End of the road for grouse shooting? (4 Viewers)

[Franky70]

I know you'll correct me if I'm wrong but I believe the IoM, which covers around 366,000 acres, currently has some 49 Hen Harrier nest sites.

When the 'de-keepering and back to nature' experiment on the 25,000 acre Langholm Moor began in 1992 there were just 2 Hen Harrier nest sites. this increased rapidly and had reached 28 nest sites in 1997, resulting in 154 Hen Harriers working the area.

Yet by 2004 this number had declined rapidly with only two pairs remaining on the moor, of which only one bred successfully.

Sources -

http://www.bloodybusiness.com/news/...s_articles/claws_out_on_a_silent_moorland.htm

http://www.scottishgamekeepers.co.uk/langholm.htm

N.B. - I do not shoot (not even clay pigeons!) and have no interest in it whatsoever. However, I believe these items do make interesting reading.

I've actually been to Langholm this year and I saw most of the species that some people suggest are absent, including Curlew, Wheatear, Skylark, Meadow Pipits and even (gasp) RED GROUSE! This was despite the fact that several raptor species were present.
No doubt some people reading this forum will be pleased to hear that the Harrier nests failed this year due to 'mysterious' circumstances.

 

[Touty]

I know you'll correct me if I'm wrong but I believe the IoM, which covers around 366,000 acres, currently has some 49 Hen Harrier nest sites.

When the 'de-keepering and back to nature' experiment on the 25,000 acre Langholm Moor began in 1992 there were just 2 Hen Harrier nest sites. this increased rapidly and had reached 28 nest sites in 1997, resulting in 154 Hen Harriers working the area.

Yet by 2004 this number had declined rapidly with only two pairs remaining on the moor, of which only one bred successfully.

Sources -

http://www.bloodybusiness.com/news/...s_articles/claws_out_on_a_silent_moorland.htm

http://www.scottishgamekeepers.co.uk/langholm.htm

N.B. - I do not shoot (not even clay pigeons!) and have no interest in it whatsoever. However, I believe these items do make interesting reading.

The initial rise followed by a decline is almost certainly due to gradually rising numbers of foxes which take take harrier chicks.

 

[Anthony Morton]

PS. I cant believe Mark Avery of RSPB actually said that a grouse moor became redundant due to increased Harrier numbers. If this is not a misquote he must have been attempting to keep common interests open in reaching agreements negociations.

I don't think so, rather that he was faced with the fact that in 1992, when all management (including gamekeepers) was removed and Langholm Moors was just allowed to go 'back to nature', the number of Hen Harriers first of all increased to a maximum of 154 in 1997, before declining just as quickly to just 2 pairs in 2004. And the reason given for this decline was that having predated the various prey species available to them the Hen Harriers had literally eaten themselves out of house and home. In my opinion there were probably other contributing factors, such as foxes etc.

A quote such is that is potentially very damaging and possibly explains ( and justifies? )the rhetoric on SGA page that I have just slagged off. Now I can't, which annoys me, as the RSPB have more or less confirmed it ( assuming it is not a misquote).

Nevertheless, there really is some amount of jobbies on that SGA site.

With respect, you seem to be attempting to dismiss as rhetoric anything which does not agree totally with your own take on things. There are two sides to every story and what I feel this example shows is that Langholm was better when it was 'keepered compared with when it was simply left to its own devices.

To avoid any misunderstanding, can I also add that I hold no brief for either gamekeepers or sporting estates.

 

[Anthony Morton]

I've actually been to Langholm this year and I saw most of the species that some people suggest are absent, including Curlew, Wheatear, Skylark, Meadow Pipits and even (gasp) RED GROUSE! This was despite the fact that several raptor species were present.
No doubt some people reading this forum will be pleased to hear that the Harrier nests failed this year due to 'mysterious' circumstances.

Fair comment, but don't forget that The Times article referred to was published two years ago. That said, I'm delighted that the species you mention have already made a (partial) comeback.

And wouldn't it also be fair to say that the nest failures you attribute to mysterious circumstances were possibly caused by nothing more sinister than foxes? After all, without any gamekeepers and shooting interests present, surely there aren't any human predators at large on Langholm's 25,000 acres are there? Or are you perhaps referring to egg collectors?

 

[Anthony Morton]

The initial rise followed by a decline is almost certainly due to gradually rising numbers of foxes which take take harrier chicks.

And especially true when you consider that prior to the 'back to nature' experiment beginning around 200 foxes were being culled on the Langholm Estate each year, along with various other predators including mink.

 

[pduxon]

out of interest what would happen to the countryside if mankind suddenly vanished and didn't interfere......

 

[Capercaillie71]

PS. I cant believe Mark Avery of RSPB actually said that a grouse moor became redundant due to increased Harrier numbers. If this is not a misquote he must have been attempting to keep common interests open in reaching agreements negociations.

