John B (not the sloop)
Don't blame me I didn't vote for 'em
And if you went down to the Norfolk Coastal marshes last November (say near the Sandringham estate) you could have seen a couple get shot too.
-
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.
Hen Harrier "quota" a win-win solution say researchers (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter John B (not the sloop)
- Start date
And if you went down to the Norfolk Coastal marshes last November (say near the Sandringham estate) you could have seen a couple get shot too.
Allen S. Moore
Well-known member
so you and the rest of the people on the island evolved there, did you?
Mentioning evolution, didn't our species evolve in Africa and migrate north and east, adapting to circumstances that we found on the way?
I'm not sure where hen harriers evolved, but they have adapted to circumstances that they have found, certainly in my country, that term that seems, strangely, to get KnockerNorton's goat (or sheep
). When hen harriers settled in the Isle of Man, probably from Scotland (the nearest country to us), they found a red grouse population that was already much lower than in Scotland or England. They didn't move on, or starve, though. True enough, hen harriers here do sometimes take red grouse, as well as individuals of other, smaller bird species. However, studies have found that a sizeable proportion of the prey of Manx hen harriers is young rabbits. Hen harriers move about a bit, but I suppose that if some rabbit-eating harriers from the Isle of Man settled in England they would be shot by KN's "hen harriers eat red grouse" compatriots, despite their actual diet.Others have asked about property prices in the Isle of Man. Sadly, house prices are still sky high, a lot higher than prices in parts of northern England, at least. However, my country ("grr grr") is a great place for a holiday, especially for people interested in wildlife and the countryside, a good place to "chill" with our un-hurried attitude to life. GrowlerNorton might even enjoy it, including the sight of hen harriers fairly safe in our skies.
Allen
bitterntwisted
Graham Howard Shortt
Thanks KN and the Colonel for explaining a little how shoots work and how the bag size matters. The more we understand grouse shooting the better able we are to work out a solution, if one is possible.
Now hypothetically suppose the law were strictly enforced (whatever of the practicalities of enforcement) and harrier numbers increased to the point where fewer grouse were available. What really would be the consequence?
If this were on just some moors I can quite see how those would be uncompetitive and unviable, but suppose bag sizes were depressed universally by general enforcement of, and adherence to, the law. Wouldn't smaller parties shoot the same number of birds each paying even more for the privilege? Or would the same size parties not come to terms with having fewer targets? Or could even stalking (which seems like more of a sport to me) become more popular?
In short, does absolute bag size across all moors as a whole actually influence the economic viability of shooting? What I understand of demand theory suggests it shouldn't; it's the relative sizes of bags on different estates that makes individual, unproductive moors, uneconomic. Create a level playing field, and it doesn't matter how high above sea level it is?
Graham
Now hypothetically suppose the law were strictly enforced (whatever of the practicalities of enforcement) and harrier numbers increased to the point where fewer grouse were available. What really would be the consequence?
If this were on just some moors I can quite see how those would be uncompetitive and unviable, but suppose bag sizes were depressed universally by general enforcement of, and adherence to, the law. Wouldn't smaller parties shoot the same number of birds each paying even more for the privilege? Or would the same size parties not come to terms with having fewer targets? Or could even stalking (which seems like more of a sport to me) become more popular?
In short, does absolute bag size across all moors as a whole actually influence the economic viability of shooting? What I understand of demand theory suggests it shouldn't; it's the relative sizes of bags on different estates that makes individual, unproductive moors, uneconomic. Create a level playing field, and it doesn't matter how high above sea level it is?
Graham
Last edited:
bitterntwisted
Graham Howard Shortt
Isurus
Well-known member
I'm fairly sure lack of grouse translates pretty quickly to lack of ca$h-money.
On the topic of how grouse moors work (as a business) this might be of interest:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtml?xml=/earth/2008/08/09/eagrouse109.xml
On the topic of how grouse moors work (as a business) this might be of interest:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtml?xml=/earth/2008/08/09/eagrouse109.xml
Allen S. Moore
Well-known member
Hen harriers and the visitor economy
Fine! There is also a large communal roost of hen harriers in the north of the Isle of Man, often with tens of birds and occasionally over 100. You'll also get good sightings of choughs and peregrines. One, er, "dampener" is that this summer has been very wet; next year can only be better!
