Thought this had nothing to do with biodiversity and climate? Think again
FOR communities across rural Scotland, the Glorious Twelfth feels particularly good this year. After two years of pandemic-fuelled restrictions and uncertainty, it is great to be back in business.
Of course, the start of the grouse shooting season is wrapped up in the whole debate about country sports. But for folk in rural Scotland it is a date that affects jobs, livelihoods, tourism, hospitality and a host of service businesses.
Most of the general public hardly give grouse shooting a second thought. When they have been asked their opinion, they’re fairly clear they prefer to see defined benefits from shooting, such as grouse being eaten in restaurants, pubs and hotels.
It’s worth noting that the only grouse shot between now and December are part of a surplus and are shot to sustain healthy population numbers.
This takes us into the arena of conservation and, sadly, August 12 marks a pivotal date in a conservation battleground.
The fight for Scotland’s uplands has never been more combative. Grouse shooting is not everyone’s cup of tea and everyone is entitled to their opinion. However, for the activists who have grouse shooting firmly in their sights and are campaigning for an end to moorland management, there can be no middle ground.
They do not care that people who live and belong in rural communities would lose their livelihoods. Nor do they care that the multiple environmental and conservation benefits that come with good moorland management would be lost. In their eyes, that is a price worth paying for a cause rooted in loathing for what they see as ‘an elite sport’. The solution, they decree, is to do nothing. Leave our uplands alone and all will be well. Nature will take care of itself.
These arguments are waning fast because study after study is showing that it is grouse moor management – paid for by landowners and delivered by gamekeepers – that is delivering crucial biodiversity net-gains.
For example, the careful control of generalist predators, such as foxes, stoats, corvids and weasels, is offering a fundamental lifeline to ground-nesting birds that are in national decline. These include iconic species such as curlew and lapwing, without which our upland soundscape would be sombre and melancholy.
BEYOND this, there is recognition that moorland management cuts the risk of wildfire. The burning of heather in cooler months – muirburn – is reducing fuel loads and creating fire breaks, keeping us and our carbon-storing peatlands safe in a warming climate.
The science for moorland management – and grouse shooting – is compelling. But what happens when moorland management ceases to exist? One estate I know of boasted 654 pairs of snipe, 421 pairs of curlew and 306 pairs of lapwing in 1985.
Fast-forward to 2005 with the loss of the gamekeeper and cessation of grouse moor management and these birds had catastrophically declined: the snipe by 96 per cent; the curlew by 93 per cent; and the lapwing by 92 per cent. It is a textbook example of what could happen if the archcritics of grouse moor management win.