something that actually deserves them.

What’s really keeping grouse moors afloat politically is not the phoney conservation case they put forward with more holes than a Swiss cheese; it’s the phoney jobs one. I know genuine environmentalists who detest driven grouse shooting (DGS) but cannot bring themselves to campaign against it because they truly believe rural communities will be devastated by job losses  –  the threats that families will lose their homes, schools will close and villages die hit home although they are almost certainly not true, but  jobs blackmail works.

Common sense and history, especially of industrial areas that were dependent upon the local steel mill, coal mines or shipyards, tell us that economically as well as ecologically it’s best to be ‘diverse’ – a strong local economy with many elements that can shift and adapt to knocks rather than collapse from one foul stroke of misfortune. This year’s ‘poor’ grouse shooting season where local businesses suffered because grouse chicks haven’t done too well really underlines this. How idiotic it is to depend upon the intensive and extensive ‘management’ of vast swathes of land for something that compromises virtually every other activity that could take place there. Something that can never, ever be for anything other than a tiny minority and doesn’t even have the saving grace of being a spectator sport, something which countries across northern Europe, Asia and America could do with the willow grouse – but no other country in the world will touch with a ten foot barge pole.

To this end government petition 226109 ‘An Independent Study to find if Driven Grouse Shooting is of Economic Benefit’ has been set up. If it reaches 10,000 signatures an official government response will be required which will be very interesting indeed. Official responses to government petitions wanting to ban DGS would typically include some reference that it is a vital contributor to the rural economy – how can it say that in response to a petition asking if that’s true? The Scottish Government is already conducting a wide-ranging review of driven grouse shooting which includes an economic study so it would be very difficult to justify not having one south of the border given the dearth of comprehensive, up to date and independent studies currently – obviously the various ones produced by the grouse shooting sector don’t make the grade except perhaps as comedy material or toilet paper.

To get to the 10,000 mark and hopefully beyond by the closing date of Feb 2nd 2019 is doable, but challenging. Rather ironically (but understandably) it ‘s much, much easier to get lots of signatures  for petitions against animal cruelty and loss of wildlife than it is for an economic study, but if we prove DGS is driving away jobs as much as it is wildlife then it will lose political support and with that its capacity to ‘cull’ mountain hares, get dodgy licenses for killing ravens, to snare, trap and build stink pits, to blame ramblers and raptor workers for scaring off birds of prey while the accusers are killing them illegally, to bulldoze hill tracks to get fat stock brokers on to the moors, to create a fire-prone landscape then say they’ve got to maintain it to reduce fire risk, to pollute and degrade watercourses with muir burn and exacerbate flooding downstream. If they lose the capacity to apply jobs blackmail they lose the grouse moors and with it will go every single one of its cruelties and absurdities.

This might sound like wishful thinking, but the petition isn’t just about getting signatures it’s about making a political point. Considering that pro-DGS organisations repeatedly claim that without it communities will die etc should they not absolutely cock a hoop at the opportunity to get official verification that no one could effectively challenge? Makes you wonder why they didn’t initiate this petition themselves. So it was with great surprise that when I contacted the Moorland Association, National Gamekeepers Organisation, GWCT, BASC and four English moorland forums with the news they now had a petition for an independent study they could and should promote to their heart’s content not only did they not do so, they didn’t even acknowledge my communications! It was if they wanted to pretend the petition didn’t exist. Of course in any subsequent statements, they make re the positive economics of DGS I (and now you) can point out this anomaly – their bluff’s been called.  I also contacted the constituency parties of four of the MPs who stood up in support of DGS at the notorious parliamentary ‘debate’ on the 31st of October 2016 that resulted from Mark Avery’s petition to ban DGS. It was pointed out that they now had the chance to back up their MPs’ assertions by supporting the petition, again absolutely no reaction from any of them. What would the public make of that? Would we be right in saying they are all frightened of the petition, do they believe it’s the DGS nemesis?

If we’ve identified the Achilles Heel of DGS, which for years they’ve tried to make ours, let’s hammer the nail into it just as remorselessly as they kill hen harriers.  Nowhere in the north of England can be very far from a driven grouse moor, we need ‘petition champions’ who will do what they can to raise the issue in the local papers, ask local conservation and environmental groups to support the petition, contact the local branches of the political parties, councillors, ramblers clubs – and in fact anybody that might spend time on the moors, local businesses that might like to know if they’d do better without DGS and might think their family income shouldn’t be dependent on grouse chick productivity, animal welfare charities obviously and no doubt many more you can think of. And if there’s more than one person in a locality doing this – all the better. There cannot possibly be any legitimate objection to a proper economic study of something which receives public subsidy and effects so many directly and indirectly – in fact, all rational individuals should sign it.

Of course getting the public interested in grouse moors when most have very little to do with them is difficult, but rather the point too – they mean so very little to most when they should mean a lot – the places where you really can get away from the big smoke and see amazing wildlife and a genuinely stunning landscape – places where fell runners don’t get caught in snares. Places so much better to visit and live in with more jobs and more wildlife. We could use everything from peat bog restoration to riparian tree planting, and yes even beavers (wouldn’t they draw people into the hills!) in the right places to reduce the effects of flooding and drought downstream, improve water quality and reduce fire risk. With proper ecological restoration, you’d start getting wildlife back including the dramatic raptors, that means far greater scope for wildlife photography, bushcraft and foraging classes – how many people could do these rather than shooting grouse, hundreds, thousands? Better business plus far, far more of us genuinely benefitting from OUR heritage. Imagine a place which still has red grouse, but also hosts bat walks? Then there are conservation working holidays like the two I did in the Forest of Bowland after the end of the grouse shooting as it happens – we spent a fair amount in the local shops, pubs and even the local pantomime, and had a great time!

There are families who don’t want a wood stove because it would look nice and make them ‘carbon neutral’ but because they don’t have access to mains gas – that’s what’s called a legitimate need for woodlot forestry. I’ve stood in Fort William after interviewing families in dire fuel poverty, spending more than 10% of their income trying to heat their homes in a particularly cold and damp climate, looking up at the surrounding hills seeing miles and miles of heather being burnt off – for grouse or sheep or both I’m not sure, but that could have at least been producing logs for people who really struggled to keep their kids warm – that I have to say pissed me off. Better fire in the hearth than fire on the hill – another option for the new mix.

