[Will Hunt]

So what do we think of grouse shooting?

Pros:
Tasty food on the menu;
Good for rural/uplands economy;
Golden Plover, Curlew, Lapwing etc etc (though is this a consequence of predator suppression? See below)

Cons:
Inexperienced shooters making messy kills i.e animal suffering;
Burning;
Lack of access to those not paying £000s on shooting days

Contentious issues:
Monoculture of heather - but don't we like our purple carpeted/cottongrass strewn moorlands? Do we want them to turn to shrub and forest? Or can we maintain and enjoy the present moorland landscape on its own merit?
Predator suppression - seeing as we are mainly a Yorkshire/Peak based board (sorry everyone else), has anybody ever seen any evidence of this happening on the moors? Having spent a decent amount of time up there, on and off the paths, I have never seen any. However I have also not seen any Red Kites or Hen Harriers. I have only seen Kites on the low, farmed areas - is this evidence enough that supression is ocurring?


I'm sure there are some other issues to add into the pot. Once all of these are mixed up and simmered down, does the result taste fair, foul or indifferent to you?

[rodma]

I'm pretty sure your missing some of the legally (strictly in the ukb sense) required options in that poll 

[Will Hunt]

Pink anasazi flavoured grouse and croissant ragout.

[a dense loner]

Shit Will I thought sloper had the monopoly on shit ridiculous threads designed to get 5 responses?

[Sloper]

You tend not to get many people who require the beater to stand on the bird's head so you can shoot it up the arse on a grouse shoot (more likely to be lowland pheasant / partiridge shoots) and I expect you'd either miss or get a clean kill in 99% of cases.

I'd say (without any real knowledge, ahem, shirley shome mistake) that burning is good for the environment as otherwise there would be a reversion to scrub & birch and doesn't lead to a mono culture, you also get bilberry and other grasses etc.

Predator suppression is utterly beyond the pale and any decent land owner should sack any keeper who leaves poisened bait / traps.

The lack of Kites in upland areas is probably due to their near extinction (not sure of the cause) and then the spread from the areas of re introduction, I've seen Kites in Yorkshire and a Goshawk/Harrier in Derbyshire (not 100% but one or t'other)

lack of access, WTF? I can't see this being an issue at all.

[Sloper]

Shit Will I thought sloper had the monopoly on shit ridiculous threads designed to get 5 responses?

I do and he'll be hearing from my lawyers unless I receive an immediate apology and the payment of punative damages.

[andyd]

Imagine what a complete b1tch the walk-in to Simon's seat would be without those lovely paths...

[Stubbs]

Slopes stick to the law mate, leave the 'environment' matters to those with a little knowledge.

I only learnt recently that the landowners get money from the govt. for moorland.

Andy the moors would be access land anyway so nothing would happen to the footpaths.

I guess the grit may get a little dirty if the deciduous woodland that used to be there was allowed to regrow...

[Sloper]

Oh do grow up, you expect people to only express a view when they're qualified, I think the internet might make you a little cross if you expect such reservation.

PS if you only recently learned that landowners get money from the govt for moorland I'd respectfully suggest you're not that well informed yourself.

Stick to sitting on your high horse mate and leave 'debate' to people with a little more ability.

[Stubbs]

oooh touchy! Did your secretary forget to bring you your second brandy at lunchtime?

I'd question your ability in arguing any environmental points if you think that the moorland would just stop at 'scrub and birch' and that somehow this would represent less diversity than is currently present on the moors.

Which particular high horse do you think I'm sat on mate?

[andyd]

Andy the moors would be access land anyway so nothing would happen to the footpaths.

Pretty sure that the shooting pays for the immaculate paving up there.

[Stubbs]

Pretty sure that the shooting pays for the immaculate paving up there.

The works were paid for by the YDNP to help manage peat erosion, so taxes and grannies parking at Grassington paid for them!

[Sloper]

oooh touchy! Did your secretary forget to bring you your second brandy at lunchtime?

I'd question your ability in arguing any environmental points if you think that the moorland would just stop at 'scrub and birch' and that somehow this would represent less diversity than is currently present on the moors.

Which particular high horse do you think I'm sat on mate?

