UKH

Where are all the birds of prey on Britain's grouse moors? Raptor persecution is the dark secret of our uplands, says campaigner Dr Mark Avery, and the grouse industry is to blame. Don't just get mad – get active

Read more

In reply to UKC/UKH Articles:

Was in the hills east of Dalwhinnie a couple of days ago. Whilst I had a brilliant day out, thanks great company, endorphins and a dusting of snow, it was also marred by excessive hill tracks, heather desert, no raptors, rusty old traps lying about and the remains of mutilated mountain hares. These are not wild places.

In reply to UKC/UKH Articles:

I live in Lancaster, next to the Forest of Bowland. Local people, particularly in Abbeystead, have rallied around the cause of the Hen Harrier - which they suspect has been illegally persecuted by gamekeepers working for the estate of the Duke of Westminster, which owns vast tracts of moorland in the area. All so that some assholes in landrovers can rag it up the hillside, and get pissed on single malt whilst murdering hundreds of grouse - which, bless it, is literally the stupidest and slowest bird in the world. They might as well take their shotguns into a hen house.

So, who is the Duke of Westminster? An anachronistic leech, whose assets total somewhere around £9.5 billion. When the Duke of Westminster died in 2016 he managed to avoid inheritance tax on the fortune left to his son [1]. The recent 'Paradise Papers' revealed how a network of offshore companies was used to avoid tax [2].

As the aptly named Dr. Avery says, we don't need to wonder why the Tories don't do something to stop this kind of crime. The same scum who run the Tory party are the ones who are trying to turn moorland into a barren theme park for inbred, (en)titled pricks. Nevermind prosecuting them, or fining them - we should confiscate this land. After all, they already owe us more than its value in avoided tax.

[1] https://www.theguardian.com/money/2016/aug/11/inheritance-tax-why-the-new-d...
[2] https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/nov/07/duke-of-westminster-offsho...

In reply to C Witter:

Your sentiment is right, but you do realise the Guardian who you linked also offshores it's profits in the Cayman islands.

Brexit and the demise of CAP is likely to slowly change the benefits, or lack of, owning vast swathes of unfarmed land (Crops or forest ).

In reply to UKC/UKH Articles:

banning shooting is probably not the answer here it has been around longer than clmbing probably and is part of county life providing employment for people etc. (though it needs to be regulated properly). the problem here is lack of enforcement of existing laws and lack of funding for enforcement officers. we need to fund enviromental enfocement through the police and EA, and prosicute people untill this happens nothing will change

In reply to george sewell:

Driven grouse shooting has only been around for c150 years I think climbing predates that by a bit.

Killing birds of prey has been a crime for over 60 years - as the article says - there aren't enough coppers to stop crime against people in towns let alone to stop crime against wildlife in the remotest parts of the country.

Licensing of shoots might be a way forwward - but the route to getting licensing is to ask for a ban and make licensing the compromise option. So please sign Gavin Gamble's e-petiton http://bit.ly/2iGsjne (as I see many readers of this article already have done)

In reply to george sewell:
Tbh, I think very little of 'country life' and its 'employment opportunities'. I've only met one grouse gamekeeper, but he was treated like crap, paid a pittance, expected to work every hour of the day, and often victim to the parochial politics of this 'idyll'. At one point, one of the shooters ran over this guy's dog, and didn't even apologize; that seemed to me symptomatic of the kind of arrogant disregard these people have for those who work for them.

I reckon better and more meaningful work could be created if this land was taken over and conservation replaced shooting... Though Summo may be right in thinking that Brexit is likely to throw the whole economics of land ownership, farming and conservation projects into chaos, as the web of organisational relationships and subsidies is ripped apart... I'd love to think that something more progressive might take the place of these organisations handing millions of pounds to already wealthy land owners... but I somehow doubt that the Tories will be the ones to institute this...

In reply to C Witter:

Wind farms kill far more birds than game keepers:
http://www.rspb.org.uk/community/ourwork/b/scotland/archive/2016/07/04/rapt...

Wind farms are also responsible for the greatest ever transfer of wealth from the poor to the rich via the subsidies:
https://www.thegwpf.com/renewable-energy-danger-wealth-transfer-from-poor-t...

If you want to reduce grouse shooting the best way would be, not to ban it, but to end the millions that the EU pays in subsidies to large landowners:
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/oct/28/grouse-shooting-estates...

In reply to george sewell:

The problem is that the persecution (shooting, trapping, poisoning) takes place in the middle of nowhere with no witnesses. No matter how much you put into enforcement in terms of money, time or officers the problem remains that, at present, if you can't identify the actual person doing the persecution you can't prosecute. We need a better legislation that will accept covertly acquired video evidence in certain circumstances, and we need vicarious liability so that the owners/managers can be prosecuted for crimes found to have taken place on their land.

In the absence of such legislation there is no realistic possibility of stopping the crimes, and so the remaining option is a ban - not on all shooting or even all grouse shooting but on Driven Grouse Shooting which seems only to be a viable pastime if raptors are eliminated (as well as a whole range of other environmental damage issues).

In reply to webding:

The article you cite doesn't support your statement. No one knows how many birds are illegally killed by game keepers; and, to be honest, given the time-honoured tradition of game keepers dumping birds on roads to pretend they are road kill... well, fill in the blanks...

The second article you cite is pretty dubious. But, either way, wind farms are not responsible for "the greatest ever transfer of wealth from the poor to the rich". I agree that subsidies for wind turbines (and solar panels) benefited the wealthy more than the less wealthy - but, this is overstatement - besides being a non sequitur. The global bank bailouts of 2008 and... going back in time, but relevant to the current situation... enclosure, are two obvious examples of greater transfers of wealth. Austerity and slavery are others. It would be interesting to analyse how much of the Duke of Westminster's wealth is historically derived directly or indirectly from slavery; and how much is being made by exploiting the privatisation policies that have gone hand-in-hand with austerity: https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/feb/20/privatisation-public-spaces...

I do agree with you, though, that we shouldn't be giving money to the likes of the Duke of Westminster and other large landowners!

In reply to webding:

Bit confused - and wrong - there mate.

Let's take Golden Eagles - it has been claimed by, surprise surprise, gamekeepers that windfarms kill lots of eagles (even in places where thee are no windfarms sometimes!!).

The Scottish government commissioned a review of the facts - see here https://raptorpersecutionscotland.wordpress.com/2017/05/31/scottish-governm...

Here are some quotes from that government report:

'Of 131 young eagles tracked, as many as 41 (31%) have disappeared (presumably died) under suspicious circumstances significantly connected with contemporaneous records of illegal persecution.'

'Some, but not all, areas managed as grouse moors were strongly associated with the
disappearance of many of the tagged eagles. '

'Wind farms were not associated with any recorded golden eagle deaths, and there were
very few records of tagged young golden eagles near wind farms'

So you seem to be spreading the shooting industry's spin.

Why not sign Gavin Gamble's e-petition which is tough on wildlife crime by being tough on the causes of wildlife crime. https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/201443

In reply to Ron Rees Davies:

You know what you're talking about. Many thanks!

In reply to webding:



You do realise that link is to a climate change denial/scepticism website?

In reply to UKC/UKH Articles:

We (the walking and climbing community) are probably in the best place to take the lead in facing these crimes head on

And here's why

Many conservation bodies wear several hats. They are directly protecting wildlife on their own reserves, but they are also desperately trying to engage in the wider countryside, through landscape scale initiatives, habitat based programmes and collaborative projects with lots of other bodies. The upshot of this that they are, for the best possible reasons, trying to engage with (butter up? ingratiate with? appease?) the big landowners. In many ways, this is brilliant - you can achieve much much, more on a catchment scale than you can piddling around on the bits you own, even if you are a big landowner like the RSPB - the downside of that is that you have to bite your tongue, take the long view, turn a blind eye etc. If you get too confrontational, the landowners walk away.

Individual climbers and walkers don't. We don't have to push things up the chain of command, find out what our policy and PR team think the right tone is, We can make a noise - I'm not talking about the BMC here, they are as hamstrung with access negotiations as the rest - but if we are seeing things we don't like, we can write to the media, write to our MPs and councillors (letters from constituents can really get their attention the way petitions don't always), and maybe most importantly we SEE stuff

Climbers and walkers are out on this land the way that few other people are - why was there so much opposition to CROW access? We see neglected livestock, we see unapproved developments, and we see wildlife crime. But often we do bugger all. Maybe we don't realise what we are seeing, or maybe we don't want to get involved, but we have the potential to make a real difference. I've learned that keepers and land managers keep a surprisingly close eye on what the goretex hoards are up to. Dog off a lead? Scouts straying from the path? Down they swoop. It's probably long overdue that we take a similarly jaundiced eye. That rustic abroad in the landscape might look at one with the countryside, but wait - what's he up to? Illegal traps? Poisoned bait? If you are in a position to check, then do so. Be suspicious

I don't mean in your face confrontation, but simply take a closer look, If you don't like what you see - report it to the police. Call others as well if you like (RSPB, NT etc) but first and foremost treat it like you would if you thought you saw your neighbour being broken into - a potential crime in progress. The only way the police might take action is if a pattern of suspicious behaviour builds up. And follow it up - did they take any further action? if not, why not?