It’s not only about fully-fledged ecotourism it’s also just being better places to walk and picnic in where you’re not a second class citizen because you have nothing to do with grouse shooting. Do any grouse moors have pony trekking on them, even offseason? Not dramatic or original, but I imagine a nice change or opportunity for many people. In my mind’s eye, I’m trying to visualise a group of pony trekkers going across what was a grouse moor, so much nicer than a line of shooters. Of course, the public should be asked to make suggestions, emphasizing the need not to compromise wildlife or the environment, and we can look abroad for ideas too.

We need people to get signatures for the petition and to use it as a catalyst to raise awareness and stimulate debate – we’ve been getting shortchanged for a long, long time. No matter how powerful, pampered and influential the grouse moor owners are they can’t ignore public opinion; for one thing their on a leash MP friends still need to get voted in. As long ago as the 1930s the Kinder Scout trespass showed that people with dedication and right on their side could give the grouse moor owners one hell of a bloody nose. I’m positive that no amount of raptor persecution or mountain hare massacres will ever be enough to get DGS stopped as long as people think doing so means a young family in the street, but turn that round to mean all children are missing out on the chance to see real wildlife and that jobs helping to make that happen are being lost among so many other things due to DGS then it has really had it – and ‘they’ know it.

There’s the story, now cliché really, that Al Capone wasn’t chucked behind bars because he was nabbed for bootlegging, extortion or murder, but for income tax evasion. I think there’s quite a lot of relevance there for DGS and all the missing raptors, damaged moor and lies. Please, please, please get behind the petition at local level – remember the lost harriers, get stuck in and have fun doing it! Thanks.

Links

The petition – https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/226109

The 2017 petition to get the Scottish Government to commission an independent economic study of DGS (carries far more background information than the Westminster one) – http://www.parliament.scot/GettingInvolved/Petitions/PE01663

Labour MP Sue Hayman shadow secretary for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs – her statement regarding the need for full ecological and economic analysis of DGS – https://labourlist.org/2018/08/sue-hayman-its-time-to-end-grouse-moor-practices-that-harm-the-environment/

Glen Tanar –  a rare, but brilliant example of a grouse shooting estate that is genuinely diversifying – the other estates hate it! – https://www.glentanar.co.uk/about

 

Well with clockwork regularity another season’s fledged hen harriers ‘disappear’ over grouse moor. They’re not even making an effort to throttle back in the face of growing censure in fact they seem to be giving conservationists, the public and the law a bigger two finger salute than ever.  Time to return the gesture, but the thing is we don’t have to resort to breaking the law or raw insult we just have to ask as members of the public for what we always should have had. Given that it’s our taxes and too often politicians that are already supporting driven grouse shooting – we need an independent, comprehensive economic analysis to see if we are giving subsidies to something that actually deserves them.

What’s really keeping grouse moors afloat politically is not the phony conservation case they put forward with more holes than a Swiss cheese; it’s the phony jobs one. I know genuine environmentalists who detest driven grouse shooting (DGS) but cannot bring themselves to campaign against it because they truly believe rural communities will be devastated by job losses  –  the threats that families will lose their homes, schools will close and villages die hit home although they are almost certainly not true, but  jobs blackmail works.

Common sense and history, especially of industrial areas that were dependent upon the local steel mill, coal mines or shipyards, tell us that economically as well as ecologically it’s best to be ‘diverse’ – a strong local economy with many elements that can shift and adapt to knocks rather than collapse from one foul stroke of misfortune. This year’s ‘poor’ grouse shooting season where local businesses suffered because grouse chicks haven’t done too well really underlines this. How idiotic it is to depend upon the intensive and extensive ‘management’ of vast swathes of land for something that compromises virtually every other activity that could take place there. Something that can never, ever be for anything other than a tiny minority and doesn’t even have the saving grace of being a spectator sport, something which countries across northern Europe, Asia and America could do with the willow grouse – but no other country in the world will touch with a ten foot barge pole.

To this end government petition 226109 ‘An Independent Study to find if Driven Grouse Shooting is of Economic Benefit’ has been set up. If it reaches 10,000 signatures an official government response will be required which will be very interesting indeed. Official responses to government petitions wanting to ban DGS would typically include some reference that it is a vital contributor to the rural economy – how can it say that in response to a petition asking if that’s true? The Scottish Government is already conducting a wide ranging review of driven grouse shooting which includes an economic study so it would be very difficult to justify not having one south of the border given the dearth of comprehensive, up to date and independent studies currently – obviously the various ones produced by the grouse shooting sector don’t make the grade except perhaps as comedy material or toilet paper.

To get to the 10,000 mark and hopefully beyond by the closing date of Feb 2nd 2019 is doable, but challenging. Rather ironically (but understandably) it ‘s much, much easier to get lots of signatures  for petitions against animal cruelty and loss of wildlife than it is for an economic study, but if we prove DGS is driving away jobs as much as it is wildlife then it will lose political support and with that its capacity to ‘cull’ mountain hares, get dodgy licenses for killing ravens, to snare, trap and build stink pits, to blame ramblers and raptor workers for scaring off birds of prey while the accusers are killing them illegally, to bulldoze hill tracks to get fat stock brokers on to the moors, to create a fire prone landscape then say they’ve got to maintain it to reduce fire risk, to pollute and degrade watercourses with muir burn and exacerbate flooding downstream. If they lose the capacity to apply jobs blackmail they lose the grouse moors and with it will go every single one of its cruelties and absurdities.