Allen
Excellent. Me and my boyfriend will be over soon.
Graham
Fine! There is also a large communal roost of hen harriers in the north of the Isle of Man, often with tens of birds and occasionally over 100. You'll also get good sightings of choughs and peregrines. One, er, "dampener" is that this summer has been very wet; next year can only be better!
Allen
KnockerNorton
Well-known member
I think that statement signifies that I'll disengage with you, as you're so badly informed and entrenched about the situation on the ground. Virtually everything you've said there is factually wrong. If you can't talk in terms of reality, I can't really debate it with you.
Capercaillie71
Well-known member
It's worth pointing out that there are two methods of shooting grouse. Walked-up shooting is where a small number of guns walk across the moor and dogs are used to flush the grouse for shooting. As the grouse are usually flying away from the guns, this is quite difficult. As a result, usually only a small number of grouse are shot and this type of shooting can be carried out with lower densities of grouse (although you still require a surplus of young grouse to be present otherwise the breeding population would decline).
The other form of grouse shooting is driven shooting, where a line of beaters flush the grouse towards a line of guns who shoot the grouse as they are flying towards them. The birds are easier to shoot, but apparently it only really works if you have very high densities of grouse (>60/km2).
Personally if I were a shooting man, I think I would prefer the walked up version (more of a challenge, more exercise etc.) but unfortunately it is the driven version which people are willing to pay the big money for. So while it's true that absolute bag size shouldn't really matter, if the grouse densities drop below the level required for driven shooting, then the demand may well disappear altogether as many people may prefer driven pheasant or partridge shooting to walked up grouse.
KnockerNorton
Well-known member
certainly in my country, that term that seems, strangely, to get KnockerNorton's goat (or sheep
because it is a meaningless posturing political statement, and depends on what you call 'a country'. Manx are, as far as I am aware, British citizens as IoM is a dependency of the UK. The same as someone in Tristan de Cunha o Falklands. They are not nation states, although they may want to be (as many in Scotland), but we do not refer to Falklands as 'a country'. To me, a country is somewhere where the citizens have a different ultimate political and legal force which, as the residents of Pitcairn can testify, that is the UK. Which is ultimately responsible for what happens in IoM. Just like in my 'country'. So my "compatriots" are yours.
Of course, if you wish to refer to the IoM as "a country" in the same way that people in Somerset talk about "the west country" or people west of Birmingham talk about "the Black Country" or people in Yorkshire talk of "God's Own Country" then that's up to you. But your head of state is my head of state, compatriot.
bitterntwisted
Graham Howard Shortt
Talking of ill-informed ignorance, in my attempt to tease Allen about living in an intolerant, illiberal backwater, I've managed to out myself despite not actually being gay.
For the record, the Isle of Man now has the same equality laws as the UK, and welcomes visitors of any sexuality.
Apologies for my ignorant teasing, Allen, the Isle of Man does sound a cracking place to visit.
Graham
Citizen of the World
KnockerNorton
Well-known member
that's not our remit, we're just chewing the fat.
it would mean that in some years (many more than now, possible all) there would be no grouse to shoot, and no bookings could be taken. Any grouse shot would deplete the breeding population, because the surplus would have been eaten by harriers and not be avilable to be shot.
would you like to try and market this to people who are currently prepared to pay 7k a day? While British grouse shooting is thought of as the top end of the market, there are competitors abroad (eg various shooting in Africa and Argentina). the heritage of grouse and the traditional British experience will be a lot of the draw. If you make it so that there is nothing to shoot, then no-one will come. Moors only open for bookings if a surplus exists.
The important thing to remember is that grouse populations are cyclical, like voles. So one year will be great, a few will be ok/poor, and one will be a washout. So while your idea may work for the 1 in 5 years, you aslo have to keep the moor viable in the other years when the surplus/bag will be naturally lower without any more proposed pressure (harriers). So those marginal years would become unviable years, and the great year would be marginal. That's the argument. Moors can afford to lose 1 year in 3-5, but not 4 years in 5. Who'd pay for that, when you can go duck shooting in argentina with no restrictions?