My understanding of the Langholm situation is that it was a moor that had been over-grazed and lost a lot of its heather cover. As such it was probably sub-optimal habitat for red grouse. As the moor became more grass-dominated the population density of meadow pipits and voles increased and this is the main determinant of hen harrier nesting density. These two factors together meant that the harriers removed the 'shootable' surplus of red grouse available at the end of the breeding season and the moor became redundant. So what Mark Avery said was true, but it could be argued that the harriers were the final straw rather than the underlying cause.

There is some evidence that this scenario would not occur on the more heather-dominated moors that occur in areas like the north east of Scotland and the RSPB did propose long-term management to increase heather cover as a way of reducing the conflict. However, they now seem to be saying that heather dominated moorland is not necessarily best for upland biodiversity:

http://www.rspb.org.uk/scotland/action/moorlandmosaic.asp

 

[Capercaillie71]

"At the moment raptors are protected, but they are causing major damage to game stocks and other bird numbers. Should this continue or get worse then the employment of many gamekeepers will be put in jeopardy."

For a while I used to think that it might be possible to have some sort of quota system for harriers on grouse moors, with licenced egg removal if densities became so high that they were going to remove the post-breeding surplus. At least then we might have some harriers on grouse moors instead of none.

However, I now think that it would be a pointless exercise as the situation has moved on. There are practically no hen harriers left on grouse moors in northeast Scotland and there still aren't enough grouse to shoot.

Predators aren't the problem, it is climate change.

 

[Capercaillie71]

I live close to an area where foxes arrived in the course of the last 20 years (after the introduction of rabies vaccine baits in the Alps and Karst). Breeding Montagu's Harrier numbers have fallen from c.50 pairs to less than 5 pairs in the same period. Massive decline in Marsh Harriers too away from floating islands of reeds in the lagoon.

That is very interesting. It just goes to show how complex the dynamics of these predator-prey situations are. People focus so much on the things with sharp teeth and claws that they forget the important role that things like diseases and parasites play.

 

[Capercaillie71]

out of interest what would happen to the countryside if mankind suddenly vanished and didn't interfere......

We wouldn't be able to have threads like this!

 

[griffin]

With respect, you seem to be attempting to dismiss as rhetoric anything which does not agree totally with your own take on things. There are two sides to every story and what I feel this example shows is that Langholm was better when it was 'keepered compared with when it was simply left to its own devices.

With respect, YOU have not read ALL my posts. I am not not denying what happened at Langholm. You would also have noticed I wrote that I am also not against grouse or sport shooting as long as it does not break the law or effect or upset the balance of the wildlife heritage that belongs to us all.

The rhetoric on that (SGA) website is such that it is endorsing the "control" of protected raptors, some of which are practically extinct in areas of Britain. One could even infer it was "suggesting" or inciting the illegal control of these birds- the scaremongering about "lost jobs bit". Given the already apparent narrow minded attitudes of some gamekeepers I don't think that the rhetoric was appropriate as it perpetuates the "myth" that all things with a hooky beak are bad. That is not responsible whatever way you look at it. If you think that such "rhetoric" is appropriate then I really do wonder what your interest in birds is ?

I also think that Capercaillie71's comments are spot on in that it is not just one factor (Harriers) that affected the grouse population at Langholm, so perhaps you should see "the other side of the argument" as well.

I will add that I have no affilliation to any animal rights organisations and would never support the actions of such radical groups that are invariably directed at abusing people, which in my opinion is much worse than abusing animals. Just so you and others know.

OK ?

 

[griffin]

Can I make a suggestion for a new Forum on Birdforum :


"The Countryside Alliance Members Section"

 

[Franky70]

Fair comment, but don't forget that The Times article referred to was published two years ago. That said, I'm delighted that the species you mention have already made a (partial) comeback.

And wouldn't it also be fair to say that the nest failures you attribute to mysterious circumstances were possibly caused by nothing more sinister than foxes? After all, without any gamekeepers and shooting interests present, surely there aren't any human predators at large on Langholm's 25,000 acres are there? Or are you perhaps referring to egg collectors?

Actually saw two gamekeepers, doing whatever they do with those big, blue plastic barrels and working on a large cage. They weren't actually on the moor but I could see them from the road that runs through the moors, so keepers are about and I understand that most neighbouring moors are still managed. Not saying it was these keepers though.
Bear in mind that all the nests failed on the same night, with all (large) chicks going missing and apparently people were seen on the moor in the early hours.
This rules out egg collectors and, I reckon, foxes.

 

[Anthony Morton]

With respect, YOU have not read ALL my posts. I am not not denying what happened at Langholm. You would also have noticed I wrote that I am also not against grouse or sport shooting as long as it does not break the law or effect or upset the balance of the wildlife heritage that belongs to us all.

The rhetoric on that (SGA) website is such that it is endorsing the "control" of protected raptors, some of which are practically extinct in areas of Britain. One could even infer it was "suggesting" or inciting the illegal control of these birds- the scaremongering about "lost jobs bit". Given the already apparent narrow minded attitudes of some gamekeepers I don't think that the rhetoric was appropriate as it perpetuates the "myth" that all things with a hooky beak are bad. That is not responsible whatever way you look at it. If you think that such "rhetoric" is appropriate then I really do wonder what your interest in birds is ?