This might sound like wishful thinking, but the petition isn’t just about getting signatures it’s about making a political point. Considering that pro DGS organisations repeatedly claim that without it communities will die etc should they not be absolutely cock a hoop at the opportunity to get official verification that no one could effectively challenge? Makes you wonder why they didn’t initiate this petition them selves. So it was with great surprise that when I contacted the Moorland Association, National Gamekeepers Organisation, GWCT, BASC and four English moorland forums with the news they now had a petition for an independent study they could and should promote to their heart’s content not only did they not do so, they didn’t even acknowledge my communications! It was if they wanted to pretend the petition didn’t exist. Of course in any subsequent statements they make re the positive economics of DGS I (and now you) can point out this anomaly – their bluff’s been called.  I also contacted the constituency parties of four of the MPs who stood up in support of DGS at the notorious parliamentary ‘debate’ on the 31st of October 2016 that resulted from Mark Avery’s petition to ban DGS. It was pointed out that they now had the chance to back up their MPs’ assertions by supporting the petition, again absolutely no reaction from any of them. What would the public make of that? Would we be right in saying they are all frightened of the petition, do they believe it’s the DGS nemesis?

If we’ve identified the Achilles Heel of DGS, which for years they’ve tried to make ours, let’s hammer the nail into it just as remorselessly as they kill hen harriers.  Nowhere in the north of England can be very far from a driven grouse moor, we need ‘petition champions’ who will do what they can to raise the issue in the local papers, ask local conservation and environmental groups to support the petition, contact the local branches of the political parties, councillors, ramblers clubs – and in fact anybody that might spend time on the moors, local businesses that might like to know if they’d do better without DGS and might think their family income shouldn’t be dependent on grouse chick productivity, animal welfare charities obviously and no doubt many more you can think of. And if there’s more than one person in a locality doing this – all the better. There cannot possibly be any legitimate objection to a proper economic study of something which receives public subsidy and effects so many directly and indirectly – in fact all rational individuals should sign it.

Of course getting the public interested in grouse moors when most have very little to do with them is difficult, but rather the point too – they mean so very little to most when they should mean a lot – the places where you really can get away from the big smoke and see amazing wildlife and a genuinely stunning landscape – places where fell runners don’t get caught in snares. Places so much better to visit and live in with more jobs and more wildlife. We could use everything from peat bog restoration to riparian tree planting, and yes even beavers (wouldn’t they draw people into the hills!) in the right places to reduce the effects of flooding and drought downstream, improve water quality and reduce fire risk. With proper ecological restoration you’d start getting wildlife back including the dramatic raptors, that means far greater scope for wildlife photography, bushcraft and foraging classes – how many people could do these rather than shoot driven grouse, hundreds, thousands fold? Better business plus far, far more of us genuinely benefitting from OUR heritage. Imagine a place which still has red grouse, but also hosts bat walks? Then there are conservation working holidays like the two I did in the Forest of Bowland after the end of the grouse shooting as it happens – we spent a fair amount in the local shops, pubs and even the local pantomime, and had a great time!

There are families who don’t want a wood stove because it would look nice and make them ‘carbon neutral’ but because they don’t have access to mains gas – that’s what’s called a legitimate need for woodlot forestry. I’ve stood in Fort William after interviewing families in dire fuel poverty, spending more than 10% of their income trying to heat their homes in a particularly cold and damp climate, looking up at the surrounding hills seeing miles and miles of heather being burnt off – for grouse or sheep or both I’m not sure, but that could have at least been producing logs for people who really struggled to keep their kids warm – that I have to say pissed me off. Better fire in the hearth than fire on the hill – another option for the new mix.

It’s not only about fully fledged eco tourism it’s also just being better places to walk and picnic in where you’re not a second class citizen because you have nothing to do with grouse shooting. Do any grouse moors have pony trekking on them, even off season? Not dramatic or original, but I imagine a nice change or opportunity for many people. In my mind’s eye I’m trying to visualise a group of pony trekkers going across what was a grouse moor, so much nicer than a line of shooters. Of course the public should be asked to make suggestions, emphasizing the need not to compromise wildlife or environment, and we can look abroad for ideas too.

We need people to get signatures for the petition and to use it as a catalyst to raise awareness and stimulate debate – we’ve been getting short changed for a long, long time. No matter how powerful, pampered and influential the grouse moor owners are they can’t ignore public opinion; for one thing their on a leash MP friends still need to get voted in. As long ago as the 1930s the Kinder Scout trespass showed that people with dedication and right on their side could give the grouse moor owners one hell of a bloody nose. I’m positive that no amount of raptor persecution or mountain hare massacres will ever be enough to get DGS stopped as long as people think doing so means a young family in the street, but turn that round to mean all children are missing out on the chance to see real wildlife and that jobs helping to make that happen are being lost among so many other things due to DGS then it has really had it – and ‘they’ know it.

There’s the story, now cliché really, that Al Capone wasn’t chucked behind bars because he was nabbed for bootlegging, extortion or murder, but for income tax evasion. I think there’s quite a lot of relevance there for DGS and all the missing raptors, damaged moor and lies. Please, please, please get behind the petition at local level – remember the lost harriers, get stuck in and have fun doing it! Thanks.

Links

The petition – https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/226109

The 2017 petition to get the Scottish Government to commission an independent economic study of DGS (carries far more background information than the Westminster one) – http://www.parliament.scot/GettingInvolved/Petitions/PE01663

Labour MP Sue Hayman shadow secretary for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs – her statement regarding the need for full ecological and economic analysis of DGS – https://labourlist.org/2018/08/sue-hayman-its-time-to-end-grouse-moor-practices-that-harm-the-environment/

Glen Tanar –  a rare, but brilliant example of a grouse shooting estate that is genuinely diversifying – the other estates hate it! – https://www.glentanar.co.uk/about

 

 

Talking to Shooters, by Graham Appleton

Some of my bird watching friends don’t understand why I write for Shooting Times. I explain that, although there is a difference of views on some issues, the bird watching and shooting communities have two key things in common – they value the countryside and the diversity of life it contains. Isn’t it the people who think that fields and woodland are only there to be built upon, fracked under and driven through that birdwatchers should be most concerned about?

The fact that I write for Shooting Times is an accident. When I was the Director of Communications of the British Trust for Ornithology I wrote two articles to promote Bird Atlas 2007-11. After I took early retirement at the end of 2013, I asked the editor if he would like anymore. He asked me to suggest some topics and I have written a monthly article ever since. I don’t often write about species that are on the quarry list but I always try to set my articles in the environments that are managed by wildfowlers, gamekeepers and estate owners. A piece on Tawny Owls was published this month and I am working on an article on the buntings that might be seen in-game cover crops for December.