This is first and foremost OUR wildlife heritage. Landowners should be able to make a living from the land, but not at the expense of our habitats, or our harriers. We should be making donations to Mend our Mountains, but we should also be Guardians of our Mountains, and just by being out there, Seeing, and if neccessary acting on what we see, we can and WILL make a real difference to the future of our wildlife.



Sorry. Deep breath and a cup of tea..

In reply to webding:

Did you even read the RSPB article?

" it’s not yet been confirmed how the red kite died the circumstances suggest that, like the other birds found, it was the result of a collision with a turbine."

"By contrast, persecution, including illegal killing, is still the key factor limiting the population size"

It more likely that Windfarms are a convenient place for gamekeepers to dump th evidence of their crimes.

In reply to UKC/UKH Articles:

i am an avid hunter and have been for a while. but i have always been opposed to any form of driven shoots. that is no hunt, there is no chase or skill or instinct. just a bunch of bellends taking peice of piss shots. i feel the same about fox hunting. why make animals suffer? yes i eat meat and i hunt for that meat but unnecessary pain or pointless suffering is just wrong. im all for banning driven shoots, problem is the BASC (shootings version of the bmc) carries a lot of well placed political clout

In reply to C Witter:

There are many Tories with an enlightened view on conservation matters. Rants like yours risk alienating them from your cause.

In reply to Simon Caldwell:

Tbh, I find the idea of an enlightened Tory to be something of a contradiction in terms, and don't particularly give a flying fox whether any Tories or Tory supporters feel alienated from "my cause". Personally, I feel rather alienated from their cause - driving down the living standards of ordinary people in order to facilitate an increasingly parasitic capitalist class, whilst lining their own pockets. Despite that, they've done little to moderate their rhetoric in recent years... so I'm not sure why I need to moderate mine!

In reply to UKC/UKH Articles:

Here's a book worth asking for for Xmas on this very theme:
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Bowland-Beth-Life-English-Harrier/dp/0008251894/

In reply to Simon Caldwell:

I've met a few Tory conservationists, notably Ken Clarke who is a bit of a birder on the quiet. However the few individual Tories are very much the exception, and for a variety of reasons tend not to get involved with Defra. Mostly, I think because its the ministerial equivalent of being appointed special envoy to Ulan Bator. Bizarrely the current incumbent is almost competent and even alarmingly sympathetic, but he is only passing through to greater things (in his mind, at least). Previous ministers have mostly seen it as a way to toady up to the cabinet/ chancellor and have been quick to cut budgets and regulation. Owen Patterson was a nightmare in this respect. Regrettably, I don't think it's possible to alienate the overwhelming majority any further than they already are

In reply to UKC/UKH Articles:

In the interests of balance, we should of course remember that the hysteria around Foot and Mouth that closed many, many crags and uplands for nearly a year happened on Labours watch - again a mix of incompetence and disinterest. God only knows what kind of wildlife crimes went on whilst nobody was able to see and yes, I know many species thrived with the lack of disturbance, before anyone lobs that particular one in

In reply to UKC/UKH Articles:

It seems to me that a change in the law is urgently needed regarding catching offenders. In a fairly recent incident no legal action could be taken because it was deemed that the camera had been put there for that specific purpose! Even if that was the case, why on earth should that affect the outcome?

In reply to Simon Caldwell:

There certainly are some - but they are rather thin on the ground in our government at Westminster. Defra behaves as though it is the Countryside Alliance in power.

In reply to Michael Gordon:

Good point - that's this case isn't it? youtube.com/watch?v=tDWfQJ5U3Nk&

In reply to markavery:

Could well be. RSPB said the camera was there for other reasons (e.g. monitoring the nest) but I still don't see why they had to defend the camera positioning? It could be for a similar legal reason that if someone puts up cameras around their home they need to put signs up as well to warn potential thieves that they might be caught.

In reply to UKC/UKH Articles:

I have joined a face book page of people who hate Chris Packham, as an observer, and am quite amazed at how people on the forum have opinions that are so far away from mine and the majority of the posts on here about all things moorland/hunting/estates!

In reply to toad:

I'm not talking about politicians - I don't know any of them. But I do know many Tory voters who would probably support Mark's campaign (at least one already does) and I'm sure at least some would be put off by Mr Witter's insults.

In reply to C Witter:


Why? I'm a floating voter generally strongly supportive of conservation efforts and deeply suspicious of some landowners but posts like yours immediately make me more sympathetic towards them. Do you really want to do that - are you more interested in cathartic rants, or in actually making things change?


Perhaps because you need support from people like me if you want to make a difference?

In reply to summo:

I think you'll find that The Guardian would dearly love to have the option of deciding not to "offshore its profits". As a title it makes a significant loss and has done for many years.

In reply to Phil1919:


Not sure what to say to that really. Sounds like a thoroughly nasty page. What did you expect?

In reply to MG:

I'm not after your support, MG, to be honest. Who is it you think I represent, exactly? I'm not representing anyone's views other than my own.

If my "rant" makes you more sympathetic to the Tories, perhaps you should analyse that; or the false polarisations that seem to exist in your mind. If pointing out that Conservatives represent a landed elite and tax dodgers makes you bristle, and defensively cry "well, dammit, why shouldn't they lap the cream of their justly earnt inheritances whilst shooting wildly at small unarmed birds!" then I doubt me being more "reasonable" and "moderate" in my view will affect much change on you - nevermind society.

Or... do you simply mean that I should say the sort of comforting things you like to hear, rather than expressing these irksome "left-wing" views?

Either way, you can suit yourself.

In reply to UKC/UKH Articles:

Not sure if this is the right place but its on the same lines...

For those of you who climb in the Peak District, especially Stanage - please keep your eyes open for signs of illegal trapping, which is rife in this area. Snares and large mammal traps- even if you aren’t too bothered by the wildlife aspect, these traps can be just as dangerous for your pet dog who’s joined you on a day out climbing

Check out the Hunt Investigation Team and Moscar Estate or linky... (facebook page if it works!) https://www.facebook.com/huntinvestigationteam/posts/560524584295104

In reply to UKC/UKH Articles:

Might go up on the moors dressed as a hen harrier with a machine gun just to level things up a bit.

In reply to C Witter:
I get the clear impression you don't care less about conservation but just want to sock it to rich people. If it were the other way around - the rich telling the poor to stop shooting - you would still be up in arms at them.

In reply to toad:

Most species thrived during the F&M restrictions showing that lack of human disturbance is one of the greatest depressive factors in upland breeding bird populations. Think on't.

In reply to toad:

Where on earth do you get the notion that most Tories are not conservationists? Please post the evidence here to back this outrageous, disparaging remark up.

In reply to MG:

It's an interesting impression... I do like where you're going with this idea of arming the proletariat - it is the centenary of the Bolshevik revolution, after all...!

But... no. I'm bowing out of this thread, as you and Simon Caldwell seem to be moving from the topic at hand to some convenient but irrelevant ad hominem.

In reply to Nicola756:

That'll be the pet dog that is kept on a lead, or under close control (at heel) and not allowed to roam free charging around disturbing breeding birds, chasing livestock and other wildlife I take it?

In reply to Nicola756:

Good tip, i’ve come across a few of these nasty primitive things, once got my foot caught in one.

Please anyone who finds one, destroy it.

In reply to C Witter:

" If pointing out that Conservatives represent a landed elite and tax dodgers makes you bristle"

Just because landed elite are likely to be Conservative ("tax dodgers" are, of course, distributed - anyone buying duty free or buying through Amazon is dodging tax) does not mean that all (or even the majority) of conservatives are, or sympathise with, the landed elite. In fact I'd bet the majority of the centre ground Conservative voters definitely don't sympathise with them.

In reply to markavery:

Evidence?

In reply to Scottish birder:

Badger culls, blowing up buzzard nests, objecting (until recently) to a ban on neonicotides, abandoning many CO2 reduction measures, etc. etc.

In reply to Snoweider:

Mutilated mountain hares? Multilated by what? Foxes, eagles, stoats, dogs off the lead, ravens, humans? How do you tell?

In reply to Scottish birder:


Well the landrover with a trailer full of dead hares I saw recently could, I guess, have resulted from a mass raven attack. I'm guessing not though.

In reply to UKC/UKH Articles:




Would me going around demolishing shooting butts be acceptable?
At least it'll cost 'them' time and money to rebuild.

