• 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)

I always think that if you are going to artifically increase the number of prey somewhere, one mustn't be surprised when predator numbers increase accordingly, which must be treated as a bit of an occupational hazard. Pigeons to peregrines, grouse to harriers, this only happens due to man's influence, and if the industry is unviable without persecution it should be regarded as unviable full stop.

there is quite a long precedent of managing/limiting predators and pathogens for a wide variety of things. It's called farming. Grouse-shooting is effectively the farming of grouse. Just as sheep on hills is the farming of sheep. To a 'farmer', removing a bird that is harrying grouse is no different to removing a fox that is harrying lambs. That's the logic. It's just that some quarters (and I may be one, who knows) attach more value to a certain bird than a fox. You can see why some other quarters might see that as illogical.
 
there is quite a long precedent of managing/limiting predators and pathogens for a wide variety of things. It's called farming. Grouse-shooting is effectively the farming of grouse. Just as sheep on hills is the farming of sheep. To a 'farmer', removing a bird that is harrying grouse is no different to removing a fox that is harrying lambs. That's the logic. It's just that some quarters (and I may be one, who knows) attach more value to a certain bird than a fox. You can see why some other quarters might see that as illogical.

I understand the need to control some predators to make farming economical, but to cull an already heavily persecuted and threatened bird, not primarily to make farming economical, but to keep a rich man's sport afloat (with the byproduct of very limited numbers of grouse entering the food chain) seems, as I said, perverse.
 
is this a plea to allow all moors to return to woodland so we can have more rufous tree rats?

Tree rat? But...they're red and fwuffy, not grey and invasive/barbarous/ratlike/good eating! Well, not good, but with every bite comes not only a grimace but knowledge you are helping our native warrior squirrels!

Anyways, I'd be careful what you say, or the chappy to the left will jump out of the screen at you and bite you on the nose!
 
I understand the need to control some predators to make farming economical, but to cull an already heavily persecuted and threatened bird, not primarily to make farming economical, but to keep a rich man's sport afloat (with the byproduct of very limited numbers of grouse entering the food chain) seems, as I said, perverse.

think of it this way - hen harriers are very common on a Eurasian scale. Red Grouse (the Brit subspecies) is endemic and vulnerable. So grouse moors are actually preserving global biodiversity by safeguarding the future of that specific form. The by-prodtc of the rich man's sport is widescale habitat management for an iconic and unique form. Without grouse moor management for shooting, red grouse would be in a very bad way.
 
"do you feel aggrieved that brown bears no longer roam the moors? Or that the moors are no longer wooded and restricted to being a marginal habitat across most of their current range? If we start talking about baselines then we get into all kinds of philosophical and pointless discussions about what is 'natural' that quickly get daft."

Ehhhh, no! You introduced Brown Bears not me (though they might keep sheep numbers down!).

I'm simply lamenting the fact that my 'local' moorland does not hold HHs. These Perthshire moors hold Grouse but 'shooting bags' have been poor in recent years. Clearly, at least in this area the falling grouse population is not due to HH or GE predation. Yet over the last few years sheep grazing seems to have become almost universal -including on the shooting-estate grouse moors.

You are of course correct in stating that if a moor owner does not wish sheep on the moors then they can be kept off -but the fact is they are on the moors!

I feel that raptors are being used as a scapegoat for falling grouse numbers & yes this is a feeling rather than objective scientific fact. However the Langholm studies have not proven without doubt that HHs ARE responsible for the currently declining grouse bags across Scottish shooting estates. It is surely unwise to propose raptor quotas without such evidence!

KnockerNorton stated: "it's not the employees you have to worry about - it's the membership who bankrolls it all.

Two words send shivers down the backs of RSPB recruitment personnel: Ruddy Duck"

-this is exactly my point. The RSPB decision-makers are not prepared to alienate their membership as members can be fickle. Membership dues are paid annually not every 5 years. The RSPB has to take to its membership's feelings into account whether you or I like it or not!!
 