KnockerNorton
Well-known member
you mean there are no official birch pantations?
bitterntwisted
Graham Howard Shortt
Thanks, Capercaillie. That's what I was wondering. The question is, would those who participate in driven grouse shoots actually go "downmarket" to pen-reared pheasants and partridge, less of a challenge to shoot and in much less inspiring surroundings, or would they perhaps move to walked-up grouse, or simply 'make do' with fewer targets?
What I'm getting at is we don't know the elasticity of demand. It isn't necessarily true, as Isurus says, that "lack of grouse translates pretty quickly to lack of ca$h-money." That surely depends on the availability of grouse or alternatives to grouse elsewhere. A lack of oil certainly doesn't lead to a lack of money for oil companies. nor does the scarcity of diamonds send De Beers to the wall. Since grouse shooting is a conspicuous consumption good, with few obvious alternatives, and a cachet in its difficulty, could it not be surprisingly resistant to decline from a general lack of grouse in the long-term?
In our own hobby scarcity, rarity and difficulty are prized highly. If there were simply fewer birds, would the popularity of birding decline and its economic impact decrease?
I don't know the answer, I just wanted to point out that without evidence of when, how and why bag size impacts participation in grouse shooting vs other pastimes, it isn't safe to draw conclusions about economic viability.
Graham
PS - thanks for the Telegraph links, Isurus.
EDIT - cross-post with KN's post covering, in particular, the cyclical nature of the population and the alternatives in Africa and Argentina - I think that blows my elasticity musings out of the water.
Last edited:
Steve G
RAINBIRDER
What is this vital moor management alluded to above?
-It's moor burning & very little else (apart from shooting Hook-beaks!)! OK it stops the natural progression of vegetation, i.e heather moor progressing to birch scrub or open pine forest but the bloody sheep & deer are doing that anyway. Moor burning by its very nature reduces biodiversity; it also releases large amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere (much of it from the peat substrate underlying the heather).
The grouse shooting fraternity of landed gentry & lawyers' syndicates are hardly eco-philanthropists. Grouse moors are grouse moors because there is precious little else they can be used for. The soil is acidic, nutrient-poor & often wet -this & the topography hardly lends itself to arable fields. Neither are house-building or retail-parks going to gobble up much of our moorland. Even a proliferation of golf courses would hardly dent the area devoted to grouse. If not used for industrial game bird rearing then all it can be used for is poor quality grazing for sheep (which is what most of it is already) or perhaps military training!!!
Leave grouse moor to its own devices & what will happen? >Birch scrub, open Pine forest, bogs & patches of open ground. Round up some Highland Cattle from the Shortbread tins & put them rather than sheep on the moors & you will still have open areas for Skylark, Wheatear, breeding waders, etc. In fact a mosaic of habitats will be created that could support additional species such as breeding Wood & Green Sandpiper, Redpoll, Siskin, perhaps even Cranes (well why the hell not?)!
But what of the grouse? Return of birch scrub & open pine will encourage Black Grouse whilst Red Grouse can also make a living in such habitats as long as they remain fairly open. Most of our scarcer upland breeding birds such as Dunlin, Golden Plover, Twite,etc, benefit little from burnt moorland.
No, grouse moors are not upland nature reserves which protect iconic, diverse & distinct wildlife threatened or absent from elsewhere in Europe; they are monotonous monocultures bereft of biodiversity which exist to satisfy the bloodlust of a relatively small minority!
-It's moor burning & very little else (apart from shooting Hook-beaks!)! OK it stops the natural progression of vegetation, i.e heather moor progressing to birch scrub or open pine forest but the bloody sheep & deer are doing that anyway. Moor burning by its very nature reduces biodiversity; it also releases large amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere (much of it from the peat substrate underlying the heather).
The grouse shooting fraternity of landed gentry & lawyers' syndicates are hardly eco-philanthropists. Grouse moors are grouse moors because there is precious little else they can be used for. The soil is acidic, nutrient-poor & often wet -this & the topography hardly lends itself to arable fields. Neither are house-building or retail-parks going to gobble up much of our moorland. Even a proliferation of golf courses would hardly dent the area devoted to grouse. If not used for industrial game bird rearing then all it can be used for is poor quality grazing for sheep (which is what most of it is already) or perhaps military training!!!