In reply to pasbury:

I think if you destroy or tamper with a legal trap you are committing a crime. Best way to jeopardise hard won CROW and responsible roaming rights.

In reply to Scottish birder:

Just asking but do you own a shooting stick, deerstalker hat and something slinky in tweed.

In reply to Lusk:

And potentially cost you time and money - in detention and in fines - criminal damage, aggravated trespass.

And potentially cost the majority of responsible ramblers hard won CROW and responsible right-to-roam rights.

In reply to pasbury:

No, just asking but do you own a mask, badly-trained dog and like to commit vandalism and criminal damage?

In reply to UKC/UKH Articles:

Looks like one of Marks blog followers has shown up!

In reply to C Witter:

Are we dealing in facts here or just hyperbole?
I've never held a shotgun in my life, nor do I want to.
But if you classify grouse as a "slow" bird you clearly haven't got a clue what you are talking about.
I travel on the Isle of Skye road between Greenfield and Holmfirth a lot. I'm not a tear arse but I'm not a tootler either. On many occasions I've had a grouse flying at my side for a few seconds and not seeming to be struggling to keep up.

This is not to invalidate any other point you make but as for the bird itself - you are out of your depth in terms of knowledge, bless you.

In reply to Scottish birder:

I'd like to see you catch me!
If access was ever removed, with the tens of thousands of people who now roam the moors, the huge lack of Police and their time, it's completely un-policeable(?). Probably get a caution at the very worst.

Stop killing birds of prey and these potential problems would never occur.

In reply to Scottish birder:

No unless you count the rubber one, and i’m not talking about the dog if you know what I mean.

Are you only on this forum (having registered today) to somehow troll the site about this single issue?

In reply to MG:

Well why didn't you say so..... Was this a mountain hare cull to protect tree planting (in order to meet the Scottish Goverment target of 25% afforestation) or to minimise transmission of disease to red grouse?

In reply to Lusk:

I don't kill birds or prey, or anything else. Your lack of knowledge and respect for the law and your disregard for individual responsibilty speaks volumes.

In reply to Scottish birder:


Trees do fine round here with some protective sheaths. So, yes, most likely grouse protection. Hardly "conservationist" to kill everything else to protect a few favoured species for shooting.

In reply to pasbury:

Recent advice is to report to police with grid ref as wildlife crime incident. Take photos and if you have the time to do so, remain there until police arrive (i know a lot of people wouldn’t realistically be able to do this). If you can’t stay, then disable the trap without damaging it otherwise estate can claim you are the criminal! (Eg, pull snare tight rather than cutting it) But make sure police are informed -the more often incidents are recorded then the better the chance of action being taken.

Scottish Birder - i agree, dogs should always be kept under close control (and owners must take full responsibility) but there have been incidents where snares are set on the edge of footpaths, or on game trails that appear to be footpaths and are easy to get caught in.

I wish we could all just get along in the countryside without having to deal with stuff like this

In reply to Scottish birder:


But it's highly likely you know someone who does or even employ them.

In reply to MG:

Well why didn't you say so. I agree.

In reply to webbo:

Really? Based on what?

In reply to Nicola756:

Thank you for your excellent and measured advice on this, i’m afraid I get angry and, as you suggest, pull them tight, get them out of the ground (sometimes really difficult) and put them in the bin. Are they illegal without exception?

In reply to pasbury:

So far, the only trolling here has been by you and C Witter

In reply to Nicola756:

Good measured advice if illegal trapping suspected. Clearly snares shouldn't be set on or near footpaths. I agree that it would be great if we could all just get along. The action recommended by some on here is not going to advance that noble aspiration, only increase tension and generate mistrust.

In reply to pasbury:

No.

In reply to Scottish birder:
But you did register today didn’t you, it isn’t United Kennel Club you know.

In reply to Scottish birder:

Well... funnily enough in a former life I was an archaeological taphonomist so I can recognise the damage that metal implements and blades do to severed limbs.

In reply to alastairmac:

Is that a loss the UK printing end makes because it pays a fortune for the 'guardian' brand, which is owned by a shell company in the Cayman islands?

Ps. I don't know if it's true, but that's roughly how most offshoring works.

In reply to Scottish birder:

Based on the fact that if you go shooting you are likely to hear about what Joe or Humphrey down the Dale did.
Why are you bothering you are not going change anyone's opinion on here.

In reply to Snoweider:

Well why didn't you say so. So the mutilated hares had been butchered or hacked up by metal implements and blades - to what end?

In reply to Scottish birder:

You tell me?

In reply to pasbury:

Illegal? Sadly not entirely. If you find a trap and you’re not sure then get it reported and let the wildlife crime officer figure that part out

Re snares - we are one of only 3 (i think) european countries that still allow them. Can be used legally for foxes and rabbits but theres a whole host of rules around their use. Eg can’t be set in an area where badgers are found, must be a free running wire, and lots of other stuff. Can’t believe that we are so behind on this issue compared to the rest of the world

Would love to have the wire snips and stompy boots when I go walking in these areas, but gathering the evidence (and reporting it) is more important in getting illegal activity stopped.
Same as with most things, make your presence known (regularly walking across crow lands etc) and those acting illegally will stay out if the way. Those going about their daily business will generally be quite happy to see you and often stop for a chat. There are good people working in these areas too

In reply to webbo:

Well I don't go shooting so haven't heard what Joe or Humphrey down the Dale did. So you approve of criminal damage in the uplands?

In reply to pasbury:


Mark Avery has been campaigning on this issue for a while. As a consequence he seems to attract a certain kind of follower. To his credit, he does engage with them. I wouldn't have the patience.

In reply to Scottish birder:
The day this article appears strangely so do you.
So why don't you just go back and preach to the converted or if not just p*ss off.

In reply to pasbury:


Pass that question on to Mark Avery who also registered today. He probably thinks it's the Kennel club.

In reply to Snoweider:

You're the (self-proclaimed) expert - you tell me?

In reply to webbo:

LOL. That'll be a yes then.

In reply to Nicola756:

Are photos with enough background to establish the location enough evidence to be confident of any action being taken?

In reply to pasbury:

Only if the trap is illegal.

In reply to UKC/UKH Articles:

When people who set out to watch over illegal raptor hunting have their cars set on fire it doesn't take much to work out who is doing it. It's the same feck wits who are seen punching hunt sabs who happen to be filming "drag" hunting. The kind when the scented decoy must live underground and need Jack Russells and spades for the hounds to track. Driving around in jacked up landrovers with their cheap shit country wear from Yorkshire trading

In reply to toad:


No, I can't be bothered either. They are presenting very little of own argument, just going out if their way to wind folk up. I long for an end to the grouse moor desert of the east of Scotland. Happily my own back yard in the west is full of wild red grouse, golden eagles and hen harriers.

In reply to Scottish birder:
OK thanks for your reply.

I would actually like to engage in a debate about this but you will have to forgive me for being someone who likes wild places where the influence of humans is minimal. Grouse moors offend me, most recently I spent a weekend on the moors east of Aberedw near Builth Wells and found them utterly degraded as a landscape.

In reply to webbo:



The face of the tolerant understanding followers of Avery and Packham, willing to discuss and find solutions.
Yawn, read it all on here before, posters like Witter with a class chip so big on one shoulder he will probably overbalance and fall over when he gets off his bar stool.

Goodnight.

In reply to pasbury:
I’m not too sure. I think the monitors use gps / phone location stuff as well as video. (Im not one so not 100% sure) I’ve reported a couple using phone location and pics of handheld gps with ref, along with video of circles of large/locking snares leading to stink pits. Not heard anything from it, apart from crime ref number which i passed on to HIT to add to their evidence log.

I would think that if you’ve got photos and accurate grid ref (especially if you can show obvious illegal stuff), then it could be added to evidence at the very least. Loads of info on Hunt Investigation Team website or League against cruel sports. I couldn’t be a HIT monitor, some of the stuff they observe is heartbreaking.

In reply to Moley:




Interestingly my climbing partner is also a fell runner and as a result of this he has come across numerous illegal traps and other suspect practices.
I have no issue with people wanting find solutions but I do with folk who register just harangue every one who doesn't agree with their opinion of how it should be.
It would be same if the article had been about who bad off roading is for the environment.

In reply to Michael Gordon:

I was trying to get an insight but I am no closer to understanding the venom on the sight.

In reply to pasbury:
Very happy to engage in any mutually respectful exchange, but illegally tampering with or destroying other people's property in the uplands will only damage hard-won CROW and other rights.

Nicola 756's earlier advice is spot on, if you suspect illegality, document it and tell the police. I too like wild places where the influence of humans is minimal

In reply to Moley:
On this subject tolerance is perhaps not the greatest virtue. The gun lobby ironically don't appear to tolerate life on the moors that they can't kill for fun.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-york-north-yorkshire-42087455

In reply to Scottish birder:



If I see any traps I will remove them.

In reply to toad:

well said, also check out Hunt Investigation Team on FB, there is a lot going on around places like Stanage and Forest of Bowland regarding trapping of mammals, the gamekeepers have been covertly filmed shooting badgers, we are the best placed group of people to monitor this, whether we approve of grouse shooting or not, we can make it harder for people to engage in illegal activity to support it

In reply to mark s:

Well, if they're legal traps and you are caught (on film) or in person, you will be doing fellow climbers and walkers a disservice.

In reply to mark s:

The likes of Raptor Scotland/UK prefer it if you take a photo of the trap and send it to them. They cannot continue to gather evidence with a view to taking action if the trap is just removed/destroyed.

In reply to mark s:

Me too, precautionary principle.

In reply to Michael Gordon:


No, they don't. You can do what you like there in terms of video monitoring on your own private property. It becomes more problematic if your camera also captures images of public areas outwith your property boundary. Basically, the ICO advises that you arrange your cameras so that doesn't happen.

I suspect that something of that kind could be what tripped up the RSPB, if their camera captured images of a public area - which could have been their own reserve, if it was generally open to public access. Any defence lawyer is going to have a field day with evidence that turns out to have been gathered illegally.

In reply to summo:


So why not take a bit of time to find out, rather than making snidy insinuations in an attempt to make yourself feel clever?

P.S. It's not true.

In reply to Tom Valentine:




Mebbe get a quicker bicycle...

In reply to C Witter:

Well said! yep I think there land should confiscated and them exiled! The land was never theirs to own its the peoples!

In reply to petenebo:

He's right though, grouse do fly quite fast. Much faster than a pheasant. They are a native bird and have evolved to evade the avian predators that are sadly so lacking from managed grouse moors (golden eagles, hen harriers). They are pretty nifty in flight and actually kind of cool when they are not being mass produced.

In reply to Scottish birder:


Ho ho, if they can be set on the sly they can be destroyed on the sly.

In reply to webding:

Did you actually read the linked RSPB article? If you had you would have seen that it directly contradicts your assertion that "Wind farms kill far more birds than game keepers." That claim is false.

In reply to Scottish birder:

So what grade do you think Three Pebble Slab is?

In reply to petenebo:

Doing 60 on a bike, not my idea of fun....

In reply to Tom Valentine:

Yeah, sorry, but I do like a bit o' mischief.

In reply to Martin W:


You sure, ? https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2016/04/will-the-guardian-now-investigate-its...

In reply to Martin W:


Well in the case of a friend, he was told he should put signs up otherwise any evidence would not be able to be used.

In reply to The New NickB:
Don't know, never heard of it, never climbed it, never will, my rock climbing days are long behind me now. Never really enjoyed it anyway, I was always much more of a walker than a climber.

If you want to find out the grades of various climbs, pitches etc just Google them - Three Pebble Slab (HVS 5a)

In reply to Scottish birder:

As the Sun might say....GOTCHA!!

E0, as ene fule no

In reply to Scottish birder:


Not knowing about 3 pebble slab on here, is a bit like a gamekeeper not knowing the difference between a fenn and gin trap!

In reply to summo:


Oh I don't know - I've never been to, and never likely to go, to Three Pebble Slab.

As Scottish Birder only registered lately I'm pretty sure they haven't read all the past threads an picked up the rather idiotic threads about an innocuous climb called Three Pebble Slab.

As for fenn trap I've never heard of it, but as for gin I've certainly heard of that, I know quite a few gin palaces as well.

Just a thought, fenn trap, do you mean the von trapp family?

In reply to subtle:


As in climb every mountain?..... no.

In reply to toad:
LOL. Well that's me told. If you don't know the grade of some climb or other you're not allowed to comment..... Must have missed the copious references to grades in this Opinion piece and Comments on UK HILLWALKING (clue - its in the title)

In reply to summo:

Oh I see, I didn't realise there were entry qualifications for this site - where can I find them? I'll get my old MRT logbook out so I'm prepared.....

In reply to Scottish birder:

Which team?

So what is your favourite hill, climb, winter route.... why, which pitch? You must have one.

You can't have just joined to post on this thread, surely? No qualifications needed, just passion for mountaineering in one of its forms, past or present.

In reply to summo:

No qualifications needed, just passion for mountaineering in one of its forms, past or present.

Why a passion for mountaineering - that is only one facet of UKC/UKH

Do sports climbers have a passion for mountaineering?
Do grit stone climbers have a passion for mountaineering?
Do boulderer's have a passion for mountaineering?

In reply to summo:


Yes. There are two issues with the Guardian and tax and neither are the one you mention. One is historical, the Scott Trust was established to take the paper out of direct ownership of the Scott family, as it had been hit badly by death duties. The second regards the profits made in 2013? From the sale of the Autotrader title and much of its local paper portfolio, this was offset against years of losses, losing money is something that the Guardian is very good at, without any fancy accounting.

In reply to summo:

St Athan. Braeriach. Never a keen climber as I said before. Used to quite like the seacliffs on the Gower - grade 5, severe/v. diff enough for me in those far gone days. What is this, some sort of initiation ceremony? - sorry, don't know the secret handshake!

In reply to subtle:


I would include all as part of mountaineering... this is the UKC website not ukh, i.e. climbing...

Either way, they clearly only joined to defend gamekeepers.

In reply to Scottish birder:

No, just curious why someone suddenly pops up defending game keepers and grouse moors, you are in a very small minority on here.

In reply to Scottish birder:


Only a sense of humour and a willingness to engage rather than banging out repetitive dogma. A functioning brain could be seen as an asset too.

In reply to summo:


The thread also appears on UKH - check it out.

In reply to subtle:





I think you might want one of the many BMC threads. That is an ecumenical matter!

In reply to summo:

You need to reread the thread. I'm not defending anyone, just trying to persuade hotheads not to go around interfering with or damaging legal traps. I value my access rights and don't someone want someone else 'queering the pitch'. The pitch, geddit!

In reply to UKC/UKH Articles:

It´ s necessary to ban bird - watching first because there are the nest robbers among them

In reply to Removed UserStuart en Écosse:


Have a look at the Top 40 posters - how many of them possess these qualities?

In reply to subtle:


But were are all talking on UKC, so that is why i referenced climbing. Not walking, rambling, dawdling etc.. does the same thread run on both sites though?

In reply to Removed UserStuart en Écosse:
'....a willingness to engage rather than banging out repetitive dogma. A functioning brain could be seen as an asset too....'

Well, don't let me stop you doing/using either

In reply to Scottish birder:

I've seen far more illegal than legal traps in my lifetime and I've set everyone of them off. If you have to set traps, cull etc.. to maintain a grouse population, then that in itself shows how unnatural the whole upland environment has become.

In reply to Scottish birder:

Do you agree with Mark Avery that driven grouse shooting should be banned, if not why not?

In reply to summo:
Hang on a minute, now your actually engaging with the subject of the thread as opposed to being obnoxious - does this mean I've passed the 'summo' selection process?

Which team were/are you on?

In reply to ScraggyGoat:

No. Legal activity.

In reply to Scottish birder:


No. Because you are defending grouse moors.

In reply to summo:

Pointless continuing then. Byeeeeee...........

In reply to Scottish birder:

A lot of activities used to be legal (such as slavery), and are now illegal......being legal doesn't mean something has an inalienable right to continue, it's perfectly possible for a government to legislate?

Please expand why there should not be legislation?

In reply to ScraggyGoat:

It is, and if the government legislates against then it will be illegal, just like it is illegal to to go around interfering with or damaging legal traps.

There is legislation, lots of it.

In reply to Scottish birder:

So why shouldn't it be made illegal?

In reply to subtle:

Ha, this did occur to me.

In reply to summo:

As someone else pointed out, he joined on the same day as Mr. Avery.

In reply to Tom Valentine:

Mark Avery being the author if the article, so presumably he asked or was invited by UKC. He is up front about his campaign aims, has pesented his argument, and come on here to defend it using his own name. He's a well known campaigner on this issue which presumably he felt was relevant to users of UKH and UKC and the website owners agreed.
The other poster has as much right to be here of course but has also been deliberately antagonistic, and is using a pseudonym so his or her credentials are unknown. That smacks of trolling to me.

In reply to Snoweider:

Am in complete agreement about people who use pseudonyms .

In reply to Tom Valentine:

Point taken! But in my defence I'm not attempting to hide my identity, have been a member of this site for a bit, and I use this username for a bunch of visible online stuff.

In reply to Tom Valentine:

Hi Tom, you are probably already aware there is a grouse breeding programme being conducted on the moor to the side of the a635...along side the rspb reserve at dovestone...

ta sd

In reply to ScraggyGoat:

Because no-one has made a compelling case - economic, cultural or legislative - for it to be made illegal.

In reply to Scottish birder:


Nice slip, so this isn’t about the environment for you!

In reply to Scottish birder:

https://www.ukclimbing.com/articles/page.php?id=9922

In reply to UKC/UKH Articles:
Moors are managed landscapes that bring a lot of money into very rural communities that would otherwise most likely die completely. But that is not the reason to defend grouse shooting. The reason to defend grouse shooting is that without the efforts of the gamekeepers and the heather moors, grouse would be an endangered species and not only the grouse, but the curlew, and other ground nesting birds that make use of this managed habitat that has been created for and protects ground nesting birds.

I might personally, think that it is a sick pastime to kill for fun instead of for food. But I am not so foolish as to want a ban on grouse shooting because I know that these birds would probably be rarer than a raptor without the work of gamekeepers, while birds like the curlew would probably be extinct.

I do not endorse the killing of raptors because I think that ultimately, the number of grouse that they will take over the year will be minimal. However, there has to be a solution other than banning the grouse shoots. Anyone who thinks that these places are heather deserts either does not pay attention when they are walking or is simply talking a load of rubbish to push a political or class agenda.

Ultimately, unless the government or some charity takes over the management of this land, the land must pay for itself, and the alternative to grouse moor, is sheep, wind turbines, or plantation forest... none of which is going to help ground nesting birds and none of which is ideal habitat for the grouse. The choice is yours... either 'get active' and see the grouse become endangered or find an alternative solution whereby the gamekeepers can profit from protecting the raptors. Also do not forget, fewer grouse means less food for the raptors.

Oh, and after reading the comments about usernames... Northern Wayfarer is my Youtube and blog name... my real name is Nick Appleby. Former councillor on Tynedale and formerly a member of Northumberland National Park. I probably spend a lot more time walking on the moors than most people on these forums.

In reply to Scottish birder:

So why is the Scottish Government about to announce a committee to review Driven Grouse Shooting and associated land management activities, with a view to licensing?

Surely they wouldn't be dooing it if there wasn't some evidence?

In reply to Northern Wayfarer:

Nice try, but there are plenty of places in North Wales and Western Scotland where Grouse are managing (at natural densities) without DGS, and where Hen Harriers and ground nesters are managing far, far better than they are on the half-burnt wastelands of Bowland and the Dales.

Curlew, sadly, are declining everywhere, with or without grousemoor management.

In reply to Northern Wayfarer:


From Mark Avery

Q: Talking about profit and loss then – what about the huge amounts of money that are spent on grouse shooting to the benefit of local communities?

A: Who told you they were huge? The grouse moor industry is only worth, at most, a few hundred million pounds a year by their own calculations. Academic economists say that the grouse shooters estimates are inflated, and include public grants that would go to more deserving recipients if we shut down grouse moors. Also, the grouse shooters don’t even attempt to cost the ecological damage that they cause and that means they are cooking the books. In any case, money spent on grouse shooting would be spent, probably elsewhere rather than in the uplands, if grouse shooting were banned – so it wouldn’t be lost from the economy, just spent somewhere else on other luxury pursuits.

In reply to Northern Wayfarer:

This is such topsy-turvy thinking it's comical. Why privilege the grouse, perhaps ten million of the buggers isn't quite enough (figure plucked out of thin air).
Frankly I could live with there being fewer grouse and would be very surprised if they became endangered because alternate equivalent habitat exists elsewhere.


I paid an awful lot of attention when I was walking over Gwaunceste Hill in a desperate attempt to see anything else other than heather. The grouse moors are an intensely managed monoculture, littered with snares, feed trays and ugly tracks.

In reply to Stuart (aka brt):

If you read my argument... I am not making a case for economic protection. I am making a case for protection of ground nesting birds... one of which is the grouse. Do you honestly think the grouse would survive in its current numbers without managed moors? I don't see a lot of grouse when I am walking in places that are not managed.

In reply to pasbury:

I agree with the ugly tracks. It annoyed the hell out of me to see the historical 'carrier's way' destroyed by a grouse road across the moors. But these places are not deserts. Apart from a host of different ground nesting birds other than grouse, I've seen rabbits, hares, weasels, stoats, various rodents, adders, and a whole host of insect life. I've even spotted red kite and buzzards on more than one occasion.

In reply to Northern Wayfarer:

I am amused by your characterisation of gamekeepers and moor owners as obsessive compulsvive conservationists who are only interested in one species; wandering about muttering 'there aren't enough grouse' under their breath. They must really love grouse, or is it because the chinless wonders who pay thousands to shoot at them like to see a big pile of carcasses at the end of the day?

As an aside - do the grouse get eaten or dumped?

In reply to Northern Wayfarer:


You did start by saying "Moors are managed landscapes that bring a lot of money into very rural communities that would otherwise most likely die completely."

It sort of sounded like a defence. If that wasn't your intention, fair do's.

In reply to ScraggyGoat:

Because they have a 'land reform' (confiscation and redistribution) agenda. Check out Zimbabwe to see how well these sort of schemes work.

In reply to Ron Rees Davies:

'Curlew, sadly, are declining everywhere, with or without grousemoor management'.

https://www.gwct.org.uk/media/249256/waders_on_the_fringev2.pdf

In reply to Scottish birder:
That's strange, I thought it was because a bunch of 'birders' excercised their democratic right to launch a parliamentary petition, which was successfully supported by the public at large. They then got to present their case infront of the petitions committee and their evidence of illegal raptor persecution was sufficiently compelling that the committee passed it onwards.

I would have thought as a 'birder' that you would have known this.......

In reply to UKC/UKH Articles:

In not going to be dragged into this old chestnut, made a couple of comments but little point in arguing further. There are massive differences of opinion and lifestyle on this site and most of what I have read above bears no resemblance to the life I lead in the depths of Wales.
When I go out socially (local pub mainly) talk is about the hunt, lamping fox, snaring, trapping, terriers, fishing, shooting, wildlife we have seen; people who are anti all these are in the minority.
And before anyone jumps to conclusions, there are no shoots near us and no gamekeepers, just normal country life.
I did see a hen harrier up on the hills a couple of weeks ago, first here ever but not likely to stay - and no it won't be shot by anyone local.

In reply to The New NickB:

OMG, missed a word out......... That too. And political, missed that as well. And aesthetic, missed that too. And utilitarian, missed that too...............

In reply to Moley:

Same. Spent time in the Blacks, Beacons, Cambrians, Snowdonia - very little wildlife nowadays, (as opposed to when I started roaming these hills) no curlew, no lapwing, no golden plover - knee deep fegg and mollinia in places as hills stripped of Welsh Black cattle and other grazers. Head high bracken, vast swathes of conifers - all very sad.

In reply to Northern Wayfarer:

I take issue with your point about intensively managed heather and wild birds. I live somewhere where wild grouse, curlew, hen harrier, kestrel and golden eagle all thrive. There is a very small amount of burning that takes place on the margins of the moors done by farmers, but it is very small scale. The moors here are a rich patchwork of rank heather, bog and willow scrub, (although a few more trees would be nice) and there are no managed grouse shoots. I'm not against hunting at all, and I have friends and colleagues who are gamekeepers, deer stalking is a way of life here and it is essential for conservation. However in reality it is not an industry that supports our economy and as is generally the case north of the border, these big estates do not bring in much money for the general populace.

Your comment about how much time you spend walking the moors compared to everyone else is a little presumptive by the way.

In reply to ScraggyGoat:

Or was it a bunch of politically motivated Scot Nat land reforming birders who seized the opportunity to capitalise on the foolish illegal actions of wildlife criminals? Good on them, following the democratic path. Unlike those who would act illegally (like some on here) to further their agenda. Music to Nationalist politicians ears.

I would have thought a scraggy goat would have known this......

In reply to Scottish birder:

What nonsense. To characterise our uplands as becoming impoverished because we don't manage them enough!

In reply to summo:



Some of us are wondering why Mark Avery suddenly popped up here writing an opinion piece.

I wonder what other treats we have in store

In reply to timjones:


Does his hard grit CV not bear close scrutiny?

<- added for clarity

In reply to Scottish birder:
I never knew birding was such an extremist activity, and there I thought they'd just got sick and tired of widespread illegal activity, and we're hoping for additional legislation that would encourage compliance with the law.........

In reply to Andy Hardy:


I suspect that he may be a closet boulderer

Beyond that my curiousity has been piqued by the off-topic editorial rather than the individual that wrote it.

I'm sure that in the interests of balance we must have many more fringe opinion pieces in store

In reply to Northern Wayfarer:

You, and much of this debate, seem to have missed the crucial word 'driven' from the argument for or against banning DRIVEN grouse shooting.

The OP is about the ecological devastation that comes from intensive management for DRIVEN grouse shooting. The problem comes when economics, greed and the shooting community not giving a f**k leads to demand for hugely inflated and unnatural red grouse densities, which requires very intensive, sometimes illegal, management over a large area to deliver. It's entirely possible to manage ground to produce a small surplus of red grouse and go WALKED UP grouse shooting. Maybe 10 birds killed in a day compared to 100 or 200.

The idea that driven grouse shooting is the only thing keeping red grouse from extinction is hilarious and shows up a remarkable lack of basic knowledge of the subject.

In reply to UKC/UKH Articles:

Meanwhile on a grouse moor another hen harrier has disappeared... https://northyorkshire.police.uk/news/appeal-information-hen-harrier-disapp...

In reply to Northern Wayfarer:

These ground nesting birds: Curlew, lapwing etc etc have artificially high populations on the moors, linked directly to the direct control of predators. These predators are controlled legally (foxes, stoats etc) and illegally (hen harriers, peregrines etc) by the estates.

So yes, it is nice to see these birds but they are merely a symptom of the ecological imbalance created by grouse shooting. If these birds posed a threat to grouse populations, I bet my set of cams they'd be on a gamekeepers hit list.

In reply to timjones:


Just to clarify - this thread is SHARED by both UKC and UKH forums, with comments open to people on both sites.

Having said that, I don't see it as "off topic" for climbers to be made aware of / discuss important environmental issues, any more so than hillwalkers, and many of us (on both sites) spend large amounts of time in the uplands.

In reply to timjones:

How on earth do you see a discussion relating to the landscape containing a large proportion of our inland crags as off topic?

In reply to timjones:


I'm guessing that some 'campaigners' who can't find a charity to bank roll their activities are looking for forums, groups... of potential like minded folk to preach at. I'm guessing this site was preferable to a BASC or similar one to run his article.

In reply to summo:

Seems he found a receptive audience.

In reply to Scottish birder:


I think that's about the daftest response to the question "should (*insert activity*) be banned?" that I've come across! Now if something was illegal, that would be a good reason for not considering taking steps to ban it...

In reply to pasbury:


Feels a bit like clickbait. He preaches to the majority who are converted, then up pops a few against.

In reply to Michael Gordon:
'Do you agree with Mark Avery that driven grouse shooting should be banned', - NO - 'if not why not?' - LEGAL ACTIVITY

I don't think legal activities should be banned, I'm a libertarian. Do you think legal activities should be banned?

In reply to Scottish birder:

At the risk of seeming patronising do you think that everything has always been either legal or illegal?

Society changes, hopefully progress intervenes at some point otherwise something like owning slaves would still be legal, as it once was.

In reply to ScraggyGoat:

I never knew hill walking/climbing attracted such an extremist following, with some exhorting others to interfere with legal traps and vandalise other folks' property. I thought the vast majority of hill-walkers, climbers, ramblers etc would respect other countryside folks' perfectly legal pursuits and tools of the trade, you know, the old countryside code and more modern responsible rights to roam and of access - https://www.gov.uk/guidance/open-access-land-management-rights-and-responsi... .

In reply to pasbury:

Stop being patronising.

In reply to Scottish birder:


Cow tow to wanker landlords like the Duke of Westminster etc etc

In reply to pasbury:

Very eloquent.

In reply to UKC/UKH Articles:

It's a little frustrating but SB has managed to divert the discussions quite effectively if not particularly adeptly. In many ways the hen harrier is a flagship for everything thats wrong with grouse moors, but illegal killing of protected species isn't the only, or even the most pressing problem.

The big problem has always been the chronic habitat degredation - the year on year carbon losses, the systematic destruction of active blanket bog and the hydrological crises that heavy rain on these degraded peat surfaces inevitably lead to.

In a way the alleged economic benefits of grouse shooting are irrelevant because the cost of drinking water treatment for colour leaching from poorly managed burns and flood alleviation because of degraded peat (to name the two most obvious problems) dwarf them

Actually "poorly managed" is a tautology. All burning is poor management for everything barring high grouse populations.

In reply to Scottish birder:

Ok, we get it. Tampering with traps is illegal and a stupid thing to do. I agree. But one ill deed doesn't excuse another.
The point of the debate is about the negative impacts of management for driven grouse shooting. What do you think about that? Burning deep peat? Missing raptors (and lots of evidence of persecution)? Downstream flooding? These are real, well documented issues. I'd be interested in your justification for them.

Please don't deflect this and go on another rant about economics and traps. These are separate issues.

In reply to pasbury:
Cow tow to wanker landlords like the Duke of Westminster etc etc


I notice Mark Avery quickly distanced himself from the forum once Scottish Birder turned up to put another point of view and the abuse towards SB, landowners, Tories, shooters etc. started.
Not stupid, stir the pot and get out before he's associated with those types.

In reply to Moley:
The one think Mark Avery hasn’t done is fail to engage with his critics, however I think he primarily does it on his own blog. I suspect he has a lot of irons in the fire regarding his campaigning and writing work and sleazing around on a climbing/hillwalking forum fending off BASC/ Moorland Association / CA trolls is probably not that high on his agenda

In reply to Scottish birder:


Thanks. I guess what you’re saying is I should know my place.

In reply to gaz.marshall:
Hurrah! You get it, hope some others do. Of course there shouldn't be burning of deep peat, it's our best carbon store, by far. If it's not illegal to burn deep peat, it is certainly against the current code of conduct/best practice for burning/swaling. Killing any protected species is plain wrong, and dare I say it, illegal. The law needs enforcing. I haven't seen the evidence linking to downstream flooding - please post a link to the relevant science. What makes you think I'm interested in justifying any of them? I'm not.

In reply to pasbury:

LOL. Sounds to me like you have already decided your 'place'.

In reply to toad:

I know he engages with his critics and I sometimes look at his blog with interest (even if I don't agree with all of it).
But I suspect he cringes and soon backs off when his supporters/followers indulge in abuse of anyone who disagrees with them or is even of a different political party, class or owns some land.
I find it pathetic.

In reply to Scottish birder:

Kindly engage with the issues then, rather than simply going on about legality for its own sake.

In reply to Michael Gordon:
OK, kindly engage with the issue you brought up and then dodged - Do you think legal activities should be banned? You know my view.

In reply to Scottish birder:


Sigh. Sometimes the law changes, therefore legal activities are banned under the new legislation.

At the risk of being patronising and not knowing my ‘place’ this is called ‘progress’.

In reply to sfletch:

Well that's yet another shortcoming of the landscape that we call the moors: they have "artificially high"populations of ground nesting birds like curlew and lapwing.

And for the past few years I've had to listen to people on here trotting out the old cliches about moorland being an ecological "desert".

So, let's get this right, by controlling predators in one environment, we are actually helping preserve species such as the lapwing. And we don't want this to happen because the lapwing shouldn't thrive in an area we don't want it to.

No wonder the mink has such a bad press.

In reply to Tom Valentine:


Yes they are managed to create a habitat suitable for ground nesting birds. Grouse mainly but if a few others thrive then it’s seen as ‘conservation’. A smokescreen.


It’s burnt, mown and otherwise treated to allow only a few species to thrive, if we left it alone it would have trees on it.


‘Controlling predators’; do you mean shooting and poisoning raptors? Or killing foxes?


It’s an introduced species like the grey squirrel, signal crayfish, Japanese knotweed or carpet sea squirt. Thriving in an environment not suited to it.

In reply to pasbury:


Don't forget controlling the other apex predator, the Mountain Hare.

"a creature so foul, so cruel that no man yet has fought with it and lived........death awaits you all with nasty big pointy teeth!"

In reply to Scottish birder:


Depends on the merits or otherwise of the activity. Obviously!

In reply to Tom Valentine:

Well in reality all of the above would be there: foxes, stoats, lapwing, curlew, grouse, hen harriers etc etc etc, if it wasn't for the land management practices that masquerade as conservation. Promoting/protecting grouse shooting heavily hinders biodiversity in these areas.

And let's be clear, the chaps with shotguns do not care about the balance of wildlife.

In reply to pasbury:

Sigh, then make the case. Don't incite others to commit vandalism and illegal acts. Don't commit vandalism and illegal acts yourself. Of course society changes, but changes best through reasoned discussion and debate, not through throwing out insults at anyone who might just have a different view - 'Just asking but do you own a shooting stick, deerstalker hat and something slinky in tweed.' or of whom you disapprove - 'Cow tow (sic) to wanker landlords like the Duke of Westminster'. The word is kowtow from the Chinese. (Wish I was a cartoonist, because I find the mental picture of someone towing a cow to a masturbating duke quite amusing!)

Campaign to change the law, form a political party, stand for your local council, parliament, or as a NED for NRW/SNH etc

Banning long-standing traditional legal activities that have helped shape our countryside into the current mosaic of landforms and habitats mustn't be undertaken lightly and without bringing the majority on board - particularly those who live, work and make their homes there. Trying to drive wedges between groups or elements of society is invariably damaging.

What other legal activities should we ban? Should we ban the driving of diesel and petrol vehicles - cars, vans, lorries, trains, merchant shipping - all far more environmentally damaging than shooting. Should we ban folk from flying? Should we ban folk from having more than 1 or 2, children? Population growth is far more of an existential threat to nature than shooting. Didn't work particularly well in China or India either. Should we ban folk keeping pets? Keeping and breeding animals as pets is far more environmentally damaging than shooting - pet food manufacture, disturbance of wild animals and worrying of livestock by free-roaming dogs, predation by free-roaming cats, hybridisation of native wildcats by free-roaming cats. Should we ban meat eating? Far more environmentally damaging than shooting through greenhouse gas emissions, destruction of natural habitats to grow crops for animal feed etc etc Should we ban plastic? Devastating to marine ecosystems and very polluting to terrestrial ones. Should we ban climbing and hill walking? Probably responsible for stopping birds of prey and cliff nesting or upland birds settling in otherwise suitable habitat. Puts other folk at risk when they have to come out and rescue them in bad weather/difficult unforgiving terrain (MRT/Coastguard SAR crews). And so on.

Like I said earlier, I am a libertarian, I am opposed in principle to banning things. By all means do your best to mitigate adverse effects of your own and others activities, and to lead by example, and to persuade by reasoned and constructive debate, but don't try to impose your own values or will on others. It doesn't work. You have to bring them with you. So do I think grouse shooting or any other form of shooting should be banned? No.

In reply to pasbury:

I still can't see a problem in creating a situation where birds like the lapwing thrive. I always considered it to be a moorland bird anyway.

In reply to Monk:


Maybe off-topic was not quite the right term.

It seems like a significant change of direction to publish opinion pieces by campaigners like Mark.

If it is part of a wider plan to include opinion pieces on more issues with both sides of the debates be asked to contribute it is probably a good thing.

In reply to summo:


If it is a case of the "campaigner" approaching UKC/UKH and asking for their piece to be published then maybe it would be a good idea to have a similar opinion piece from the "other side" in the interests of balanced debate?

In reply to Scottish birder:


Fair enough. Your dogged concern about trap tampering is a common smokescreen used by intensive grouse shooting apologists to avoid having to talk about the genuine concerns that Mark Avery raises in his article (but I think we both know you know that). So forgive me for saying that you come across as one of them.

Re. downstream flooding:
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2014WR016782/full
https://www.scribd.com/document/325491420/Odoni-Modelling-Study-and-Supplem...

In reply to Scottish birder:

At a superficial level you are clearly right - illegal activity shouldn't be accepted. However, there is a long trend for upland land ownership becoming more regulated and the drivers for this, at the margins, have often been technically illegal (trespass etc.). Disabling traps that are widely seen as cruel and part of an appalling land management system on moorland are just a continuance of this trend. The wider picture is that society no longer really accepts this sort of management and over time it will be reduced or removed by a combination of legal, semi-legal and illegal means. Your rather pathetic defence of bad practices is spitting in the wind (and we all know where you are coming from so drop the butter-wouldn't-melt-in-my-mouth routine.)

BTW a lot of your whataboutery examples should indeed be aggressively phased out too, yes.

In reply to Scottish birder:
You're still absolutely evading the issue at hand: the ills of intensive grouse moor management. Care to discuss them or want to keep sweeping it under the carpet?

And yes, I suspect that some of the things on your list will become illegal in time, in fact some of them already are (e.g. it's illegal to disturb Schedule 1 species by climbing at certain crags at certain times of year).

Until 2004 fox hunting was legal. It's not now. It can happen.

In reply to MG:


Surely the true picture is that some of society "no longer really accepts" it, other parts of society do still accept it and most just don't care?

Regardless of the issue and the balance of opinion on the debate neither side should be resorting to "semi-legal or illegal means" to force their own views onto others.

In reply to timjones:

Society in the sense of some sort of average view - compare the situation in the 1930s to now. Increasingly uplands are seen as a shared resource that everyone has increasing rights to, and that should be protected for everyone. Not a private resource just available to a few for activities that are very damaging to it and the wider environment.


I agree, but it happens to a small extent and it does affect opinion and policy. In the case of upland management the odd trap disabled is trivial illegality in comparsion to widespread illegal persecution of wildlife.

In reply to UKC/UKH Articles:

I think people are misunderstanding my position. I am not condoning either grouse shooting and certainly not apologising for the killing of raptors. I am merely suggesting that we can find a better solution than simply banning grouse shooting without providing a viable alternative.

I am not naive enough to think that gamekeepers go out of their way to protect birds like curlews etc. That is a mere consequence of the gamekeepers' actions to protect the grouse. But these places are not deserts... go in April/May/June and they are teaming with life. I happen to think that the consequence of these managed landscapes has benefits other than grouse shooting that people should consider before calling for an outright ban without providing an alternative use for the land that protects endangered species... not just birds, but rodents, insects, plant life, and peat bogs.

If we were to ban shoots tomorrow, then I bet by the end of next year, this land will be stripped of heather, and full of plantation forests, wind turbines, sheep, or left to bracken and gorse. It is pretty clear from the comments that for some people this has absolutely nothing to do with protecting raptors. I am on the moors at least twice a week, often more, my passion being the lead mining history but I am amazed at how out of touch some people are with the environment that they claim to walk in. Give me a peat bog on a grouse moor over a plantation forest any time. I happen to think that killing animals for fun is a bit sick, although I have nothing against killing one or two for the pot but unless you come up with a viable solution that manages the landscape, protects the endangered species that benefit as a consequence of the grouse moors, and provides an alternative living to the people who own and work the land... then this petition will end up doing more harm than good.

If you create a them vs us situation with the landowners then they will make it difficult for us. They can padlock shooting huts and close down bothies if they wish. It would be much more productive to work together in coming up with solutions to the problems. I particularly like the idea of walking with the gun instead of driving birds. We should perhaps use this thread to come up with ideas similar to that instead of just hating someone for being a rich Tory... and trust me, my politics are polar opposites to the Tories. So sure, ban driven grouse shooting but let's hear the alternatives first.

In reply to Northern Wayfarer:

How about ban driven grouse shooting and retain licensed walked grouse shooting?

This reduces the need for large numbers of grouse to be manufactured, reducing the need for estates to illegally control predators which currently underpins the economic viability of driven grouse shooting.

In reply to Northern Wayfarer:

I agree with a lot of what you say- and I also think that there are many alternatives to the driven grouse business model. However...

The desert analogy which I have used above is a rhetorical one, and I also agree it falls down under scrutiny, not for the reasons that you say, but because a real desert is a wild naturally balanced ecosystem that is characterised by biodiversity. Intensively managed grouse moors are a monoculture, and I would invite you to come and walk the moors of Argyll and Arran if you would like to see the difference between a wild heather moor and one that is farmed for grouse.

There are trees, scrub, and yes patches of bracken (a native plant that has its place in a balanced ecosystem, it is generally only problematic in areas where trees and mature heather have been removed). Our moors here are by no means perfect, as the red deer and progressive deforestation have done for a lot of the trees. There are also conifer plantations, which you are so dismissive of, I'm no fan, but within them are clearings of rank heather where the harriers particularly like to nest. Did you know that forestry areas also have provided a haven for red squirrels, crossbill and redpoll? Oh, and are also significant source of income/employment for local communities? The areas of clearfell, which do look pretty ugly to the casual observer, are also teeming with bird and invertebrate life as a patchwork of young willow, birch and sitka spruce regenerate. To me, the forestry plantations are no more problematic and quite possibly less so, than managed grouse moors.

Back out on the moors there are huge gull colonies where the golden eagles hunt when they are not hunting wild grouse and hares. We also have abundant breeding curlew, and golden plover, the occasional short eared owl, although not many lapwing perhaps because the deep heather and wet ground does not suit their preferred nesting locations. These areas of wetland, help protect communities downstream from flooding, and are home to a diverse invertebrate fauna. Oh and we are one of the few areas in the country where kestrels are not in decline.
It's not perfect, but it's way better than bare, managed grouse moors.

There are a number of other ways that communities an benefit from having places like this on their doorstep- tourism is one. I'm an ML and wildlife guide and I make a living from walking these hills. There are lots of ways that landowners can diversify and make a living from a biodiverse landscape. And it's only driven grouse shooting that the OP is calling for a ban on anyway.