I also think that Capercaillie71's comments are spot on in that it is not just one factor (Harriers) that affected the grouse population at Langholm, so perhaps you should see "the other side of the argument" as well.

I will add that I have no affilliation to any animal rights organisations and would never support the actions of such radical groups that are invariably directed at abusing people, which in my opinion is much worse than abusing animals. Just so you and others know.

OK ?

But aren't you also forgetting that the link I gave relates only to Langholm Moors and nowhere else?

As for scaremongering about lost jobs, try telling that to Brian Mitchell, the former head gamekeeper at Langholm and the 6(?) other 'keepers who all lost their jobs so that the experiment could take place.

And talking of seeing both sides of the Langholm grouse argument, whilst I accept Capercaillie 71's comments are his opinion, it's also fair to point out that Brian Mitchell's first-hand account of what happened there cannot simply be ruled out either.

 

[Anthony Morton]

... Bear in mind that all the nests failed on the same night, with all (large) chicks going missing and apparently people were seen on the moor in the early hours.

You're right. Now you've given this additional information I must agree that it was certainly 'mysterious circumstances' after all. As a matter of interest, though, how many nests were affected and were they all on Langholm Moors?

This rules out egg collectors and, I reckon, foxes.

Yep, sounds to me like the work of a 'two-legged fox' for sure!

 

[griffin]

As for scaremongering about lost jobs, try telling that to Brian Mitchell, the former head gamekeeper at Langholm and the 6(?) other 'keepers who all lost their jobs so that the experiment could take place.

I cannot endorse the 'sanctioned' persecution of raptors, including I might add "common" (SGA's term ) species such as Sparrowhawk, Buzzard and Peregrine (!), for ANY reason, jobs or otherwise. Can you ? From your tone you do. I think this is more personal to you than you let on........

 

[griffin]

and nowhere else?

As for scaremongering about lost jobs, try telling that to Brian Mitchell, the former head gamekeeper at Langholm and the 6(?) other 'keepers who all lost their jobs so that the experiment could take place.

Oh, and Brian Mitchell et al should take up their issue with their employer or whoever made the decision to act how they were entitled to (presumably).

Whilst I would wish no ill on people I don't know I am not going to cry over a gamekeeper losing his job any more than a gamekeeper cries over a "lost" raptor ( work it out ).

 

[Anthony Morton]

I cannot endorse the 'sanctioned' persecution of raptors, including I might add "common" (SGA's term ) species such as Sparrowhawk, Buzzard and Peregrine (!), for ANY reason, jobs or otherwise. Can you ? From your tone you do. I think this is more personal to you than you let on........

In which case exercise your right not to support any proposed change in the law which, if passed, would allow the control (not persecution!) of raptors.

You appear to have positioned yourself at one end of the 'raptor' spectrum and, rightly or wrongly, see gamekeepers and sporting interests at the other. For my money I've heard what your side thinks about it and I've read reports which conflict with that opinion from the gamekeepers side. Surely the only way forward is to explore the common ground between the two sides, and then work to build on that in an attempt to bring them closer together. By constantly trumpeting the same old story from what it perceives to be its God-given moral high ground, neither side will ever win the argument, or convince anyone that its cause is just.

Me? Well I'm just an old codger who is interested in many things, including birds. However, it's clear from your attempts to 'pin the tail' on this particular donkey that your crystal ball is rather cloudy and is giving false readings. All you need to know is that I long ago learned that there are two sides to every argument!

And before you really go off into one by following a false trail you yourself have laid, I am not, nor ever have been, connected with the Countryside Alliance in any way, shape or form - at least not yet!

 

[Anthony Morton]

Oh, and Brian Mitchell et al should take up their issue with their employer or whoever made the decision to act how they were entitled to (presumably).

Whilst I would wish no ill on people I don't know I am not going to cry over a gamekeeper losing his job any more than a gamekeeper cries over a "lost" raptor ( work it out ).

You're not aware that what is described by some as 'the disastrous Langholm experiment' was initiated at the behest of would-be conservationists then?

And turning things around as is my wont, I do hope that you are never in the position of needing support from the gamekeeping profession either. How does the song go....?

"Oh, you in your small corner and I in mine!" :t:

 

[Franky70]

Your not aware that what is described by some as 'the disastrous Langholm experiment' was initiated at the behest of would-be conservationists then?

And turning things around as is my wont, I do hope that you are never in the position of needing support from the gamekeeping profession either. How does the song go....?

"Oh, you in your small corner and I in mine!" :t:

As I've already mentioned, most species seem to be finding their natural levels over time at Langholm, including Harriers.
The experiment could therefore prove that upland moors can exist without keepering and if this means the end of managed grouse moors and gamekeeper persecution of raptors, GOOD!