"Harriers are currently absent as breeding birds from large areas of grouse moorland. We propose a large-scale trial of the feasibility of introducing a ceiling to harrier densities with the aim of encouraging hunters to accept breeding harriers in regions where they are currently illegally killed. The ceiling on harrier densities would be agreed in advance by all stakeholders and would be implemented through translocation of harriers. The trial would test the hypothesis that regional populations of harriers could be increased by setting local ceilings on harrier densities. If successful, this trial could provide a model for increasing the national population of harriers whilst minimizing the local impacts of predation on grouse moors, thus providing a 'win–win' solution for both harrier conservation and grouse management. Translocation of harriers to other areas could also lead to the re-establishment of harrier populations outside the current breeding distribution."

I'm pretty surprised at Redpath just leaving that massive subject hanging there, with no qualification at all as to its feasibility or effectiveness. It sounds like unbridled fantasy - "oh, we'll just move them somewhere else and establish new populations and it will be fine". I'm also surprised that J App Ecol let it get past the reviewers so easily in that form.
 
This quota idea is great, its just upside down. It shouldn't be difficult to identify how many pairs of Hen Harriers should be present on any moor, based on what they are like in unpersecuted suitable habitat, and then shooting licensing should be withdrawn for any moor that hasn't got its quota of HH, until it does. Evidence-based practice. Easy-peasy.

John
 
This quota idea is great, its just upside down. It shouldn't be difficult to identify how many pairs of Hen Harriers should be present on any moor, based on what they are like in unpersecuted suitable habitat, and then shooting licensing should be withdrawn for any moor that hasn't got its quota of HH, until it does. Evidence-based practice. Easy-peasy.

John

I rather liked this line of thinking John, but then I thought - as soon as the HH population hit the quota back would come the shooters and the demands to reduce predator populations again. We would then be back where we were.

Nah... sorry Grouse shooting has to go. Just as soon as we can find a publicly affordable management mechanism for sustaining heather moorland with its natural biodiversity. At the moment I'm stumped......

Another John
 
This quota idea is great, its just upside down. It shouldn't be difficult to identify how many pairs of Hen Harriers should be present on any moor, based on what they are like in unpersecuted suitable habitat, and then shooting licensing should be withdrawn for any moor that hasn't got its quota of HH, until it does. Evidence-based practice. Easy-peasy.

John

the problem with that is that where you have a density that is equal to unpersecuted habitat (a 'normal' density), then grouse shooting is unviable. And nobody is entitled with withdraw a shooting (gun) licence on their own land. You don't need a licence to shoot grouse, so there is no licence to revoke.
 
it's not the employees you have to worry about - it's the membership who bankrolls it all.

Two words send shivers down the backs of RSPB recruitment personnel: Ruddy Duck.

There's a lot of difference, you know. Hen harriers arrived naturally in your country, and in mine, too.

The "quota" system for hen harriers in England isn't such a new idea. From what I have read in the Forum and elsewhere, some land owners in northern England have been operating a 100% cull as their quota for years. Yet, they are the same people who go on about upholding the law.

Seriously, and I haven't read the whole thread, it would surely be contrary to the stated principles of any conservation organisation to agree with the idea of culling birds of any protected species?

Allen
 
Last edited:
Why is there little outcry about these quotas, yet when pigeon fanciers rail about peregrines and sparrowhawks, or anglers about cormorants etc., most of the people on the forum get rather cross indeed! If it is merely concerning the actual prevention of succession that causes this dichotomy, then even that is doubtful-I have read papers that showed that biodiversity on moorland is actually being lowered pretty much across the board due to lack of rain-based replenishment of nutrients, and the washing away of carbon stores, due to over grazing and burning.

I'd be a bit surprised if there really is the suggested "little outcry about these quotas." I know that I base my knowledge on contemporary ornithological issues on what I read in BirdForum, but the quota idea is prattish, to put it politely. It would be quotas for culling hen harriers now, then quotas for peregrines and sparrowhawks next, golden eagles after that.

Here's a thought - has anyone ever done a study comparing the benefits to the rural economy of raptors as things that people go on holiday or day trips to see rather than shoot?

Allen
 
Here's a thought - has anyone ever done a study comparing the benefits to the rural economy of raptors as things that people go on holiday or day trips to see rather than shoot?