Worse than that, she brought me port after the first one.; shocking lack of eitquette.

As for extrapolating from comments, probably best left to others; or do you think that the moors would go to mature broad leaf forest without a peiod of scrub & birch first, also isn't the peak Park clearing birch scrub due to the negative impact it has?

As for the high hores, sorry, I think I should have referred for shetland pony for all the perspective you have (you probably missed the equine allusion viz a viz your 'handle').

[Stubbs]

Oh sir your wit, it's like a rapier!

[andyd]

Pretty sure that the shooting pays for the immaculate paving up there.

The works were paid for by the YDNP to help manage peat erosion, so taxes and grannies parking at Grassington paid for them!

Good knowledge.
In that case I'm against the people who shoot animals as they don't benefit me at all!

It always struck me as a waste of money shooting grouse. They're so docile that most of them could be caught in a net.

[Will Hunt]

Bickering aside, I think Stubbs was wholly right to call you out there, Sloper. It's not just that your knowledge was a little way off, it was completely and utterly wrong!

I'd say (without any real knowledge, ahem, shirley shome mistake) that burning is good for the environment as otherwise there would be a reversion to scrub & birch and doesn't lead to a mono culture, you also get bilberry and other grasses etc.

First of all, the damaging effects of burning are well known and well documented. First off, burning can lead to lower pore density in surface peat which means more surface run off. This is bad for the peat itself (which is washed into rivers and eventually reservoirs, which means that folks paying their water bills are also paying to remove color etc from their water), but also affects species (such as the crucial sphagnum) that are sensitive to a surfeit of runoff. Not to mention the effect on flooding. Burning has also been shown to lower a peatland's water table which amplifies problems of peat loss through desiccation.

To address the other point in the quote, who says that scrub and eventually forest is a monoculture?! Forests are only really monocultures where they have been historically managed as such (think spruce). Natural forests managed by successional processes are far more natural with varied species. They also tend to be less dense and have clearings where trees have fallen down that allow light in where smaller plants can flourish. Bad for the boulders though! The question I asked was do we want to halt natural process and promote artificial landscapes like grouse moors because they are pretty in their own right and part of the cultural landscape of the Pennines?

The lack of Kites in upland areas is probably due to their near extinction (not sure of the cause) and then the spread from the areas of re introduction, I've seen Kites in Yorkshire and a Goshawk/Harrier in Derbyshire (not 100% but one or t'other)

Yes they're all over, but not where they're supposed to be. It strikes me that I've seen a Kite near Hunter's Stones but not on the moors. Your point about area of reintroduction is a fair one. I don't know where the birds were reintroduced.

lack of access, WTF? I can't see this being an issue at all.

Why not? Didn't we have trespasses to ensure we could all enjoy the countryside? During the grouse season the enjoyment of the many is compromised for the pleasure of the wealthy few. If you decide that the shoot should stop to allow access for all, then you must also ask yourself whether you want the moor managed for grouse at all and all that goes with that.

[tomtom]

The peat is only there because our (very old) ancestors chopped down all the trees somewhere between 5-8 thousand years ago... 95% of the UK was forested c. 10 000 years ago.. now its <5%...

Our whole countryside and our perceptions of it are pretty fucked up really.

It 'should' be a mixture of scrub and forest (of varying types - depending on altitude, climate and geology roughly..). Grazing - and managed moorland like Grouse stuff keeps it how it is... Of course the 'should' is all dependant upon our perception - and we tend to think pretty green fields with sheep in are what our countryside should look like.

Mind you - if we go back 15k it would all be ice/permafrost covered... so pick your baseline moment!


Anyway, as a long term pollen allergy sufferer - I hope we tarmac over the fucking lot and leave it at that
Wheres that napalm got to....

[petejh]

I'm for shooting all manner of animals, especially if it's for food - it's the definition of organic although there's no green label. I spent my teens wandering farmland blasting things out of the sky/ground and eating them. And there's loads of red kites in north wales (...but they taste like shit ).

