Introduction
This blog post provides a summary of the findings from a detailed report on the evidence surrounding sustainable driven grouse shooting.
What Exactly is Driven Grouse Shooting?
Driven grouse shooting isn't simply about shooting birds. It’s part of a larger system of "integrated moorland management", which is the key to understanding its impact. The practice involves a team of beaters who encourage red grouse to fly towards people, known as ‘guns’. This is different from walked-up shooting, where hunters move through the landscape to find the birds. Integrated moorland management includes several key elements:
Legal Predator Control: This involves managing populations of generalist predators such as red foxes, stoats, and carrion crows.
Disease Regulation: Medicated grit is used to keep the grouse healthy.
Vegetation Control: Prescribed burning of heather is a common practice.
These activities are intended to create a suitable environment that supports a healthy population of red grouse, allowing for a ‘shootable surplus’.
Is Driven Grouse Shooting Sustainable?
The core question that many people ask, and the one that lies at the heart of the debate is whether driven grouse shooting is sustainable. The concept of sustainability isn't just about environmental protection. The International Union of Conservation of Nature (IUCN) definition, which this report uses, considers three key elements:
Economic Sustainability: Does the activity make economic sense? Does it generate long-term value?
Environmental Sustainability: Does it protect natural resources and biodiversity?
Social Sustainability: Does it benefit society and local communities?
Any discussion or decision about the sustainability of driven grouse shooting must consider these three factors together. Ignoring any one of these pillars will lead to flawed conclusions and ineffective policy decisions.
The Economic Realities: More Than Just a Single Activity
A common misunderstanding is that driven grouse shooting is an isolated activity and a highly profitable one. The reality is quite different. Most moorland estates do not depend solely on grouse shooting for their income. Instead, they engage in a diverse range of income-generating activities including:
Livestock Grazing: Many estates have sheep or cattle grazing on the land.
Commercial Forestry: Some estates manage areas of woodland for timber.
Renewable Energy Generation: An increasing number of estates are investing in renewable energy such as hydro-electric plants.
Tourism: Estates benefit from tourism related to the attractive landscapes.
Driven grouse shooting forms a part of this mix of activities, and its economic sustainability is connected to the broader integrated moorland management model.
A comprehensive 2020 study identified six orders of economic impact resulting from moorland managed for driven grouse shooting:
Direct Employment: This includes the wages and salaries of full-time staff, as well as part-time and casual labor, and the expenditure of people shooting grouse.
Local Business Support: Spending with local shops and businesses, and the engagement of contractors, and professional services.
Financial Facilitation: The role estates play in enabling farmers to access agricultural subsidies.
Tourism and Recreation: Maintaining landscapes that are attractive to tourists.
Health Benefits: Reducing health risks to humans and farm animals by controlling ticks and bracken.
Ecosystem Services: Provision of vital ecosystem services such as wildfire reduction, increased peat formation, flood reduction, and carbon sequestration.
These impacts are increasingly long-term and difficult to measure as they descend from the first to the sixth. It's important to remember that the inability to measure an effect does not mean it is not present.
To date, there has been no attempt to define, let alone measure, the economic sustainability of alternative uses of moorland using a similar holistic economic model. This lack of research is a significant issue in evidence-based discussions about optimal land management.
The Environmental Puzzle: A Balancing Act
The environmental impact of driven grouse shooting is a hotly debated topic, and there are many viewpoints. What does the available evidence actually say?
Biodiversity and Habitat:
Grouse moor management is designed to create a "shootable surplus" of red grouse.
Moorland managed for driven grouse shooting has developed a unique, diverse and apparently sustainable ecosystem.
Many of these areas are designated as Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSIs) due to their unique habitats and species.
Some of the best examples of heather moorland in the UK are designated as SSSIs.
Predator control, while controversial, has been shown to benefit other ground-nesting birds, and mountain hares.
The unique high densities of mountain hares in the UK are associated with grouse moors.
Integrated management creates a patchwork of vegetation, which is more beneficial for invertebrates than a single-type moor.
However, it's also important to recognize that government policies promoting afforestation and intensive grazing have caused significant declines in heather moorland in the past.
Peatlands and Burning Practices:
There is no single UK-wide formal definition of "peat," "deep peat," or "peatland," which can lead to confusion.