I enjoy writing about ornithology and Shooting Times provides a knowledgeable and receptive audience. I am assured that gamekeepers, shooters and land-owners want to understand more about bird surveys (undertaken by strange birdwatchers who ask for access to land), bird trends (the winners and losers in the countryside), the effects of introduced species (from muntjac to Canada geese) and some of the quirky things that birds do. The articles can also act as a shop-window for science that makes a difference – whether that be Reading University research into the consequences of providing winter food for Red Kites or how RSPB, SNH and Edinburgh University got together to suggest ways to use agricultural subsidies that can help Corn Buntings.

The UK is small and heavily-populated. There’s no true wilderness. There is not space for single-usage. I want my garden to produce vegetables, lighten my mood and attract wildlife. The farmers around us have similarly mixed motivations, making most of their money from growing crops, receiving credit from the government for leaving space for birds and beetles, and supplementing their income (and the larder) with some Pheasant shooting. I don’t shoot but I enjoy seeing the Buzzards that nest in their woodland, the finches and buntings that explode from their game-cover strips and the Snipe in the rough field next to the river. When we undertake the Breeding Bird Survey on our Norfolk square, all the good birds, such as the Willow Warblers, Yellowhammers and Reed Buntings, are associated with pheasant release areas, game cover crops, thick hedges and the wet field that contains a pond that attracts winter duck and Snipe.

As time has gone on, I have had to ‘explain my actions’ to friends who wanted to try to understand why I am working with ‘the enemy’. So, why do I do it? This is a paid activity but it does not feel any different to be writing for Shooting Times than it does when I write for BBC Wildlife. If Shooting Times was ever to condone illegal activity – by supporting gamekeepers who persecute birds of prey, for instance, then I would stop. They do the opposite – criticising the people who not only break the law but also bring shooting into disrepute.

If you like this post, please consider casting a vote for me in the 2018 ‘Wildlife Blogger of the Year’ competition. You can read my entry, and cast a vote for number 13, here >> http://www.terra-incognita.travel/2018/a-bittersweet-return

In the same way that many birdwatchers are suspicious of shooters and gamekeepers, so gamekeepers are worried when they see birdwatchers on their patches. Some years ago, we were approached by a gamekeeper when we were cutting off the corner between a permissive path and a public footpath.  Had we been walking a dog, I don’t think he would have said anything – he almost told us as much. He keyed in on the binoculars and was concerned that we might be about to tamper with his legally-set crow trap. I wonder how other birdwatchers, who don’t understand what is and is not legal, would have reacted to the decoy Magpie that he was transporting in the back of his truck?

It is so easy to see things in black-and-white, especially on social media but, when you actually look at what is going on in the countryside, you’ll see that practical considerations blur preconceived divisions between birdwatching and shooting. For instance, control measures are used to protect grouse on the moors and nesting waders on nature reserves, with 412 foxes being shot on RSPB reserves in 2014/15. See this link to a blog about this from Martin Harper of RSPB.  Gamekeepers have played an important part in the recovery of the Stone Curlew, many of which nest on arable land that is also used for shooting, and there is an increasing acceptance that, if we are to save Curlews in the uplands, then gamekeepers are best placed to control predators. Foxes may not be the only – or even main – reason for decades of Curlew losses but numbers are not going to recover without intervention. I have written a WaderTales blog about Curlew losses. 

Conservation is best served when birdwatchers and the shooting community work together – which is already happening at local levels throughout the country. The inflammatory statements on social media, from people who seem to ignore this, threaten this cooperation and species recovery plans. I hope that my articles in Shooting Times, which often focus on the work of RSPB, BTO, WWT and GWCT are helping to mend some fences and counterbalance some of the negativity on Twitter and elsewhere. There are discussions to be had – about the impact of shooting on our dwindling population of breeding Woodcock, for instance – but shouting at each other is unlikely to help. In this particular case, have a look at how GWCT are using science to ask questions about the length of the shooting season and even whether the species should continue to be shot. There’s a WaderTales blog about this issue.

Conservation starts with conversation and the birdwatching and shooting communities have a lot that they can usefully talk about. Anyone who makes derogatory comments that imply that a person who carries a gun just has to be evil is alienating a group of people who care about what is happening to the countryside. Many of these gamekeepers, land-owners and sportsmen are people that we, as birdwatchers, can work with and even influence. I’m just trying to keep the conversation going.

You can follow Graham on Twitter @grahamfappleton and read his WaderTales blogs at wadertales.wordpress.com

If you enjoyed this guest post, please consider taking 30-seconds of your time to vote for Common By Nature in the ‘Green and Eco’ and ‘Social Influencer’ categories of the UK Blog Awards 2018. This can be done easily by following this link. I would really appreciate it!

Dwelling on Deer: Culls and Control

There is no way around it, our small island is positively bursting with deer. So many in fact, that the issue of overpopulation and its subsequent implications are up there with the other great threats facing our countryside. And, arguably, of much greater concern than other issues prone to dominating the headlines – many of which, though emotive, result in a much more limited fallout. The issue of overpopulation is under-reported, and when it is tackled in the media, more often than not, coverage is met with a barrage of scornful comments from those who hold Bambi to heart, peeved at the notion of widespread and systematic control. The polarised views of those on both sides of the “deer debate” spilling out again this week when it was announced that the City of London Corporation had decided to allow stalking in Epping Forest.

Like a great many people, I, personally, adore deer. The sight of a Roe buck bounding through a thicket representing one of the most inspiring sights in British nature. I do, however, also believe in deer control, for myriad reasons. Not least due to the impact of overpopulation on the countryside. I believe action must be taken against deer, on a large scale, and fully support ongoing efforts to bring down numbers across various areas of the country – despite my admiration of the beasts themselves. As such, and after catching wind that Muntjac – an invasive deer species from Asia – have been sighted in my local area for the first time in recent memory, I thought I would explain my views on the subject in a little more detail here.

