RSPB Scotland calls for the licensing of driven grouse moors
Hen harrier by Mark Hamblin (RSPB-images.com)
Birds of prey have been given full protection by the law in Scotland for many decades. There is now a significant body of peer-reviewed scientific evidence; alongside many reported cases of illegal killing of birds of prey; and documented evidence of vacant traditional territories of key raptor species; to show that they are being systematically killed in large swathes of our uplands managed for driven grouse shooting. In the absence of any improvement, and the damaging intensification of some grouse moor management practices, RSPB Scotland is now calling for driven grouse moors to be formally regulated by a cost covering licensing regime.
The illegal killing of our native birds of prey was described as a “national disgrace” by the late first Minister Donald Dewar MSP in 1998. The damage that this activity causes to Scotland’s international reputation, as well as to the populations of the birds of prey themselves, has been repeatedly acknowledged by successive Scottish Government Ministers. Good wildlife protection laws are now in place, but effective enforcement is often lacking since these crimes often take place in remote areas.
RSPB Scotland has worked hard with land management and other partners in PAW Scotland to stamp out illegal practice, however on most driven grouse moors this message seems to fall on deaf ears. The Langholm Demonstration Project www.langholmproject.com is making good progress in showing how sustainable grouse moor management might be achieved. Unfortunately the practical solutions developed at Langholm, including the successful diversionary feeding of hen harriers, have not been widely deployed by the grouse moor sector. Meanwhile, the illegal killing of hen harriers, golden eagles and other protected birds of prey continues unabated.
Instead of delivering the modern day public expectations from sustainable land management practices, many involved with driven grouse moor management have embarked in recent years on ever more intensive practices designed to produce ever increasing grouse bags. This business model has led to burning of vulnerable peatland habitats and Caledonian pinewood regeneration; catching and medicating the iconic wild red grouse against disease; the widespread removal of mountain hares and deer; and the construction of new and intrusive hill-tracks across wild land. These practices do not meet any definition of environmental sustainability.
We welcome new measures introduced by the Scottish Government to bear down on the perpetrators of crime against birds of prey, including “vicarious liability”, designed to make landowners more responsible for the actions of their employees. However, we believe that the time is now long overdue for a step change in our approach. A meaningful deterrent to the persistent illegal killing of birds of prey is required. Whilst Scotland has largely unregulated gamebird hunting and limited sanctions against those who break wildlife laws, in contrast to other European countries, we believe that the entrenched cultural attitudes towards protected birds of prey will persist amongst many in the driven grouse moor sector.
This is why we are now calling for the Scottish Government to develop a system of licensing for driven grouse moor management with effective sanctions, including the removal of sporting rights, against those who break wildlife laws. The welcome review of gamebird management practices in other similar countries that was recently commissioned by the Minister for the Environment and Climate Change should provide a platform to develop a licensing system appropriate to Scottish circumstances. Those who do not break wildlife protection laws should have nothing to fear from such regulation, indeed this approach might be expected to help support those land managers who wish to lead the industry towards good practice.
We often hear about how much these estates contribute to the economy, but I've yet to see actual numbers. I think it would be interesting to be able to compare accurate numbers of jobs and money created, against any government subsidies these estates get.
It would also be interesting to compare this to the potential for wildlife tourism if our uplands contained the number of raptors, mountain hares and other species they should.
Stuart, This approach by the RSPB is to be applauded. I know you have criminal vicarious liability in Scotland but I am personally not in favour, believing it to be bad law.
Introducing a licence approach to this would also introduce a civil form of Vicarious Liability in a similar way to a pub licensee having his/her licence removed in the event of an offence. The use of licences and VL in this manner makes so much more sense to me.
The Cotswold Water park sightings website
My Flicker page