Moorland is not synonymous with peatland. Moorland includes other types of terrain, such as heathland, grassland, bracken, scrub, and rock.
Most peatland in the UK is not found on moorland.
The impact of prescribed burning on peatlands is not well understood, and available research is often contradictory or unreliable.
Wildfires emit much more CO2 than controlled burns.
There is some evidence that biochar produced by controlled burning may be effective at locking up carbon in peatland soils.
The precautionary principle should not be applied only to burning; it needs to be applied to all land management options.
Current scientific evidence does not definitively show that controlled burning is detrimental to carbon capture on managed heather peatlands. More research is needed to fully understand the impacts of different land management practices on carbon storage, greenhouse gas emissions, flooding, and water quality.
Natural Capital and Ecosystems:
Current research is not robust enough to identify and rank the impacts of different moorland management practices.
English grouse moors store between 11% and 35% of all the carbon stored in English peatlands.
CO2 emissions from English grouse moors are likely to be lower than the proportion of carbon that they store, compared with other peatland uses.
A holistic approach is needed to assess the impact of any activity on the whole ecosystem, rather than focusing on a single aspect.
The Social Dimension: Impact on Communities
The social impacts of driven grouse shooting are crucial but frequently overlooked.
Driven shooting involves a wide range of people from different backgrounds, including beaters, pickers-up, caterers, and supporters.
This activity creates social connections, enhances community cohesion, and preserves local traditions.
The physical activity involved in working as a beater has a significant societal value which can be as much as £1,966 per year for someone over 45.
Participation in driven game shooting has been shown to have a positive impact on participants’ mental health and well-being.
Communities benefit through employment, engagement and communal activities.
These positive impacts are a key consideration for policymakers.
Arguments Against Driven Grouse Shooting
Opposition to driven grouse shooting is often rooted in ethical concerns. Here are the main arguments made by opponents:
Driven grouse shooting is not economically viable.
Walked-up grouse shooting is a "better" alternative.
Driven grouse shooting involves the illegal killing of birds of prey.
Opposition to predator control.
Use of lead shot.
Heather burning damages peat.
Moorland management increases flood risk.
Driven grouse shooting involves killing mountain hares.
The report concludes that these arguments are not supported by current research. It is also argued that those who oppose driven grouse shooting often fail to consider the economic and social benefits. The report also stresses that opposition is sometimes based on a fundamental opposition to the private ownership of large estates, rather than a reasoned objection to driven grouse shooting.
Examining Alternative Land Uses
Commonly cited alternative uses of moorlands include:
Livestock grazing
Commercial forestry
Renewable energy
Rewilding
Tourism
However, there is a significant lack of research into the economic, environmental and social impacts of these alternatives. Until these impacts are measured, it's impossible to say definitively whether these options would deliver the same level of benefits, or not. The report suggests that the alternative uses are likely to reduce positive impacts, with negative consequences for the sustainability of local communities.
Key Conclusions and Recommendations
The report reaches several important conclusions:
Decisions about driven grouse shooting should be informed by a thorough understanding of all available evidence, including its limitations.
Moorland management practices should be based on robust evidence, with changes made where necessary.
Arguments for alternative uses should be based on applicable evidence.
Sustainability is a three-legged stool, including economic, environmental and social factors, not just one or two.
The report also makes seven recommendations:
Use the Six-Order Economic model to assess alternative land uses.
Ensure that alternative land uses maintain or enhance biodiversity.
Invest more resources in recording biodiversity and developing plans to enrich it.
Work with scientists to value and enhance ecosystem services.
Assess the ecosystem services delivered by alternative land uses.
Consider the potential social impacts of alternative land uses.
Encourage dialogue and shared understanding among all stakeholders.
Moving Forward: A Call for Evidence-Based Decisions
The debate surrounding driven grouse shooting is complex, with passionate arguments on all sides. It is essential to consider all the available evidence and avoid making decisions based on incomplete or biased information. Ignoring the social and economic impacts, for example, would be a serious mistake, as all three aspects of sustainability are closely interconnected.
The path forward requires open dialogue, a shared vision for the uplands, and a willingness to engage with the full range of evidence. As the report emphasizes, multi-stakeholder initiatives can be successful if people act within the law and are prepared to discuss their perspectives and share information about what they do.