The UK deer population is widely believed to be at its highest level for a millennia, with some sources claiming that numbers have effectively doubled since 1999. With numbers of our native red and roe deer soaring due to the extirpation of their natural predators – the bears, lynx, wolves and so forth which, historically, would have kept numbers in check. And numbers of our non-native species, Fallow, Muntjac, Chinese Water Deer and Sika, also on the up. The overall positive trend in deer numbers attributed, by the Deer Initiative (the body which promotes sustainable management of deer): to milder winters, changes in agriculture, increased woodland cover and greater habitat connectivity. In addition, again, to a lack of natural predators. All in all, there are estimated to be some two-million deer now residing in the UK, though given their elusive nature, there could well be many more.

But what does two-million deer mean for the ecological make-up of Britain? Surely such a monumental increase in native species – in the case of the red and roe, at least – should be celebrated? Well, no actually, it shouldn’t. At least by those who hold the best interests of our countryside to heart.

Deer, much like Beavers, are ecosystem engineers. They shape their habitat through grazing, something which would not pose a problem under normal circumstances, but can have a major impact on woodland ecosystems in the present. Selective browsing by deer hindering the growth of saplings and preventing the natural regeneration of trees. With oak, ash, hazel and rowan often hardest hit, yet not alone. And in Scotland, browsing by Red Deer has been shown to directly impact upon the growth of Scots Pine.

Deer, however, do not just rely on trees as a source of nutrition, and can impede the growth of many woodland shrubs and herbaceous plants. With Muntjac – perhaps the most problematic of our deer species – shown to directly reduce the coverage of species such as bluebell, wood anemone and dog’s mercury. The tendency of deer, when present in numbers, to quickly degrade a woodland, not very good if you are a forester, a rewilder or indeed, a conservationist seeking to restore the state of an SSSI.

Deer do not just impact upon botanical assemblages, however, and through feeding can pose a direct threat to other fauna. Through the removal of habitat, they also threaten invertebrate populations which depend on favoured plant species for food and nectar. Something which, in turn, may lead to a decrease in the number of insectivorous birds within a woodland. With deer also capable of removing the breeding habitat of many more bird species, particularly those that nest close to the ground, in thickets and low-growing shrubs. Indeed, many such birds, including the Nightingale, Willow Warbler and Wood Warbler, are facing substantial declines at present.

Finally, and through similar means, deer also decrease habitat suitability for small mammals. Which, when coupled with the other implications listed above, highlights a clear need for action to combat the problem of overpopulation. Culls are not pretty, they are not enjoyable and they are certainly not something to look upon with pride – we upset the balance after all – but they are necessary when all else has failed. And in the absence of other viable means of control.

There is more, however, and the control of deer populations may also directly benefit the deer themselves – something often claimed by sportsmen, yet dismissed by many disapproving of their antics.

Under normal circumstances – meaning in the presence of predators capable of managing deer populations – many deer would not live through to old age. The sick, the decrepit and often, many of the young taken by carnivores before they can mature. Without such predators, however, deer are living longer, often to the point of tooth erosion as a direct result of their hearty diet. This process happening over time, but ultimately, leading to the loss of said teeth and thus the drawn-out starvation of deer who, otherwise, would have met their end much earlier. With many diseases and infections also bringing about similar results. Control may, in fact, help reduce the number of deer meeting such a grizzly demise and thus benefit their welfare, who would have thought?

Control may also, and this part is solely speculation I hasten to add, provide an answer to the welfare problems predicted when Chronic Wasting Disease (CWD) arrives in Britain. A disease I blogged about quite recently, which for many years has swept unchecked across America, and now, has been confirmed in Norwegian Deer populations. The disease – which isn’t really a disease as such, caused instead by a misfolding protein – resulting a prolonged death as the deer effectively “wastes” away, unable to feed. CWD spreads in a number of ways, through the soil, direct contact and via the ingestion of contaminated food items, and spreads rampantly when deer live in close quarters. Thus, culling – with the aim of thinning out populations – may help reduce the risk of a pandemic, should the disease ever arrive on our shores. Which I sincerely hope it does not. Less deer is better than no deer, right?

I am not anti-deer by a long shot, and I would hate any of those reading this post to interpret my words as such (doubtless some will regardless). I am, however, definitely of the opinion that deer, in their current populous state, require management. And implore anyone opposed to such to read further before giving in to bouts of blind range. Actions such as this, which often appear to be working to the detriment of conservation and welfare, are often far more complicated than they first appear. And in this case, I fear sustainable (yet nationwide) management, may be the only option.

Time to take wading birds off of the menu

This week, Chris Packham, no doubt feeling rather chipper following his exoneration by the BBC Trust over claims of bias put forth by the Countryside Alliance, launched a new petition. One calling for a moratorium on the shooting of critically declining species of wading birds, such Snipe, Golden Plover and Woodcock, in the UK. Stopping short of calling for an all-out ban, favouring instead a halt to the killing, during which proper research into the species declines can be undertaken. I hope, by a non-bias, independent body – not one that stands to benefit directly from the shooting industry. Naming no names of course.

Writing on the government petitions site, Chris highlights the woeful trends at the heart of the campaign: with Woodcock declining by 76% over the past 25 years and Snipe by 89% during a similar time frame. Going on to draw attention to the similar crash in Britain’s population of Golden Plover – which between 1993 and 2013 declined by 17% and 25% in England and Scotland respectively.

This petition has been widely welcomed on social media by conservationists, myself included, and has already gained over 2900 signatures during its first 24 hours. Though not all have welcomed it, with the Game and Wildlife Conservation Trust (GWCT) suggesting that a moratorium would result in the direct loss of suitable breeding habitat for Woodcock, with species-specific woodland management likely stalling with shooters unable to pursue their chosen quarry.

Personally, and this is just my opinion, nothing more – I agree in full with logic behind the aforementioned petition. I have signed it, and will encourage anyone else I come across to do the same. This issue has long been horribly underreported – doubtless overlooked amid the clamour regarding driven grouse shooting and hen harriers. Though, to me, it is of paramount importance and ultimately comes down to the need to reassess what counts as “fair game” for shooters in Great Britain. And why, in our day and age, we are still shooting wading birds in the first place.

