Touty
Well-known member
jurek said:I would second that!
Forest, especially forest-meadow mosaic has bigger biodiversity. This is why moors look bleak!
I don't think Red Grouse would become extinct if moors were less managed. They would be less numerous but still not endangered. Why consider today's number of Red Grouse more appropriate? It is just result of economy, timber cutting, wool trade, hunting, which promoted Grouse over other birds.
This is B.S. What gives UK its biodiversity (and the rest of Europe for that matter) is the wide variety of of land uses (and geology) in a relatively small area. What do you imagine the land-owners would do with 3,000,000 acres of land they can't make money from grouse from? Sheep - millions of them (visit Wales), conifer plantations (visit Wales) and peat extraction (visit Poland).
Forest - meadow mosaic has a higher biodiversity than moorland but it isn't a natural component of the Scottish uplands - so that's out. I'd (personally) be happy if half the Scottish moors were helped to revert to Caledonian pine forest (which they were from the end of the Ice Age 'til about 500 years ago.
Nobody (except the shooters) are really worried just about Red Grouse. The moors hold most of Britain's breeding waders, ring ouzels, twites, hen harriers, merlins etc. not to mention other arctic-alpine flora and fauna not found elsewhere in the UK. Sheep pasture, conifer plantations or Caledonian forest would not support any of these species.
Last edited: