Below are some frequently asked questions concerning the sustainability of driven grouse shooting, as covered in this report.
What are the three main dimensions used to assess the sustainability of driven grouse shooting, according to the IUCN framework used in the report?
The report assesses the sustainability of driven grouse shooting using the three dimensions defined by the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN): economic, environmental, and social. These three dimensions are considered interconnected, forming an integrated, holistic structure that must be assessed to understand true sustainability. Any evaluation that fails to consider all three dimensions is seen as insufficient and potentially misleading.
How does the report define 'integrated moorland management' and why is this concept important in the context of driven grouse shooting?
'Integrated moorland management' refers to the complex, interconnected web of activities that occur on moorlands where driven grouse shooting takes place. This includes not only the shooting itself but also other land uses like livestock grazing, forestry, renewable energy generation, tourism, and conservation practices. It is important because driven grouse shooting is not a stand-alone activity; its economic, environmental and social sustainability must be viewed in the context of the entire management system in which it exists.
What are the six 'orders' of economic impact associated with driven grouse shooting, as identified in a 2020 study?
The 2020 study identified six orders of economic impact:
1) Employment of full-time staff, expenditure by shooters, and casual labor.
2) Engagement of contractors, spending at local businesses by staff, and hiring of professional services.
3) Estates facilitating farmers' access to agricultural subsidy schemes.
4) Maintenance of landscapes attractive to tourists and the enhancement of tourist facilities. 5) Reduction in health risks from ticks and bracken.
6) Provision of ecosystem services, such as wildfire reduction, peat formation, flood reduction, and carbon sequestration.
These orders become increasingly long-term and harder to measure, progressing from the first to the sixth.
How does moorland management for driven grouse shooting affect biodiversity and habitat?
Moorland management for driven grouse shooting can lead to a unique, diverse flora and fauna by creating a mosaic of different vegetation ages and composition through controlled burning, grazing, and cutting. This patchwork supports various invertebrates and can benefit other ground-nesting birds due to predator control. Grouse moors also account for a disproportionately high amount of SSSI (Sites of Special Scientific Interest) land, highlighting their contribution to biodiversity. The report also notes that mountain hare populations are particularly dense on grouse moors.
What are the main environmental management practices associated with driven grouse shooting, and what are the key points of contention regarding them, especially concerning peatlands and carbon storage?
The main environmental practices include predator control, disease regulation (medicated grit), and vegetation control (controlled burning). A major point of contention is heather burning on peatlands. The report states that evidence is insufficient to draw strong conclusions about burning's impact on peatlands, carbon storage, and greenhouse gas emissions, due to often-contradictory findings and methodological limitations of studies. There is no scientific consensus that prescribed burning is detrimental to carbon storage and some evidence that it could even be beneficial, although more data is needed. The precautionary principle should not be used for burning in isolation when other management options can also be damaging in certain contexts.
How does driven grouse shooting impact social well-being and communities?
Driven grouse shooting involves many people beyond just the shooters including beaters, pickers-up, and caterers which has positive impacts on the social and working lives of participants and local communities. The report states that regular walking involved in such activities can lead to significant health benefits. Participation has also been linked to improved mental health and well-being, enhanced community cohesion and cultural heritage. These social impacts are seen as significant and are valued accordingly by the study.
What are the primary arguments used by opponents of driven grouse shooting?
Opponents often argue that driven grouse shooting is not economically viable, promotes illegal killing of raptors, damages peatlands through burning, harms mountain hares, and is incompatible with conservation. The report argues that current evidence contradicts these claims. It notes that the economic benefits of driven grouse shooting and its associated land management practices are not usually accounted for in such arguments. The report also notes that arguments against driven grouse shooting typically do not take into account economic or social sustainability.
What are the report's recommendations regarding policy, moorland management, and engagement between stakeholders?
The report recommends that policy decisions about driven grouse shooting should be based on all available evidence, including economic and social impacts, and not just environmental factors. It recommends that landowners should invest in measuring and enhancing biodiversity on their land. The report also recommends that stakeholders, both for and against driven grouse shooting, engage in positive dialogue to develop a shared vision for the uplands and that any proposals for alternative land use should be rigorously evaluated based on a six-order economic model and their impacts on social and economic elements as well as environmental ones.