Licensing driven grouse shooting: the case for change

Red Grouse, (c) Ben Andrew, 2022


This blog is written by Imogen Taylor, RSPB Policy Officer, and delves into the need for licensing of driven grouse shooting as a pragmatic and sensible step forward.


As Jeff Knott reflected in his blog last month all it not well in the UK’s uplands, its mountains, moors, hills, and valleys, are under threat. These amazing landscapes, shaped by time and the communities which call them home, are truly unique places. And whether it’s our National Parks, AONBs or wider countryside, people want to see wildlife thrive and the environment be in a better state for future generations. However, years of intensive management, especially for game shooting, farming and forestry, have damaged the uplands leaving them unable to deliver all they could for nature, people or the climate.


Picture of a thriving Uplands for all

Peatbog, (c) Nicholas Rodd, 2019


Considering the scale and apparent wildness of our uplands, we should expect to see more species diversity and greater abundance but instead it’s a trajectory of decline, with Black Grouse, Hen Harrier, Ring Ouzel and Mountain Ringlet all at risk. The uplands should be diverse and colourful, full of song, and soggy underfoot.

The biggest risk to nature is overwhelmingly loss and degradation of critical habitats, and the uplands are no different. The way the land is used and managed matters.

Alongside nature, we also know that the supply of drinking water, flood protection, carbon sequestration, farming, tourism, country pursuits, renewable energy, and forestry all integrate into upland life. There is a wealth of social, economic, and environmental benefits that should be sustainably delivered.


The Impacts of driven grouse shooting

Muirburn, Birse Estate, (c) Ian Francis, 2016


Driven grouse shooting is a sport that has become almost unrecognisable from its roots and unlike most types of land management, has little regulation. Where production of grouse for shooting has reached truly industrial scales, this has clearly come at great cost to areas of land that could otherwise deliver astonishing benefits for climate and nature. Driven grouse shooting is simply not sustainable at these levels, the monocultures it creates are a continued step in the wrong direction when what we need is a healthy ecosystem underpinned by sustainable land management.

Some of the intensive, and sometimes illegal management practices include:


- The ongoing illegal persecution of birds of prey

- The impact of burning on peatland flora and fauna, water flows and carbon storage and emissions

- The use of veterinary medicines for treatment of wild birds at scale through medicated grit

- The construction of hill tracks in sensitive habitats

- The use of toxic lead ammunition for shooting


We do see hope and progress in parts of the shooting community, and a growing number are seeing licencing as the sensible, proportionate solution to fall in line with global commitments to reach Net Zero, restore nature and achieve parity with sporting regulations in other European countries. Licensing was recommended to tackle wildlife crime by a United Nations report commissioned by the Governments of the UK, and the Scottish Government is committed to delivering licencing of driven grouse shooting and has introduced the Wildlife Management and Muirburn (Scotland) Bill to that end.


Why licencing is our preferred option?

Our uplands need to be places where nature can flourish with a rich diversity of wildlife and deliver vital services for nature, climate and people. If driven grouse shooting is to have any place in that future, licensing is the only way forward.

We believe that the introduction of a licencing system is the most effective way to swiftly reduce the damaging impacts of grouse moor management whilst also delivering for those in the shooting community who support change. Game shooting, and specifically management for driven grouse shooting, is a land use which like all others would benefit from frameworks and legislation that reinforces sustainable practices, progressive standards, and responsible accountability.

There are many voices advocating for a ban, stating the environmental benefits, but assessment of the economic and social impacts of future options for grouse moor management shows there would be an immediate effect on the local rural economy and an effect on some species that benefit from grouse moor management. Licensing is a pragmatic option which should be able to command support from all reasonable voices in this debate. Through licencing, shooting could continue, more sustainable shoots would become the standard, and environmental outcomes would ultimately improve for everyone.

The RSPB is calling for all political parties to commit to the introduction of licencing for driven grouse shooting.

 



Further Reading


6431.8510.8270.Time For Change Report 2023.pdf

Parents
  • There is a relatively simple answer to the question of whether it's the managed Grouse Moors or the Conservation managed Moors which provide the greater selection of prospering wildlife.

    Let was take one representative from both camps,  and let them,  complete with an unbiased adjudicator from,  let's say someone from the BTO and then another with a relatively simple recording system,  have the party set out record from a variety of sites,  those managed for supposedly opposing intentions,  and let us have a clear and unequivocal record of what is reported …. following the damning report last year and from the very Warden of Lake Vernwy,  perhaps those who support the current RSPB stance would care to nominate other sites that they have under their control,  so dire was the report in question.

    Let us,  once and for all,  set aside the claims and counter claims as to the success,  or otherwise,  of the varying approaches to environmental management systems and then ~ let us all pull together in the same direction and let us all support the system which provides our Society wit the reward which it deserves and needs,  that of an enhanced wildlife management programme. 

    If my suggestion is taken up,  then the simple visiting of two sites wouldn't be enough to establish any real clarity,  I feel.  The study would need to have agreed protocols attached and would probably need a variety of different sites with their attendant and previously recorded successes and failures.  

    Let us put behind us the various accusations and counter claims,  let us place on record the visual and recorded results.  What say the rest of us? ……..

  • "Putting on record" the ecological impact of various management regimes, using standarised assessment tools and protocols, is what already happens in the many studies that make up the scientific literature. A 2016 review by Thompson et al provides a fair summary (easily accessed by a google search). They conclude that there are a few criteria by which moorland management for driven grouse shooting has a potential benefits, but that in prctice, these are usually outweighed by the negative impacts.

Comment
  • "Putting on record" the ecological impact of various management regimes, using standarised assessment tools and protocols, is what already happens in the many studies that make up the scientific literature. A 2016 review by Thompson et al provides a fair summary (easily accessed by a google search). They conclude that there are a few criteria by which moorland management for driven grouse shooting has a potential benefits, but that in prctice, these are usually outweighed by the negative impacts.

Children
  • Your suggestion doesn't answer any important questions or solve any problems. You start from the point of view that grouse shooting is inherently 'justified', which it isn't. It is, in and of itself, harmful.

    The practices used to provide grouse shooting are not and could not, in any way, be described as 'conservation'. They are simply a land management technique designed to produce as many grouse as possible at the expense of any living thing (plant or animal) that gets in the way of that result.

    One of the greatest propaganda tricks of the 'recreational killing industry' is to convince people that it is somehow 'the natural state of affairs'. It isn't. It is simply an industry conducted for profit, exploiting the natural environment for the amusement of a tiny minority of wealthy individuals.

    So suggesting that this be compared with an area under conservation management is disingenuous. Firstly, a much wider sample of both types of area would need to be studied but whatever the results, it's clear that even a badly managed conservation area is intrinsically less harmful than burning heather and peat, spraying toxic lead all over the ground and into our water courses, slaying every conceivable predator, leaving out medicated grit that is toxic to other species and preventing the wider public from gaining physical and mental exercise to improve their lives.

    Killing things for ‘fun’ is not conservation. Burning, trapping, shooting and poisoning things to create more living targets so that they can be killed for ‘fun’ is not conservation. That some conservation organisations are occasionally guilty of some of these things does not make them comparable to the shooting industry.

    It needs to stop and people - the RSPB especially - need to stop appeasing the shooting industry and acting as their part time apologists...