[Bonjoy]

I'd be totally fine with grouse shooting in the peak were it not for trapping, poisoning and shooting of raptors and other predators. In the past few years I've been up on the high moors a fair bit and off the main paths you see traps with depressing frequency. Only two days ago my wife very nearly stepped in an illegal (no protection around it) fen trap beside a wall on the Blackden approach to Kinder whilst fell running. Traps are common in the cloughs of Kinder and Bleaklow, typical on logs spanning streams (put there by keepers)or beside features like walls and boulders. Found one and a poisoned raven at Howshaw not so long back. Obviously I smash up any I find. The keepers are twats and one can only assume the landowners are utterly stupid or approve of this behaviour (possibly both).

[Will Hunt]

That's interesting, Bonjoy. Whilst out and about recently I saw one or two of the box on log over stream things. Looked something like this:



They were obviously traps of some description but surely they were for mink, which I'm sure will be able to hunt ground nesting birds from the cloughs if they are present. The trap wasn't baited and I'm not sure if a bird could even get in there! Is this the kind of thing you've seen?

[Bonjoy]

That setup is to catch small predators weasels, stoats, mink if they are in the area. Without the cage and left in the open with bait nearby the same trap will get raptors as they move around on the ground to feed. The bait may be poisoned too.

[Offwidth]

off the main paths you see traps with depressing frequency.... The keepers are twats and one can only assume the landowners are utterly stupid or approve of this behaviour (possibly both).

Thanks for that, the thread was beginning to rile me. If you support the grouse moors this is very much part of the current package.

[Muesli]

The peat is only there because our (very old) ancestors chopped down all the trees somewhere between 5-8 thousand years ago...

 Are you suggesting that neolithic deforestation caused the growth of upland peat, if so what is your evidence.


There are plenty of places where the growth of peat killed off the trees (hence all so called bog oak). Peat growth may be linked to a down turn (wetting and cooling) of the climate which effected all of the NE atlantic region not just the deforested areas. Such a large scale regional change is more likely to be driven by changes in the rate of meridional overturning in the north atlantic than by pre industrial deforestation


Anyway the trees had to go to make way for all the new fangled crops and cows....thats progress on the long road to a cheese burger in a bun...


You are of course totally right ours is a managed not a natural landscape and has been for thousands of years.


why grouse about it.

[tomtom]

The peat is only there because our (very old) ancestors chopped down all the trees somewhere between 5-8 thousand years ago...

Are you suggesting that neolithic deforestation caused the growth of upland peat, if so what is your evidence.

There are plenty of places where the growth of peat killed off the trees (hence all so called bog oak). Peat growth may be linked to a down turn (wetting and cooling) of the climate which effected all of the NE atlantic region not just the deforested areas. Such a large scale regional change is more likely to be driven by changes in the rate of meridional overturning in the north atlantic than by pre industrial deforestation

Yes - IIRC some of our upland areas (Dartmoor is an example I've been given) are previously forested areas: When you deforest, this significantly alters the hydrology by reducing evapotranspiration and interception -  leading to more water in the ground and the development of peats and (esp) raised mires... a state shift..

The (almost) ironic thing is that many of our records of such deforestation/biogeography etc.. are from palynological data that are often from... old peat bogs :D

I'm not a believer that pre-industrial deforestation had a big impact on climate so I'm right with you on the second point..

[turnipturned]

To enter into a rather mislead but highly complex and controversial thread. One thing is for sure. Barden Moor/fell closure dates: Today, 15th, 16th, 18th, 19th, 21st, 22nd, 23rd, 26th, 27th, 28th, 29th and 30th.

I will post up Septembers dates when they are released.

[Will Hunt]

Now we're getting somewhere. So could we sum up the UKB Hive Mind point of view as being that:

Grouse shooting is fine, provided the keepers don't trap or poison raptors.

No issues raised on animal welfare - if this is the consensus then I'm with it. So long as the kill is clean and that whatever gets shot gets eaten its fine by me.

Maintaining the land in its current state is a good thing. We like the cultural landscape that we have. - Fine by me, but if the means to this end is patch burning then it ain't right.

Is that really the end of the debate? Gosh that was easy.

Turnip, what makes you say misleading? Chuck in your thoughts!