Leave grouse moor to its own devices & what will happen? >Birch scrub, open Pine forest, bogs & patches of open ground. Round up some Highland Cattle from the Shortbread tins & put them rather than sheep on the moors & you will still have open areas for Skylark, Wheatear, breeding waders, etc. In fact a mosaic of habitats will be created that could support additional species such as breeding Wood & Green Sandpiper, Redpoll, Siskin, perhaps even Cranes (well why the hell not?)!
But what of the grouse? Return of birch scrub & open pine will encourage Black Grouse whilst Red Grouse can also make a living in such habitats as long as they remain fairly open. Most of our scarcer upland breeding birds such as Dunlin, Golden Plover, Twite,etc, benefit little from burnt moorland.
No, grouse moors are not upland nature reserves which protect iconic, diverse & distinct wildlife threatened or absent from elsewhere in Europe; they are monotonous monocultures bereft of biodiversity which exist to satisfy the bloodlust of a relatively small minority!
KnockerNorton
Well-known member
to create a high-end product, you restrict the meeting of demand, not limit the supply. If you have a limited and unreliable supply, you cannot sustain predictable demand. Especially if your supply is zero for several years at a time. In other words, you don't shoot every grouse you can, but instead limit how many grouse you shoot and charge a premium for that.
Partridge shooting is virtually over now in Britain - they're too scarce (and red-legged are poor quality shooting and may also soon be banned), and pheasant shooting is very much 2nd division. Grouse vs pheasant is like a day at St Tropez vs a day at St Albans. That's the difference in market.
Partridge shooting is virtually over now in Britain - they're too scarce (and red-legged are poor quality shooting and may also soon be banned), and pheasant shooting is very much 2nd division. Grouse vs pheasant is like a day at St Tropez vs a day at St Albans. That's the difference in market.
KnockerNorton
Well-known member
staggering.
It's rotational burning, creating 4-6 yrs of heather of various ages, which maintains a mosaic habitat. It is restricted grazing - sheep grazing at >20th century economic densities (and deer) turn heather into grassland bog by grazing out the heather.
Land has to pay. If it is not grouse, it will be sheep or forestry. So grassland vs dense douglas fir. Re any abandoned land that is locked up: birch scrub doesn't stay scrub for long. It is successional. After 20 yrs of that it will be woodland.
KnockerNorton
Well-known member
That's the same argument vegetarians use about eating meat, factory farming and abbatoirs. We all know what battery farms, slaughter and eating meat involves, but Tesco still does a roaring trade in pork chops and cheap chicken.....
Steve G
RAINBIRDER
So it creates a monoculture at various stages of growth!
More woodland is fine by me.
Already a few of the more forward thinking estates are encouraging natural progression & especially open Caledonian forest regeneration. We currently have more moorland & less native forest than at almost any time since the last glacial period. Re-dressing the balance won't hurt & besides did Red Grouse not evolve on this once wooded island?
Your nostalgia for this outdated land management system is very touching but this is the 21st century & people want to see changes in land use. Furthermore setting fire to large parts of the countryside is no longer acceptable in our carbon-conscious times.
Isurus
Well-known member
as opposed to the non-monotonous monocultures? sorry - couldn't resist.
I do think some of the attitudes on this thread are a little counterproductive. I can see people being against the quota scheme suggestion but I'm surprised at the number who apparently want to do away with grouse moors altogether.
ColonelBlimp
What time is bird?
Let's have a bit of deconstruction here:
I go up there very regularly, and I have never seen the abject encouragement of grouse. Yes, conservation work is done, but AFAIK this does not entail killing BOPs etc. I have seen the contrast myself between the valley by Dunsop, and grouse moors nearer me in terms of diversity.
As you said: (We can't have heather moorland in the English uplands without Grouse shoots paying for it)= "pretty much, yes, for many of them". You have given no evidence thus far to show that moorland with high biodiversity (much less the monoculture) can be sustained purely by grouse moorkeeping. I am merely trying to give an example of a situation where an area is not primarily managed for grouse and the whole diversity hasn't imploded.
The above is essentially what goes on in the majority of moorland in my experience, at least in my local area. This is not an acceptable situation, and if the cessation or lowering of grouse shooting in these areas would stop this I cannot think the negative aspects would be altogether that great.
As for the bag sizes comment, I may well have got that confused between pheasant and grouse, but I swear I read something describing then same situation for grouse but I cannot find it.
Similar threads