Allen

I've never seen such a study, but fear it would not weigh in favour...

One day's grouse shooting, £7000... http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/254...shooting-industry-as-grouse-season-opens.html

One day eagle safari on Mull, £34 (including a packed lunch)... http://www.wildlifemull.co.uk/aboutus.html

Shooters are notoriously minted, birders are notoriously tight. My five-day trip birding in Speyside and Mull probably put £150 per head into the local economy. Some prat from the city probably spends that on one glass of whisky after a hard day blasting at grouse.

Graham
 
There's a lot of difference, you know. Hen harriers arrived naturally in your country, and in mine, too.

completely OT, but are you saying that the Isle of Man is a "country", as in, a sovereign nation? I thought it was a protectorate of the United Kingdom. I know it is not part of the UK, but it doesn't have a seat at the United Nations either.
 
completely OT, but are you saying that the Isle of Man is a "country", as in, a sovereign nation? I thought it was a protectorate of the United Kingdom. I know it is not part of the UK, but it doesn't have a seat at the United Nations either.

Well, 'tis true that we Manx are a nation, although not a sovereign one, I suppose. That's a colonial concept, and OTT in the 21st century. There are lots of small nations who do not have seats at the UN.
Anyway, I was not making a political statement, just focusing on something we have in common, hen harriers (re-)colonising our countries naturally. I wondered afterwards if you would interpret adversely what I wrote about ruddy ducks!
Allen
 
Make the landowners pay for the ill doings of their staff. Instead of small fines for the game keepers huge fines for the landowner or inprisonment. Happens in haulage companies why not for this - no-one can argue that instructions don't come from the top.

I'm against quotas because they go against law - "allright we know you do it so we will find a way around it!!!"

I also understand the commercial aspects of grouse moors. However, the loss of grouse shooting would be of no great loss to me - compulsory purchase the land and turn it over to the NT.
 
Make the landowners pay for the ill doings of their staff. Instead of small fines for the game keepers huge fines for the landowner or inprisonment. Happens in haulage companies why not for this - no-one can argue that instructions don't come from the top.

But the problem is getting the convictions in the first place. There have been very few successful prosecutions for hen harrier persecution despite it being widespread, due to the remoteness of the areas where these crimes take place.


I also understand the commercial aspects of grouse moors. However, the loss of grouse shooting would be of no great loss to me - compulsory purchase the land and turn it over to the NT.


Well that might be OK if Robert Mugabe was running the country but you are living in cloud-cuckoo land if you think that is ever going to happen. Notwithstanding the political obstacles, the market value of all the grouse moors in the UK is probably in the region of £1billion - if you had that much money to spend on conservation, would that be the best use of the money?

The bottom line is that there are virtually no hen harriers breeding on grouse moors at the moment. That means that the grouse shooters are getting exactly what they want. Far from giving in to these people or saying that what they are doing is acceptable, a succesful quota system would shift the balance from the status quo towards the conservationist's agenda. However that is not to say that there aren't potential problems with a quota or that it would definitely work. I just think that it needs some radical (but realistic) thinking to move things forward.
 
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.
 
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.

you've totally missed the main points that have been made several times in this thread: 1) having "biodiversity" (harriers) makes grouse moors unsustainable. harriers simply eat too many grouse for grouse moors to exist as 'grouse moors'. 2) the "subsidy" has to come from somewhere - most liekly other conservation projects, for the sake of a few dozen pairs of a common species. 3) there are no licences to revoke. Licences do not exist.

and....

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.

grouse moors are, in essence, giving free management for the significant benefit of most moorland species, for a massive area of the country. No other group (charity, conservation etc) has the resources to take on this stewardship, which would be illegal nationalisation of private property anyway. There is no mechanism to take this land off them and give it to someone else to manage. If you police/price them off the land, away from managing moors for grouse shooting, most of it will either be abandoned or sold/let to sheep farmers or foresters. That is the only other use for the land, unless the state buys it all if it comes on to the market and it successfully bids. Abandonment, forestry and sheep farming would be disastrous for the moorland ecosystem.
 
Last edited:
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.

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top