[Stubbs]

IMO shooting grouse is only 'fine' in relation to all the other animals killed for human amusement/consumption, viewed on its own it's as much of a ridiculous past time as foxhunting, or most other forms of hunting TBH. If they used bow and arrow so it was somewhat traditional and there was a modicum of skill involved then it may be slightly more understandable.

Regards the landscape, I'd love to see the moors allowed to grow as they wish, I assume large areas would stay as heather due to the soil types, etc. but it would be interesting to see the development over the years.

[andyd]

IMO shooting grouse is only 'fine' in relation to all the other animals killed for human amusement/consumption, viewed on its own it's as much of a ridiculous past time as foxhunting, or most other forms of hunting TBH. If they used bow and arrow so it was somewhat traditional and there was a modicum of skill involved then it may be slightly more understandable.

This is what I think, but I'm not expecting a 'hive mind point' if I understand the phrase correctly.

Regards the landscape, I'd love to see the moors allowed to grow as they wish, I assume large areas would stay as heather due to the soil types, etc. but it would be interesting to see the development over the years.

There's a distinct lack of gorse in my bit of Yorkshire (no complaints) but many of the heather areas I used to run about as a child at home on Dartmoor are now impenetrable as grazing/controlled burns have reduced in frequency.

[tomtom]

Why do we need to have a hive or collective POV? You secret pigeon holer you Will! I bet you write lots of lists too

[turnipturned]

Now we're getting somewhere. So could we sum up the UKB Hive Mind point of view as being that:

Grouse shooting is fine, provided the keepers don't trap or poison raptors.

To start with I do not agree with trapping or poisoning, however surely in a managed system everything has to be managed, take Langholm for an example. On the other hand the biggest impact to grouse population is probably Looping and Strongylosis not predators. Let’s hope DEFRA’s Hen Harrier Joint Action Plan can go some way to achieving a sustainable balance.

Regards the landscape, I'd love to see the moors allowed to grow as they wish, I assume large areas would stay as heather due to the soil types, etc. but it would be interesting to see the development over the years.

In terms of leaving Moorlands unmanaged, it would be lovely to see a mixture of shrub and naturally reseeded broadleaf woodlands but that probably would not happen, it would more likely be bracken with deer and rabbits taking care of  keeping it treeless. What is the best management for these areas? Unfortunately this is generally dictated by EU directives and money. Grouse shooting brings £100million a year to the UK economy and creates around 4000 jobs to remote rural areas, it’s viable hence the reason it happens.

Our whole countryside and our perceptions of it are pretty fucked up really.

It 'should' be a mixture of scrub and forest (of varying types - depending on altitude, climate and geology roughly..). Grazing - and managed moorland like Grouse stuff keeps it how it is... Of course the 'should' is all dependant upon our perception - and we tend to think pretty green fields with sheep in are what our countryside should look like.

Agreed.

Maintaining the land in its current state is a good thing. We like the cultural landscape that we have.

That riles me, 'we like the cultural landscape'.

[Johnny Brown]

I don't personally have an issue with shooting for sport. I wouldn't do it myself but I do eat meat, and I enjoy fishing which is not far removed.

My main objection to grouse shooting is that it is a business that is made only viable by breaking the law. I don't know of any business that is allowed to continue with criminal activity as part of its normal operations. If it can't be done legally then it should cease.

Secondly I think the farming/ shooting lobby is far too powerful in this country. Both businesses are heavily subsidised with very little value returned to the funding taxpayer. That a business should receive subsidy for 'stewardship' of the land when it is illegally killing raptors is beyond my comprehension, but it goes to show how powerful the lobbying is. Further irony is added when you look at the wealth of those owning the land.

Cutting and burning are bad for biodiversity, full stop. Heather monoculture is bad for biodiversity, but good for a couple of species such as Grouse. Bracken and scrub may not look as pretty but it is invariably more biodiverse. I would rather burning was much reduced, we have too little woodland in this country and if we get to the point where there is too much and too little heather moorland that can easily be reversed.

I was driving a Czech guy out to Stanage last month and he stared incredulously at the moors and said 'you don't like trees in England?' Make no mistake this is a cultural landscape and I don't particularly admire the culture that created it.