Highland FEUD
The unlicensed culling of mountain hares was banned this summer, but the debate around the management of this moorland beauty has only been reignited.
OOn 17 June, with the entire country in lockdown, Scottish Parliament made a pivotal decision: to ban the unlicensed culling of mountain hares, affording them year-round protection.
In the hours that followed, Twitter was ablaze. For some, the decision was reason to celebrate – a landmark victory for the conservation of an iconic animal. Others condemned the move, arguing that, ironically, protective status would be detrimental to mountain hares and their wider environment.
The mountain hare is one of our most charismatic species, famed for its winter transformation from grey-brown to stark white. But it is also embroiled in the bitter controversy over the management of our uplands – a conflict that has raged for decades. The debate over whether mountain hares should be controlled by certain interests – namely, driven grouse shooting – has slowly gained momentum, with various arguments on both sides and vastly contrasting evidence from a diversity of sources.
The amendment to the Scottish Animals and Wildlife Bill comes at a time when the heat being placed on driven grouse shooting is particularly fierce. The industry – both in Scotland and England – has come under fire for its intensive management practices, and the mountain hare debate is entangled with a host of other issues.
Why are mountain hares controlled on grouse moors?
The mountain hare is an upland species, preferring the rolling purple hills of moorland. Here, it can graze on the dominant vegetation – heather, grasses, and young trees – while taking advantage of the available shelter. Hares share this landscape with the red grouse, a ground-nesting bird that also reaps the benefits of a variable moorland habitat.
The uplands are managed to support a variety of hunting and sporting interests. Mountain hares are themselves a quarry species and have been legally hunted for sport since the 19th century, alongside grouse. Driven grouse shooting involves a line of ‘beaters’ that advance across a moor, flushing out grouse and directing them over a row of gunmen. The volume of birds shot, and size of the shooting parties, make it quite unique in comparison to other field sports, where fewer game are hunted by smaller groups. To remain economically viable, shooting estates – the majority of which are privately owned and managed by gamekeepers – must cultivate the land to support abundant populations of grouse.
The routine culling of mountain hares is one such management practice. There are a few reasons cited for this, including the protection of young trees and plants – which hares are said to decimate when in high densities. However, the most widely discussed is prevention of the tick-borne disease Louping Ill Virus (LIV), which is fatal to grouse. Ticks are parasites that live on the blood of others and so need a live host to survive. They can transmit all kinds of nasties, including Lyme disease, which humans can contract. There is some evidence to suggest that mountain hares are ‘reservoirs’ for LIV – in other words, important hosts for ticks. Under this logic, high densities of mountain hares mean a greater prevalence of LIV in the environment, which could spell trouble for grouse numbers. The science supporting this conclusion is relatively limited,
yet the routine culling of hares has been widely undertaken until now.
Are mountain hares in trouble?
The short answer is, it would appear so. The long answer is, it’s complicated. In 2019, mountain hares were downgraded from ‘favourable’ to ‘unfavourable, inadequate’ conservation status in the UK. This means that, though exact numbers are difficult to ascertain, the available data demonstrates a decline in hare numbers across their range. For example, a 2018 study by Massimino et al analysed data from the Breeding Bird Survey (BBS), finding severe declines of up to 50 per cent in about one-third of the hare’s full range. The much-famed Watson and Wilson paper, from the same year, deduced from 70 years of data that declines in the eastern Highlands were as extensive as 99 per cent. This paper is interesting for another reason, which we shall come to later. However, shooting interests counter that the National Gamebag Census (NGC) – which has been returning numbers of hares shot since 1961 – shows no significant decline.
Though some evidence exists, a major problem is that no mandatory, comprehensive monitoring of mountain hares exists. Records like the BBS and NGC are voluntary. The latter only concerns participating estates and, it could be argued, is more a reflection of shooting effort rather than actual numbers. The Watson and Wilson paper only looks at one region in the species’ distribution, and the authors themselves caution against extrapolating the data. Furthermore, a standardised method for monitoring hares only became available in 2018, in work commissioned by Scottish Natural Heritage and led by ecologist Scott Newey.
These points are used to back-up the argument that we simply don’t know enough to enforce a ban on routine culling. But, at the same time, the available evidence suggests populations are in decline – and the fact that we don’t know enough should ring alarm bells for anyone concerned for mountain hare conservation. Ecologists and
conservationists argue the precautionary principle – management should not go ahead until more comprehensive monitoring, across the hare’s entire distribution, is established.
Why are hares in decline?
Again, the answer to this question is not straightforward, and the science is hotly contested. Currently, the main line of enquiry concerns culling on driven grouse moors. Referring back to the Watson and Wilson study – which demonstrated severe declines since 1950 – the data shows that pre-1999, declines were less severe on land managed for driven grouse shooting, and were instead associated with conifer plantations, which reduce hares’ preferred moorland habitat. This supports the argument of shooting interests that mountain hares do better on managed moors. However, post-1999, declines on grouse moors accelerated to almost 31 per cent a year. The authors theorise that this coincides with when the ‘reservoir host’ theory emerged, and culling became commonplace.
