• Welcome to BirdForum, the internet's largest birding community with thousands of members from all over the world. The forums are dedicated to wild birds, birding, binoculars and equipment and all that goes with it.

    Please register for an account to take part in the discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.
ZEISS DTI thermal imaging cameras. For more discoveries at night, and during the day.

Hen Harrier "quota" a win-win solution say researchers (1 Viewer)

Capercaille
I agree with you. I have stated before on threads that there should be strict liability i.e. no get out and hefty fines that are enforced. If a bird is shot on your land YOU are responsible irrespective of who shot it.

However, where I dissagree is that a grouse moor isn't worth a lot if you ban grouse shooting. Particularly if the onus is on the landowner to maintain it's state as a natural 'treasure'. They'd be handed over!!!

Grouse shooting isn't hunting - might as well go clay pigeon shooting......
 
ColonelBlimp said:
If grouse moor owners were subsidised for the biodiversity of the moors, and threatened with massive fines and revocation of licenses for any infringement of this, e.g. shooting of endangered species, I do not see why this situation would be unacceptable.

If they can't afford to not kill Hen Harriers et al., then it should be a case of "hard cheddar". From what I have seen and read, moors would so a lot better under other groups' stewardship, but since this is unlikely, with these subsidies, I think they'll find the money to continue even with the diminshed bags.
Click to expand...

Sounds good to me Colonel :t:- Carrots and massive sticks. It needs to be possible to derive a reasonable income from heather moorland which is managed to generate a good range of ecosystem services whether grouse shooting is practiced or not.

Grouse shooting could be permitted under a licensing system tied to unthinkable penalties for non-compliance with conditions requiring protected wildlife to remain unmolested in any way. Compliance monitoring could prove expensive though.
 
There is clearly work to do on the quota idea, but the basis has to be incentivising to keep HH not to maximise grouse.

1. Redefine grouse as a domestic species, not game - subsidise as farming subsidy.

2. Use natural level of HH as benchmark then define minimum requirement for breeding success on grouse moor: doesn't necessarily have to be the same, any improvement on status quo is a conservation gain: link to provision of subsidy - this is real countryside stewardship and would make compliance with the law a positively attractive option.

3. Extend extant principle of corporate responsibility to conservation offences so that evidence against a gamekeeper would actually hit the estate as well as the individual, and use fines at a level that make compliance with the law attractive.

Sounds like a win-win to me.

John
 
you're all bonkers! Who's going to pay for all this?! The moor owners? What if they simply say "sod that" and just abandon the moor? Who pays for management then? There IS nobody that can afford to do it. If these guys don't do it, no-one will, and you're throwing the giant baby out with the bathwater. Where does this subsidy come from, and who's going to monitor it, and who's going to pay for the monitoring? Because there is finite money and people, and if you put them on grouse/harrier detail then it will ahve to be moved from somewhere else. Like farmland research or woodlands, where whole suites of species are crashing. All for the sake of a relative handful of pairs of one species and a point of principle. You're using a gold-plated sledgehammer to crack a nut, and alienating the very people who are saving us millions of pounds and giving us habitat conservation/management for free.

And none of you seem to reconcile the fact that where Hen Harriers exist at anything other than very low density, there are no grouse to shoot. If you make them have harriers, they can not shoot grouse. It's as simple as that. But if they can not shoot, then they'll just clear off and the moros will be drastically altered, with every scenario being for the worse for wildlife. And that includes harriers too, as their habitat will vanish.

Carrots and massive sticks will not work. Enforcement of current laws have failed so far, so what makes you think any more rules and laws will work?
 
I think the figure of £7000 for a days' shooting sums it up. This industry clearly exists at a financial level that is an order or magnitude or two higher than we are all used to. No doubt I'll be castigated for my defeatist attitude but I can't see the solution to this one. All I can suggest is if you want to see a Hen Harrier, go to the coastal marshes in winter, not the moors in summer.
 
I am not saying that this issue can be easily resolved by any means.

Raptors in particular have been persecuted greatly in history, and a quota for Hen Harriers would effectively legitimise raptor persecution, which is perverse considering that it is a red list species!

Plus, I am far from convinced about the quality of habitat preservation conducted by gamekeepers, with recent papers I have read highlighting how over-grazed and over-burnt most moors are, which isn't exactly beneficial to biodiversity. I would be bloody shocked if I saw 1 Meadow Pipit on my nearest moor, perhaps considering it alternates between being a blackened heath, and Sheepopolis!