Chris has already pointed out the downward population trends associated with the three quarry species listed above. They are all suffering, due, no doubt to a range of factors, with habitat management likely at the heart of the issue. Shooting, however, can no be ruled out as a factor. And even the GWCT who are, as their name suggests, altogether pro-shooting, have published findings suggesting that 17% of the Woodcock shot during the open season are indeed British breeding birds. As opposed to migrants, thus at odds with the commonly peddled line put forth by shooters. Who are we then to say that this is not having a detrimental impact on the overall breeding population of Woodcock? If anything, the lack of knowledge on the subject justifies the need for further, impartial research – which is exactly what the petition calls for. We cannot afford to keep killing without knowledge of the consequences, with this situation baring an all too familiar resemblance to the tale of the Grey Partridge. A species which, despite a prolonged and worrying decline, was still shot on mass until fairly recently.

The research undertaken during the proposed moratorium could go two ways, it could suggest that shooting is indeed a factor in the decline of said species, and thus highlight the need for a ban. Something I would support. We did, after all, stop shooting Capercaillie when we realised they were in serious trouble, with the same currently happening with Black Grouse. Why then are we ignoring the woeful decline of our wading birds?

Of course, it would also go the other way, and suggest that shooting is not, in fact, detrimental to wader populations. It would not hurt to know either way, and personally, I find the GWCT’s opposition to the idea completely ludicrous. Especially seeing as such a study could work in their favour and prove their prior assumptions correct. A doubtful prospect, but a possibility…

And then we come to the argument in favour of shooting wading birds, if in fact there is one – I am yet to see a convincing argument put forth to justify the killing. With tradition the only possible explanation for the continued actions of the shooting fraternity. Though tradition itself is, in my opinion, not sufficient to justify slaughter absent thought of the wider implications. And if the hunting act has taught us anything, it is that traditions, however firmly rooted in British culture, can be broken. But anyways…

 I cannot help but believe that the economic argument put forward in defence of Grouse shooting is somewhat void in the the case of waders. Shooting itself is a rather niche hobby, and among shooters it is only a minority which actively hunt wading birds. Making the killing of Woodcock and so forth a niche hobby within a niche hobby. Few, I suspect, pay huge sums to take part in the act, and as these are entirely wild birds, unlike Pheasants which require yearlong care, few people are employed to facilitate the hobby. It is economically insignificant. And does not, in any way, shape or form, bring in “huge” sums of money to rural communities.

These species are also, unlike other game birds, not particularly famed for their culinary uses. Sure, a few hunters doubtless consume their catch out of principal, but you rarely see Snipe for sale in Supermarkets, or indeed your local butchers. The shooting for food argument is similarly obsolete in this case.

Can shooters then argue, as the GWCT does, that shooting such species benefits there conservation status? Well, not in my opinion. As despite the best efforts of hunters to maintain enough suitable habitat to benefit their crop, the birds continue to decline. And if a future ban ever came to fruition, some species-specific legislation could make management for these species compulsory. Thus rendering the “conserve to kill” argument obsolete.

There is, of course, also the argument that centres on the moral side of things. And many doubtless would rather see their Golden Plover or Snipe alive, as opposed to dead. I, however, will leave this argument for someone else to tackle.

I firmly believe it is time to reassess what hunters can, and cannot kill in the British Isles. But in the absence of a complete ban, would settle for a moratorium that would allow the effects of shooting on our declining waders to be properly assessed. As such, could I ask anyone who happens across this blog to please consider signing the petition below:

https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/167410

A focus on Black Grouse decline

The Black Grouse (Tetrao tetrix) is, by far, my favourite upland bird. A vision of unrivalled beauty, clad in flamboyant plumage and boasting a surprisingly timid demeanour. A species which, each year, leks its way into my heart as I make my annual pilgrimage to view the birds in their upland realm. Usually at RSPB Geltsdale, or, should the mood take me, the Scottish Highlands. Grey hen or black cock, it matters not, and many it seems share my affection for the bubbly jock – a local nickname bestowed upon it in parts of Scotland, in reference to the bubbling call of amorous males. And many, like me, seek them out whenever possible. Ventures that sadly, increasingly result in failure, as like many other British species, the Black Grouse finds itself ensnared in a downwards spiral. Our population of this charismatic game bird, plummeting, year on year. A historic decline that continues until this day, and one that I thought I would look atin this post.

Black Grouse – RSPB (http://www.rspb.org.uk/joinandhelp/otherwaystohelp/famousblackgrouse.aspx)

A History of Declines

The historic decline of the Black Grouse is well documented. An all too familiar tale of human ignorance, inactivity and the resulting decline of an iconic species.

Once a familiar sight across much of Britain, present in quantities enough to sustain shooting on a level wholly unheard of today, grouse populations began to plummet during the latter half of the 19th century. Across much of the species range within the UK. Remaining somewhat numerous until the 1970’s, where a rough estimate put their numbers at somewhere in the region of 10,000 to 100,000 birds. Though it is thought that the real number fell well within the lower portion of this range. The species, subject to a 28% reduction in range between 1968 and 1988 alone.

 Once a familiar sight across much of Britain, present in quantities enough to sustain shooting on a level wholly unheard of today, grouse populations began to plummet during the latter half of the 19th century, across much of its range within the UK. Remaining somewhat numerous until the 1970’s, where a rough estimate put their numbers at somewhere in the region of 10,000 to 100,000 birds – though this is thought that the real number fell well within the lower portion of this range. The species, subject to a 28% reduction in range between 1968 and 1988.