Pre-1999, mountain hare declines were less severe on land managed for grouse shooting, associated instead with conifer plantations.
Just a year later, a team of scientists from the Game and Wildlife Conservation Trust (GWCT) published a paper that directly contrasted the findings of Watson and Wilson. From 16 years of count data, they claim that hare abundance was significantly higher on driven grouse moors than areas of walkedup shooting, or those with no management at all. The authors are quite critical of Watson and Wilson’s work, calling the methodology “inconsistent”, and blame declines on afforestation, changes to moorland management and natural cyclic fluctuations.
Bloggers, scientists and journalists from all sides have pulled apart both studies, and the conclusions differ depending on their side of the fence. To delve into all the intricacies of these arguments is beyond the scope of this article. But if we look to the Werritty Review – a report commissioned by the Scottish Government to collate the available evidence on the ecological impacts and benefits of grouse moor management – the jury is still out. The review states that the evidence is inconclusive and that the “understanding of [hare] responses to shooting is too poor to impose direct controls on shooting of mountain hares with any degree of certainty.” The report suggests more data on population responses
Strips of heather are burnt to create a mosaic of habitat – a constant supply of young shoots alongside taller, leggier patches.
to culling pressures are needed, as well as information on the effects of land-use change and afforestation.
The latter is a less discussed part of the debate. There is evidence to suggest mountain hares benefit from some of the practices employed by gamekeepers
– the control of predators such as foxes and crows, which can predate on young hares, for example, or the maintenance of varied moorland habitat for grouse. Loss of moorland to tree plantations is a voiced concern among some, and was included as a point of interest in both studies mentioned.
As Matt Cross, writer and advocate for shooting, says, “The habitat loss that goes along with that is the biggest impact on mountain hares, but no one wants to talk about that.”
About the raptors…
You can’t talk about grouse moors without also talking about the illegal persecution of raptors to protect grouse chicks from predation. This has been the focus of impassioned campaigns and forms the epicentre of the debate across the UK. Much like mountain hares, the evidence is hotly contested. Data from the RSPB show that persecution is an ongoing problem, with 87 confirmed incidents in 2018 and the additional caveat that, because of the difficulty in obtaining enough robust evidence to identify and prosecute these crimes, a large proportion of cases are likely to go undetected. Though shooting organisations have publicly
condemned wildlife crime, the claims that incidents are increasing are disputed by them. Even satellite tagging data, which show a number of birds ‘disappearing’ on locations on, or adjacent to, grouse moors, is challenged. Some claim the tags fail due to technical reasons, or that birds are more likely to die of natural causes on estates.
Is burning moorland beneficial?
The effects of muirburn is another hot topic. Strips of heather are burnt in rotation to create a mosaic of habitat – a constant supply of young, more nutritious shoots alongside taller, leggier patches for shelter. When well-managed, this can support a variety of species – including the mountain hare and the hen harrier, as well as smaller creatures such as skylark, lapwing, golden plover, adder and the Scotch argus butterfly. But a key issue is whether the fire is allowed to burn into the deeper peat layer, where carbon is stored. According to Werritty, the data is again too varied to draw certain conclusions. But, as climate change accelerates and carbon sequestration
becomes increasingly important, the potential negative impacts of muirburn may become more pressing.
Who knows best?
This all amounts to a bigger question – does driven grouse shooting have a future? Certainly in Scotland, it appears MSPs are responding to lobbying and viewing the sport through a more critical lens. Two cards are on the table – licensing or a blanket ban. The latter raises questions about alternatives – could tourism be economically viable? Could estates be re-wilded and reformed as reserves and, if so, who would buy them out? A community-led effort to buy Langholm Moor has been stalled by the £6 million price tag, which, to some, has been quite the reality check.
Increased regulation of grouse moor management – or licensing – seems the most likely route at present, the viability of which was examined by Werritty’s report. Many were hoping it would be stronger in recommending that a licencing system for estates should be put in place, and were dismayed that instead, the review advised a five-year “probationary period” to further action. However, there are some conclusions that ring true.
The first is that there are substantial gaps in the knowledge in some of the most critical arguments. The second is that the situation is highly politicised. The ecological and ethical quandaries are also entangled within wider social, economic and cultural conflicts. Any available evidence is likely to be contested, influenced not by what the science says, but by individual views, values and experiences. Whether hard data can hold up against a lifetime working the land is an underlying trope in any debate about land management.
Lastly, any decisions – whether that be the control of mountain hare culling or the licensing of estates – will be politically charged. The amendment that afforded hares protected status was met with a strong emotive response for reasons other than conservation or disease prevention. For one, it was viewed as the government bowing to the increasingly powerful voices of conservation groups and charities. There was also no consultation or opportunity for debate. Many will argue that, from the standpoint of ongoing wildlife crime, estates shouldn’t get to have a say. But, I know from my own field that for long-term sustainable change, who makes the decisions and how they make them really matters.
is a conservation scientist and research fellow at the University of Stirling.
FIND OUT MORE
The Animals and Wildlife Bill: bit.ly/aw-bill
Any available evidence is likely to be contested, influenced not by what the science says, but by individual views and values.