My best guess at an outcome is subsidising grouse moors greatly that increase their biodiversity at the expense of reduced bags. But if you get rid of the harriers, or get rid of the grouse shooting, neither outcome is going to be good for the local wildlife.
 
Why is the absolute bag size a problem? If it's a sport, surely fewer birds just makes it a more difficult sport. I don't choose the golf courses with the easiest holes. Or play snooker on a table with massive pockets. Or archery with a two-foot wide bullseye?

I think the bag size probably is an issue, but that shows the true nature of the "sportsman". There must be real sportsmen shooters for whom a couple of birds from a long day of walked-up shooting is a good day's sport, but they're not the problem. I guess the problem is the mega-rich city dwellers who insist on blasting a bin-bag full without getting their boots muddy.

Graham
 
KnockerNorton said:
you're all bonkers! Who's going to pay for all this?! The moor owners? What if they simply say "sod that" and just abandon the moor? Who pays for management then? There IS nobody that can afford to do it. If these guys don't do it, no-one will, and you're throwing the giant baby out with the bathwater. Where does this subsidy come from, and who's going to monitor it, and who's going to pay for the monitoring? Because there is finite money and people, and if you put them on grouse/harrier detail then it will ahve to be moved from somewhere else. Like farmland research or woodlands, where whole suites of species are crashing. All for the sake of a relative handful of pairs of one species and a point of principle. You're using a gold-plated sledgehammer to crack a nut, and alienating the very people who are saving us millions of pounds and giving us habitat conservation/management for free.

And none of you seem to reconcile the fact that where Hen Harriers exist at anything other than very low density, there are no grouse to shoot. If you make them have harriers, they can not shoot grouse. It's as simple as that. But if they can not shoot, then they'll just clear off and the moros will be drastically altered, with every scenario being for the worse for wildlife. And that includes harriers too, as their habitat will vanish.

Carrots and massive sticks will not work. Enforcement of current laws have failed so far, so what makes you think any more rules and laws will work?
Click to expand...

Pains me to say I agree with knocker Norton here ;)

I spend many days walking on grouse moors, and just accept that if these people didn't manage the land it wouldn't be there. It would be a golf course or something else. There's plenty of other stuff sucj as stonechat and twite that also use the land, and other raptors are doing okish. Not sure what the ansers are, but just cos we like harriers (and it is ilegal) doesn't mean that banning grouse shooting is an answer. Maybe if black grouse were good game there would be loads of them too.
 
I guess the problem is the mega-rich city dwellers who insist on blasting a bin-bag full without getting their boots muddy.
Click to expand...

As far as I know recent more commercial shoots measure their success generally on the absolute bag size, the bigger, naturally, the better-sadly causing the stories of shot grouse being simply buried en masse. Anyway, I doubt many city bankers would have the finesse in shotgun marksmanship to go for accuracy!

Of course therein lies the problem-City shooters will choose the site on the assurance that the bag will be titanic. Which more than ever necessitates the removal of BOPS...

Or archery with a two-foot wide bullseye?
Click to expand...
Cor blimey, I think I need one of those! Would do wonders for my self-esteem!!!
 
I spend many days walking on grouse moors, and just accept that if these people didn't manage the land it wouldn't be there.
Click to expand...

But where would it stop? Quotas for harriers would surely lead to quotas for peregrines, sprawks (if harriers would be downed for the economic benefits of grouse moors, what about the pleas of pigeon fanciers? anglers?) etc. etc. and the work done over the past century to alleviate raptor persecution would be put into question.

The fact is that at the moment harrier populations for one are so low that keeping their populations at a sustainable level would still be based primarily on the reduction of persecution.

And finally, I believe that for conservation organsiations such as the RSPB, quotas would be the Ruddy Duck fiasco squared in terms of public outcry.
 
ColonelBlimp said:
As far as I know recent more commercial shoots measure their success generally on the absolute bag size, the bigger, naturally, the better-sadly causing the stories of shot grouse being simply buried en masse.
Click to expand...

how do you measure things? Less is more?

ColonelBlimp said:
Anyway, I doubt many city bankers would have the finesse in shotgun marksmanship to go for accuracy!
Click to expand...

have you ever used a shotgun?! You don't *need* accuracy with a shotgun. It's not a precision tool.

ColonelBlimp said:
Of course therein lies the problem-City shooters will choose the site on the assurance that the bag will be titanic.
Click to expand...

Nope, not really, according to what I've picked up. What they want is a guaranteed bag, with everyone getting a shot at birds on every drive. That's what they pay for, after all. It's not stalking, or rough-shooting, it's target shooting, so you need targets. Apparently, anything more than 500 birds per day for a large group is considered chav. That could be 50 people. The available bag for each season is worked out beforehand, as it's in nobody's interests to shoot into the breeding population. I think you've been reading too many Edwardian stories of the Playboy Prince...
 