Since the time of these early surveys, grouse populations have continued to free fall, until fairly recently. The overall population of this iconic species declining from an estimated 25,000 lekking males in 1990, to just 6510 in 1996 (SNH, 2016). With an average rate of decline of 10% per year. Mirroring regional trends across the UK: with only 139 lekking males recorded in Wales during 1997, and widespread declines across parts of Scotland. Though it was the English population that suffered the most. With recent regional extinctions in Staffordshire and Lancashire and the complete failure to find any remaining birds in areas subject to previous extinctions. Including the New Forest and Exmoor, where grouse persisted until the 1960’s. Indeed, some estimates suggest that, at present, the Black Grouse population in some areas is continuing to fall each year, with annual declines of between 10-40% observed.

It should be noted, that Black Grouse in some areas have recovered somewhat in recent times. With surveys in 2002 and 2006 showing an increase in numbers in Northern England, from 773 males to 1029, and exceptional increases observed in the Yorkshire dales between 1998 and 2006. The latter increase estimated to stand somewhere in the region of 128%. Though, in more recent years, this population seems to have declined, once more, to within the region of 700 males.

More recently still, the Welsh grouse population increased to around 328 birds, with similar (yet isolated) increases observed in parts of Scotland, including Dumfries and Galloway. Despite these recent gains, however, the Black Grouse remains one of Britains most threatened birds species and a BAP (Biodiversity Action Plan) priority species. With the British population of increasing significance, given the wider declines taking place across Europe – where the species has decreased catastropically across much of its known range.

Causes of the Decline

There are many catalysts for the decline of the Black Grouse. With habitat loss, perhaps the most pressing. And overgrazing, by both sheep and deer, thought to be a major contributing factor. Specifically, across areas of heath and grassland favoured by Black Grouse – where increasing numbers of ungulates remove much of the cover grouse broods utilise to feed. The loss of botanical elements such as Bilberry and birch scrub proving particularly  detrimental. Elsewhere, agricultural intensification across formerly arable areas is also thought to have removed an important food source for some grouse populations. And a subsequent loss of invertebrate life in some places is also thought to be a contributing factor – with insects of particular importance to grouse chicks. (See here for more information).

Habitat loss and degradation also extend to wooded areas favoured by Black Grouse, particularly conifer plantations. Many of which, until fairly recently, provided a refuge for the species. It is thought that young plantations, such as those planted within the second half of the 20th century, typically benefit grouse numbers, supporting a dense understory of heather and Bilberry. These plantations typically mature within 10-15 years, however, thus shading out this understory and removing both nesting habitat and a food source for grouse. An increasingly common trend in current times as timber plantations, planted in past decades, reach fruition. While conifer plantations, in their infancy, may bolster populations, it is accepted that, overall, afforestation may have contributed to an overall decrease in habitat suitability for Black Grouse.

Habitat fragmentation is likely also a factor in recent declines, with many grouse populations now hemmed up in areas that favour their needs. And separated, sometimes by great distances, from other populations. This reduces genetic diversity, leads to inbreeding and, over-all, means that the most isolated colonies are unlikely to persist much longer. (SNH, 2016).

In addition to habitat loss, it is also thought that shooting could have played a part in the decline of the Black Grouse. Shooting which, despite low numbers, continues until this day – between the 20th of August and the 10th of December each year. While most estates that still possess Black Grouse do not harbour numbers enough to sustain driven shoots, of the kind seen in previous centuries, a number of birds are shot each year on walk-up days. And more still are killed accidentally, due to mistaken identity, often during driven shoots for Red Grouse. Particularly greyhens, which may appear somewhat similar to the untrained eye. To combat this, some estates now impose a fine for any Black grouse killed in this way, though these are likely not enough to provide a serious deterrent. Illegal shooting, for trophy birds, has also been reported at Black Grouse leks in recent years and is seen as serious wildlife crime.

In addition to the factors listed above, a number of other issues have been linked to the decline of this iconic bird. With predation foremost among them. Indeed, species such as Fox, Stoat and Carrion Crow are thought to have a profound impact on grouse numbers in some places, while links have also been found to Pine Marten. Particularly during studies in Northern Europe which showed grouse numbers to increase immediately after the removal of martens (Angelstam 1984; Willebrand 1988). This is likely the reason that some  of our healthiest grouse populations now persist on moorland estates – where such predators (with the exception of martens) are vigorously controlled.

Other issues associated with the collapse of the Black Grouse population includes deer fencing – with which the birds collide with some frequency – and weather. And it is clear, that despite recent gains, and the tireless work of conservation bodies, more must be done to bring this species back from the brink. With the shooting of “black game” becoming increasingly rare and habitat slowly being reinstated, there may well be hope for the future. And I, for one, long for the day that the bubbly jock once more roams the length and breadth of upland Britain.Optimistic? Perhaps…

The historic decline of the Grey Partridge

Living where I do, secluded in a reasonably rural area of Northumberland, Grey Partridge (Perdix perdix) are still, thankfully, rather abundant. Indeed, many an evening stroll is accompanied by the guttural croaks of amorous male partridge and any venture into nearby farmland carries the risk of a mini-heart attack, induced by erupting covey’s vacating their grassy abodes. Up here in the North, you would be forgiven for assuming that this species is actually doing rather well – they are certainly easy enough to come by, all be it with a little effort. The fact of the matter remains however that the Grey Partridge, once one of our commonest and most widespread game birds, has declined massively. The history of this charismatic farmland denizen an overtly solemn one and the future of this much loved species, still undecided.

Historic declines 

The Grey Partridge was once the most widespread and heavily exploited game bird in the UK; its historic fondness for grassy steppe habitats allowing it to adapt readily to cultivated ecosystems. Indeed, during the 18th and 19th century, aided by an increase in arable farming, land enclosure and widespread predator control the partridge population expanded considerably. So much so that between 1870 and 1930, upwards of two million Grey Partridge were shot in the UK each year (Tapper, 1992). The latter representing a number that may, at first, sound unsustainable but one that had little impact on the overall population ofP.perdix at the time- a testament to the health of the UK population in the last century.

