Presumably not for the Hen Harriers...
IMHO the putting of gamekeepers etc. on a pedestal for actually burning off the heather and preventing succession is relatively unjustified. At least around here the moors are so over-burnt and over-grazed that there is basically a monoculture of sheep, grouse, and our good friend calluna vulgaris. I have never seen a raptor about the moors for sure, and, when they are actually about on other moors, to effectively persecute raptors that are already far below the nominal carrying capacity just to keep what is effectively a rich man's pursuit afloat is perverse-especially ones that have been so extensively persecuted and are as endangered as the Hen Harrier.
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 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.