ColonelBlimp said:
But where would it stop? Quotas for harriers would surely lead to quotas for peregrines, sprawks (if harriers would be downed for the economic benefits of grouse moors, what about the pleas of pigeon fanciers? anglers?) etc. etc. and the work done over the past century to alleviate raptor persecution would be put into question.
Click to expand...

there is a cull quota for cormorants at commercial freshwater fisheries in Britain.
 
KnockerNorton said:
you're all bonkers! Who's going to pay for all this?! The moor owners? What if they simply say "sod that" and just abandon the moor? Who pays for management then? There IS nobody that can afford to do it. If these guys don't do it, no-one will, and you're throwing the giant baby out with the bathwater. Where does this subsidy come from, and who's going to monitor it, and who's going to pay for the monitoring? Because there is finite money and people, and if you put them on grouse/harrier detail then it will ahve to be moved from somewhere else. Like farmland research or woodlands, where whole suites of species are crashing. All for the sake of a relative handful of pairs of one species and a point of principle. You're using a gold-plated sledgehammer to crack a nut, and alienating the very people who are saving us millions of pounds and giving us habitat conservation/management for free.

And none of you seem to reconcile the fact that where Hen Harriers exist at anything other than very low density, there are no grouse to shoot. If you make them have harriers, they can not shoot grouse. It's as simple as that. But if they can not shoot, then they'll just clear off and the moros will be drastically altered, with every scenario being for the worse for wildlife. And that includes harriers too, as their habitat will vanish.

Carrots and massive sticks will not work. Enforcement of current laws have failed so far, so what makes you think any more rules and laws will work?
Click to expand...

So let's see if I've got this straight Mr Norton:
  • We can't have heather moorland in the English uplands without Grouse shoots paying for it
  • If we have Grouse shoots we can't have HHs as they depress grouse numbers to the point where bag sizes get so minimal that there's no point
  • So us peasants have to do without the excitement of seeing wild HHs in the English uplands
  • And we're all supposed to be happy about that

And I'm bonkers?!!!|=@|

Would you happen to know what property prices are like on the Isle of Man?
 
John B (not the sloop) said:
So let's see if I've got this straight Mr Norton:
  • We can't have heather moorland in the English uplands without Grouse shoots paying for it
Click to expand...


  • pretty much, yes, for many of them. Just as hedgerows are paid for by farmers, many moors in their current state are paid for by grouse shoots. Where do you think these things come from, the habitat pixies? So that means we've got to find a solution that works with the pixies, sorry, managers, and gives them what they want too.

    John B (not the sloop) said:
    [*]If we have Grouse shoots we can't have HHs as they depress grouse numbers to the point where bag sizes get so minimal that there's no point
    Click to expand...

    that's what the research shows, yes.

    John B (not the sloop) said:
    [*]So us peasants have to do without the excitement of seeing wild HHs in the English uplands
    Click to expand...

    Joe Public doesn't get excited by harriers, and wont pay for it. So unless you want to pay for your tremulous experiences yourself and buy a moor and do what you want with it, then you shouldn't expect someone else to foot the bill for you. You peasants have to make do without seeing woodpeckers and boars in your living room where a forest once stood, so are you going to give over your house and garden to the Woodland Trust? Then dont expect someone else to give over their moor to the RSPB and start breeding harriers for you. It's their land, you want something from them, so try and see it from their point of view. Compromise is going to be essential here, but it will have to be compromise that enables a viable grouse moor to exist. I don't know what that is, but i know what it isn't, and that's talk of massive sticks and fines and fantasy nationalisation. We've got to be a bit more clever than that if we want the benefits of free management for all those other species.

    John B (not the sloop) said:
    [*]And we're all supposed to be happy about that
    Click to expand...
John B (not the sloop) said:
That doesn't matter to anyone but you. Grouse shooters are quite happy, so why is your happiness and opinion more important than theirs?

John B (not the sloop) said:
Would you happen to know what property prices are like on the Isle of Man?
Click to expand...

No, but I've got your boat fare here ;)
Click to expand...
 
Nope, not really, according to what I've picked up. What they want is a guaranteed bag, with everyone getting a shot at birds on every drive. That's what they pay for, after all. It's not stalking, or rough-shooting, it's target shooting, so you need targets. Apparently, anything more than 500 birds per day for a large group is considered chav. That could be 50 people. The available bag for each season is worked out beforehand, as it's in nobody's interests to shoot into the breeding population. I think you've been reading too many Edwardian stories of the Playboy Prince...
Click to expand...