Like many farmland bird species, the Grey Partridge has not fared well in modern times (Tucker and Heath, 1994) – the population high prior to 1930 now, sadly, a thing of the past. This species has declined across the length and breadth of Europe, showing a decrease in population size ranging from 1% to 80% between 1990 and 2000 (Kuijper et al, 2009) with the UK showcasing one of the most pronounced downward trends. The decline of P.perdixappears to have taken place in three distinct stages; a stable period characterized by high hunting bags, often 100 partridge per square kilometer between 1793 and 1950 followed by a rapid decline between 1950 and 1970 (Kuijper et al, 2009). The latter made apparent by a sharp decrease in the size of hunting bags (Potts & Aebischer, 1995). The third and final stage, from 1970 until the present day, shows a slower, gradual decline in partridge numbers across much of the UK (Potts, 1986). For once, the reasons for this decline appear clear and much research has been carried out on the subject, some of which I will attempt to summarizes here.

The initial decline (1950-1970) 

The initial population crash, the one that took place in the UK between 1950-70 has been largely attributed to a rapid decrease in chick survival rate (Kuijper et al, 2009) – something observed right across Europe during the first years of partridge decline (Potts, 1986). This apparent increase in mortality coincided with an increase in the use of pesticides to prevent agricultural crop damage, among these; herbicides, insecticides and fungicides. Whereas prior to 1950 only 7% of crops were sprayed in this manner, by 1965 more than 90% were exposed to pesticides (Potts, 1986) – coinciding perfectly with the drop in partridge numbers. Such chemicals may affect birds in a number of ways, firstly through direct poisoning of the partridge themselves though little evidence exists to support this theory and instead the indirect implications of pesticide use are thought to have played a bigger role (Kuijper et al, 2009).  Such pesticides have been shown to directly affect adult partridge through the removal of preferred food sources, among these; chickweed and black bindweed, and the removal of insect prey on which partridge chicks depend. A number of studies, including those of Moreby et al (1994) and Taylor et al (2006) have found a direct link between pesticide use and chick food availability – supporting the conclusions of Potts (1986) and others. As it stands, pesticides and their associated impact on the food chain in farmland ecosystems may well be the driving factor behind the decline of the Grey Partridge in the UK.

Habitat loss is also cited as a major factor in the pre-1970 decline of Grey Partridge in the UK (Kuijper et al, 2009; Potts 1986). During these initial crashes, habitat quality in agricultural ecosystems began to deteriorate; hedgerows and unmanaged areas largely removed as farming practices intensified. This removed vital breeding habitat for Grey Partridge who depend on such cover for protection from predators (Rands, 1987). Of course, the removal of such habitats also removed yet another valuable food source and thus can be closely linked with previous talk of chick mortality. In short, the way we managed our farmland prior to 1970 was irafutably to blame for the decline of P.perdix. But what about post-1970?

The continued decline (1970-present) 

Whereas pesticides and habitat alteration and the resulting decrease in chick survival rate were surely to blame for declines prior to 1970, studies have shown these are not responsible for the continued decline in modern times (Potts & Aebischer, 1995). Instead it is believe that a decline in nesting success is to blame for this sustained downward trend, increased predation to blame for a rise in both the mortality of incubating hens and the eggs themselves (Kuijper et al, 2009). This increase coinciding with a decrease in gamekeeping operations and thus, predator control since the 1970s (Potts, 1986) – the resurgence of corvids, mustelids and foxes likely limiting partridge breeding success in many areas. It therefore stands to reason that Grey Partridge do indeed benefit from gamekeeping operations and the subsequent predator control that takes place – something not to dissimilar to the situation with breeding waders on driven grouse shoots. One study in particular, conducted by Tapper et al (1996) showed a 3.5 fold increase in Partridge numbers on a site where predators where intensively managed – concluding that control of natural predators is a viable conservation tool alongside habitat restoration and reduced pesticide use.

Whereas the game shooting industry does have to potential to benefit P.perix it should be noted that shooting operations may also have factored into the decline of the species (Kuijper et al, 2009). The release of both Ring-Necked Pheasant and Red-Legged Partridge – now a very common practice – can be detrimental to partridge stocks (Tomkins et al, 2000). Pheasants and Grey Partridge share a common parasite, the caecal nematode, which while having little effect on pheasants has been shown to reduce the body condition of partridge -likely resulting in reduced breeding success (Tomkins et al, 2000). The continued release of these two species also leads to many wild Grey Partridge getting caught up in shooting drives and can lead to unsustainable levels of adult mortality (Watson et al, 2007). As a result of this, partridge declines have been more pronounced one estates that rear and release these species (Aebischer and Ewald, 2004). Finally, Leo et al (2004) concluded that shooting has in fact lead to the localized extinction of many Grey Partridge populations and threatens many more. It should be noted however, that banning the shooting of Grey Partridge could be counter productive and may not actually help halt the decline. The impacts of shooting and the benefits of predator control balancing each other out somewhat in certain locations (Watson et al, 2007).

Conclusion 

The decline of the Grey Partridge in the UK (and across Europe) can be attributed to a number of causes. Firstly; low chick survival due to habitat loss and the increased used of pesticides leading to steep population declines prior to 1970. Though steps have been taken to counteract these measures, partridge continue to decline – the latter drop in numbers being attributed to an increase in natural depredation, at all stages of the birds life cycle. Furthermore, conflict with invasive pheasants and over-shooting – at times inadvertently, may be limiting the recovery of this species.

Much is now being done to counteract the worrying decline of this iconic farmland bird, the Game and Wildlife Conservation Trust in particular biting the bullet and trying to halt the trend. If you yourself wish to do something to benefit this species, taking part in the GWCT’s Partridge Count Scheme or helping out with localised counts would be a good place to start. Information on both of these found here. http://www.gwct.org.uk/research/species/birds/grey-partridge/. I shall touch on the subject in more depth in the future but looking at the causes the means to protect our remain partridge remain clear. Replenish degraded habitat, switch to a more organic way of farming (as many have done) and, perhaps more controversially, manage predators in areas where partridge populations are at particular risk. The issue with pheasants is a little harder to tackle and it would certainly be interesting to see just what is having a greater impact on partridge stocks – parasite transmission via  pheasants, or depredation. It may not be possible to control both these factors in the same areas, one seemingly at odds with the other, though with more research perhaps a means to do this may become clear.

Image Credit: Grey Partridge – CC BY-SA 3.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=79300