Grousing critics must show an alternative

With the annual shooting season comes the accompanying debate around country sports and their place in modern society. Critics state there is no place for “blood sports” such as grouse shooting and they should be banned.

Their stance relies on the supposition that the birds should be allowed to live unmolested on Scottish moors and estates and the shooters are bloodthirsty hunters, no better than those who kill big game on African safaris.

It is a simplistic view which takes little to no account of the damage which would be done were there to be any sort of ban.

Hundreds of gamekeepers and their supporters marched through Edzell to reinforce the message that income from country sports is vital for rural communities.

Far from merely filling the pockets of rich landowners raking in profit from equally rich, trigger-happy tourists, the money from the shooting season supports industries from catering to hospitality and construction to motoring.

The management of grouse moors to support the practice has a knock-on effect on other species, as shown in a study by Durham and Newcastle universities.

Without the end-game cash rolling in, none of that work can be sustained.

It is all very well taking a moral stance against a pastime like grouse shooting, but those who do so must provide an alternative for those who rely on it.