In reply to sfletch:
Speaking as someone who does shoot (albeit a different discipline - smallbore rifle bunny bashing for the pot-not a landowner though just an agreement with local farmers to do free pest control).

The idea of standing still whilst a team of beaters flush the birds doesn't hold much appeal (seems too much like clay pigeon- why not just do that?), you know the rough direction the game will come from, it seems it would be just wait, point and shoot.

But rough walked up shooting with a well trained dog, that does appeal. The well trained dog flushing the game to the gun ( who doesn't know where the game is going to come from and has to be quick and alert) and retrieving - only taking the handful of birds you can carry and having a good walk out on the moors. That's not too dissimilar to how I shoot already (although sadly sans dog), pick up rifle, let farmer know I'm there, sneak round fields, shoot half a dozen rabbits, drop some off for the farmers pot then the rest for my pot.

In reply to UKC/UKH Articles:

Okay Mark, answer this one . . .
With no driven shooting, there will be no reason for those who own the land to do any upland management and, over time, the heather will be overtaken by trees and shrubs and this will help the Red Grouse how?
I completely agree that not one of the harriers and hawks should be shot but just banning driven shooting isn't going to achieve it in the long term.

In reply to Peter P Hughes:

Hi Peter have a read of some of my responses about wild grouse habitat. Yes you dont get grouse in the same densities as on a grouse moor, but then nobody is blowing them to smithereens either.

In reply to Peter P Hughes:

well heather is a shrub...

If moorland stopped being managed for driven grouse, and sheep grazing didn't take over take over there would be an increase in forest cover & I suspect Red grouse would mostly be found on areas of blanket bog & maybe wet heath where there's heather but its too wet for trees to form woodland. Isn't that its usual habitat in Ireland ? Sure Red grouse would become less common but I doubt it would become extinct.

In reply to Peter P Hughes:



Is that such a bad thing? Rather than unproductive, decaying moorland, why not let woodland, which would be far more bio-diverse, re-establish?

In reply to Peter P Hughes:

No profile. Only one post ever on grouse shooting in defence of intensive moorland management. Hmmm.

In reply to Peter P Hughes:

Hi peter

There are quite a few upland ecologists kicking around on this site. Im not sure if Mark is still reading this, but if its a subject that interests you, feel free to ask away- I'm sure we will be able to help you gain a better understanding.

In reply to webding:

shill

In reply to Snoweider:

Great post

In reply to Nevis-the-cat:


Great post

In reply to subtle:

less is more

In reply to Scottish birder:




https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism

they should dispense with the wikipedia page for this, and just put a link to your post.

In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:

Da tovarich..... More Scotch eggs, spasibo!

In reply to Scottish birder:

Define : reactionary

In reply to pasbury:

youtube.com/watch?v=x3ITQazpjgI&

In reply to Scottish birder:

At least you have explained the reasons for your position on this topic. Because it is currently legal, and you are "opposed in principle to banning things". Great. Though that doesn't explain your passion for this particular topic...

In reply to Scottish birder:
Committing a crime? What, like this?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_trespass_of_Kinder_Scout

"The mass trespass marked the beginning of a media campaign by The Ramblers' Association, culminating in the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000, which legislates rights to walk on mapped access land. The introduction of this act was a key promise in the manifesto which brought New Labour to power in 1997."

"According to the Kinder Trespass website, this act of civil disobedience was one of the most successful in British history. It arguably led to the passage of the National Parks legislation in 1949. The Pennine Way and other long-miled footpaths were established. Walkers' rights to travel through common land and open country were protected by the C.R.O.W. Act of 2000. Though controversial when it occurred, it has been interpreted as the embodiment of "working class struggle for the right to roam versus the rights of the wealthy to have exclusive use of moorlands" to shoot grouse."

or even this?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salt_March

History is full of civil disobedience bringing about posiitve social and environmental change.

In reply to UKC/UKH Articles:

On Saturday, I went with the dog a little further than normal, beyond the old wood and out into the wasteland that bounds the now conceal landfill. We past the first lake, which is now rather nice to look at and onto the second much bigger pond just before the power station. Here we came to a halt, the thick brush blocking our path and the sodden clay too much to make a diversion worthy. But it was a nice venture, a pair of curlew sandpipers making up for the out and back route we would retrace.

Suddenly something took flight ahead of us. Too big, but like a kestrel it hovered low over the field amidst the flock of startled field-fare. Astonishingly we got quite close. A distinct white rump, stocky, it was not a buzzard as we might expect. Still fluttering with rapid wings, she headed away into the wind and then suddenly a dive, with tightly swept wings, like a falcon.

Its only the second time in fifty years I can definitely say I have seem one. Blown away that it happened by chance in our own back yard almost.

Dr Mark Avery I salute you, this is something worth saving.

In reply to scree:

so what was it?

In reply to Michael Gordon:


Sounds like a Hen Harrier!

In reply to Michael Gordon:

A grouse obviously :-D

In reply to C Witter:

The red grouse is in fact a very fast-flying bird, recorded at up to 70mph.

In reply to UKC/UKH Articles:

Has anyone yet pointed out that the photo of the "dead buzzard" doesn't actually show a buzzard?

In reply to mikeweavers:

Yes, thanks Mike - Mark emailed me earlier.

In reply to Dan Bailey - UKHillwalking.com:

A bit worrying that an article that seeks to gain support for banning driven grouse shooting can't even get simple things like that right. It does make people wonder what other inaccuracies are in there.

In reply to mikeweavers:
Yes, I've been told this already. Perhaps the wild ones are. But, when I go up to Clougha they seem rather pathetic game. I've had them actually walk up to me, gurgling and puffing (probably a nest nearby - silly brave little thing). Either way, they seem a bit dim and the moor is covered with them; whilst grabbing one with your bare hands might be a good challenge, shooting one with a shotgun seems less than sporting to me. Whilst I've not measured their top speeds, a good game of chase the toff sounds preferable to me. Although, apparently some people find that idea objectionable...

In reply to C Witter:

Red grouse are believed to be the fastest game bird (about 65mph) to shoot and very challenging, hence grouse shooting is known as "The sport of kings", because kings ( not so many of them about nowadays) and aristocracy would travel from all over the world to shoot them.
Nowadays, it is mainly the very wealthy that shoot them, and being very wealthy does not mean you are a toff, it means you have loads and loads of cash - like Russians, sportsmen, bankers and heads of industry. Not my idea of a Toff.

In reply to Moley:

You mean new money aping old money, that has gone on for centuries. Old money was new money once.

In reply to The New NickB:

Grouse shooting was really built on the backs of mill owning new money 150 years ago

In reply to Moley:

I can see you are keen on precision. I agree: we should definitely make the oligarchs, playboys and financiers run with the toffs. A good point, well made.

In reply to C Witter:
You say "Perhaps the wild ones are". Which other red grouse are you thinking of?

In reply to Moley:


...as opposed to the king of sports (climbing), or for those who find the word 'sport' objectionable, The Great Game (winter climbing / alpinism)

In reply to mikeweavers:


Does intensively bred on heavily managed moorland for commercial purposes count as wild these days.

In reply to Moley:

I thought horse racing claimed the title "Sport of Kings".

Of course, the "sport" is mid Victorian in its origins, so of it's 150 year history, it's been somewhat remiss of kings.

In reply to Michael Gordon:

I thought the Great Game was Russian/ British/ German espionage in the Middle East in the early twentieth century?

In reply to The New NickB:


Interesting point (genuinely), if they were in any way handled by man then I would say reared or farm bred. Such as pheasant, partridge, but grouse aren't so I would class them as wild.

A salmon or trout that is farm bred and reared i don't consider wild, but a true wild trout or salmon may live in or return to an environment that is managed specifically to benefit that species. Habitat improvement, predator control (avian, mammals, other fish) adding lime to headwaters, cutting weeds, manipulating flows to benefit the single species. I reckon most would still refer to them as "wild" trout or salmon or seatrout.
Probably still be considered wild if stripped and reared from egg and then released as fry, but contradicts my first sentence as they start life artificially reared.

In reply to toad:

Yes

In reply to Moley:

What about the need to medicate all the birds with anti-parasitic medications to overcome infestations that occur because of the unnaturally high stocking densities?

An animal that can only survive and breed if it is given medication isn't really wild.

In reply to MG:

Oh, so I'm not entitled to an opinion then?
I started birdwatching when I was about 10 and rock climbing when I was about 16 but, far enough, if I'm not permitted to say what I think, I'll leave it to you 'experts'. I'm sorry for having a different opinion. . . .

In reply to Ron Rees Davies:



Being pedantic, it can survive and breed without the grit as it did up until 1980s, so red grouse were wild until 1980 but not since? Linked to cycles and grouse numbers as we both know.

Ok, my garden birds, are they wild? They receive supplementary feeding all through the winter and nest boxes to help them breed in the summer.