I have heard differently for reliable sources, but perhaps times change and my info is out of date. I don't know. I know that this was the case at least in some areas around the turn of the millenium, and I would be surprised if the situation had changed so dramatically.
 
pretty much, yes, for many of them. Just as hedgerows are paid for by farmers, many moors in their current state are paid for by grouse shoots. Where do you think these things come from, the habitat pixies? So that means we've got to find a solution that works with the pixies, sorry, managers, and gives them what they want too.
Click to expand...

The vast majority of grouse moors that I have seen (at least around here) are in a rather poor way due to over-exploitation. I fail to see what magic benefits these managers bring by over-grazing and over-burning causing a much lower biodiversity, not to talk about the wholesale dispatch of anything that threatens the magic grouse.

that's what the research shows, yes.
Click to expand...
But what would be the problem with subsidising the moorkeepers to accept lower bags in exchange for greater diversity?

Joe Public doesn't get excited by harriers, and wont pay for it. So unless you want to pay for your tremulous experiences yourself and buy a moor and do what you want with it, then you shouldn't expect someone else to foot the bill for you. You peasants have to make do without seeing woodpeckers and boars in your living room where a forest once stood, so are you going to give over your house and garden to the Woodland Trust? Then dont expect someone else to give over their moor to the RSPB and start breeding harriers for you. It's their land, you want something from them, so try and see it from their point of view. Compromise is going to be essential here, but it will have to be compromise that enables a viable grouse moor to exist. I don't know what that is, but i know what it isn't, and that's talk of massive sticks and fines and fantasy nationalisation. We've got to be a bit more clever than that if we want the benefits of free management for all those other species.
Click to expand...

What about the utilities moors, for example, in Yorkshire where little or no gamekeeping is done and yet the diversity is very high, due to the very infrequent burning of the calluna that goes on? I understand it needs paying for, but it does not preclude harriers and high-biodiversity moorland from coexisting. If grouse shooting needs a creation of a veritable monoculture of grouse, poor quality heather and sheep to exist, with the supression of endangered species, then it is far too high a price to pay.
 
Last edited:
ColonelBlimp said:
As far as I know recent more commercial shoots measure their success generally on the absolute bag size, the bigger, naturally, the better-sadly causing the stories of shot grouse being simply buried en masse. Anyway, I doubt many city bankers would have the finesse in shotgun marksmanship to go for accuracy!
Click to expand...

I've got to ask for some sort of source on that one colonel. I've heard it on pheasant shoots but grouse sell for 6 for 71 quid in the only online supplier I can find (and that is right now 3 days into the new season when one assumes supply is at its peak). If anyone's burying it on mass; let me know where and I'll be round with a shovel.
 
KnockerNorton said:
Joe Public doesn't get excited by harriers,
Click to expand...

Depends which sections of the public you talk to I guess. I'd stake a bottle of good ale on there being more people ready to place the interests of nationally rare and legally protected wildlife above the desires of those who like to kill things for fun. Ok - you'd have to explain the realities and costs of habitat management to them but I still think you'd find that the shooters didn't end up with a thriving fan base.


KnockerNorton said:
That doesn't matter to anyone but you. Grouse shooters are quite happy, so why is your happiness and opinion more important than theirs?,
Click to expand...

I don't recall saying it was but, in my experience, when Grouse shooters are happy something somewhere is having to suffer for it.

KnockerNorton said:
No, but I've got your boat fare here ;)
Click to expand...

Thanks - can that be in cash please.
 
Warning! This thread is more than 16 years ago old.
It's likely that no further discussion is required, in which case we recommend starting a new thread. If however you feel your response is required you can still do so.

Similar threads

S
Africa’s Birds of Prey Are in Decline, a New Study Finds
Replies
4
Views
629
Andrew Whitehouse
Andrew Whitehouse
H
Birdwatching more locally
2 3
Replies
51
Views
5K
Mysticete
Mysticete
wolfbirder
Capers in the Scottish Highlands 26 April - 1 May 2021
2
Replies
25
Views
7K
Ratal
Ratal
wolfbirder
Trying to sweep up in Southern Israel 21-26 February 2020
2 3 4
Replies
78
Views
13K
wolfbirder
wolfbirder
Troubador
  • Sticky
Interview with Gerry Dobler: Product Development at Zeiss and SF Binoculars
Replies
0
Views
4K
Troubador
Troubador

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Back
Top