As we approach the publication of the long-awaited independent review of grouse moor management in Scotland, the so called “Werritty Review”, which is looking at how grouse moors in Scotland can be managed sustainably and within the law, Duncan Orr-Ewing, Head of Species and Land Management at RSPB Scotland reflects on why we have reached this point.
Where is the grouse moor leadership? Why the Werritty Review must bring change
A question I often ask myself is where is the leadership in the grouse moor community which is failing to curb ever more excessive and downright illegal behaviours? How have we reached the point, where the Police have described certain aspects of grouse moor management as “organised crime”?
When I first walked the Inverness-shire and Morayshire grouse moors in the 1990s, I saw that raptors and other predators were routinely eradicated. However, this said, at that time some grouse moors still had breeding hen harriers, which would not be the case now. Even the red kites that I was monitoring were routinely illegally poisoned, mainly on grouse moors, and despite the fact that they posed no threat to grouse. Prejudice against all species of raptors in these areas ran deep. Intimidation of those monitoring raptors was frequent. When red kites were in farmland areas they generally thrived, and the on the ground relationships were completely different.
Move forward to today, and the grouse moor picture in Scotland has not improved, indeed in my view it has got worse. One of the primary drivers for this fact is that private investors have got involved in grouse moor management, and have gradually taken over many of Scotland's grouse moors. These individuals may be passionate about grouse shooting, however they are also looking to make commercial returns, and to increase the capital value of sporting assets. To achieve these objectives there appear to be few scruples, and quite often breaking the law is not seen as a barrier to progress. Indeed, there is often a complete disregard for the public imperatives in the way such land is managed. I struggle to think of how other forms of land use, such as farming and forestry, would get away with such excessive, illegal, and unsustainable behaviours.
It is precisely these excessive behaviours that have prompted the Werritty Review, especially the long-standing problem of the illegal persecution of raptors on grouse moors. The Werritty Review must now come up with some strong recommendations to tackle these criminal behaviours, and the Scottish Government should then take firm action, otherwise the campaign for justice will continue and grow. The REVIVE event last week in the Scottish Parliament demonstrated that otherwise the voices for reform of grouse moors are simply going to get louder and louder, with more organisations and people involved . This issue will not simply “go away”. When I started being involved with raptor conservation for RSPB Scotland, the public agenda was all about dealing with the perceived “raptor problem” (for example the DETR Raptor Working Group Report 2000) whereas now the public focus is clearly, and quite rightly, on the “grouse moor problem”.
So what are the main objectives of a modern grouse moor?
To maximise grouse production is the primary objective. Today's Scottish grouse moors aim for autumn densities of grouse at over 200 per square kilometre. In England 200 grouse per square kilometre would be seen as a poor return, and over 300 per square kilometre would be expected.
The former benchmark for driven grouse shooting was an autumn density of 60 per sq km, as referenced by Peter Hudson of the GWCT. At the Langholm Moor Demonstration Project 2008-18, we achieved an autumn density of grouse of nearly double the Hudson benchmark, using only legal means, and still that was not regarded as sufficient for modern day driven shooting and “investment” purposes. The project target was set to achieve a commercial return, however should that actually be an appropriate measure for wild gamebird hunting of the future? Personally, I find this an appropriate measure for what is supposed to be a wild gamebird hunting experience. At Langholm driven grouse shooting could have happened, with numbers of grouse well above previous GWCT thresholds, and entirely legally! It seems that any higher densities of grouse may only be delivered by illegal means, and establishing this fact is a useful outcome of the project. Hopefully, the Werrity Review has taken note!
How are these excessive grouse numbers achieved?
The current gamekeeper currency that I hear most often is that “it is not about how many predators you have it is about how many you have left”. This is hardly a modern attitude towards sustainability! So near complete eradication of predators, by legal or illegal means is a vital part of the gamekeeper toolbox. Many grouse moors in Scotland put out hundreds of traps, and many thousands of ground and airborne predators are killed each year. New technology such as thermal imaging gear and night vision scopes have allowed gamekeepers to target all forms of predators throughout the night. This is industrial management of predators at an extraordinary scale.
Since the 1990s, the management of grouse diseases has become a paramount consideration. The use of medicated grit to prevent worm diseases in grouse has revolutionised the sport. No longer do we have natural grouse population cycles caused by parasites, and a wild bird is treated with veterinary medicines without any proper public discussion. Ticks carry the virus, louping ill, so host species such as deer and mountain hares are systematically removed despite no scientific evidence of benefit to red grouse. In addition, sheep have been introduced to grouse moors to act as “tick mops”, with little regard it appears in many cases for livestock welfare.
Burning of heather to produce young heather shoots on which grouse feed, has increased. More areas of heather are being burned, and on an increasing rotation. Many grouse moors, that I now walk on have no deep heather, only short heather.
Why do we now need the Werritty Review and the Scottish Government to address these issues?
The time has clearly come for change, and for the public as well as the private interest in grouse moor management to be recognised. I argue that change would also actually be for the benefit of those who wish to act responsibly, but at present have no opportunity to “stick their head above the parapet” without retribution. A framework, such as licensing, for grouse shooting provides such safeguards for both the public and private interests in the way grouse moors are managed in the future. Many of us recognise that grouse moors can be good places for wading birds, and black grouse, but this cannot be at all costs. In almost every other country in Europe gamebird hunting is properly regulated and this provides a safe framework for such conversations, ensuring that both the public and private interests in game management are understood. Otherwise and in the absence of change, it is my view that “driven” grouse shooting as currently practiced has no future. Change will come either now, as we hope with the Werrrity Review, or within the next decade. In this context, it should be time for the grouse moor sector, and particularly its leaders and representative organisations, to stand up and do the right thing, something they have completely failed to do to date.