AS Bruce Russell, Director Scotland, Game & Wildlife Conservation Trust
ever, the recent Game and Wildlife Conservation Trust (GWCT) Scottish Game Fair, held annually in the grounds of Scone Palace near Perth, brought people together to meet, relax and enjoy all that this wonderful event has to offer.
But the Fair is also a crucible for ideas and innovative thinking, as conservationists, farmers, gamekeepers, foresters, researchers, scientists and policymakers gather to discuss the role of game and wildlife management. Central to these discussions is the principle of “biodiversity” which to me is simply the variety of animals and plants in a habitat. Few if any management choices, especially around land use, are universally good; almost all involve some form of compromise and balance between loss and gain. But whether about moorland habitat management, woodland planting, arable or livestock farm production, wind farms, re-wilding, abandonment, or new housing development, we should be asking the same question: how can we look after our natural assets alongside economic and social benefits? Can we show a biodiversity net gain? This is an approach that seeks to leave biodiversity in a better state than before, and certainly halts biodiversity loss.
Land management and shooting provoke strong emotive arguments, prompting debate around ownership, intensiveness, alternative land uses, species balance, environmental practices and much more. This is especially true for grouse moor management. The trust has produced many of the answers, but research remains a work in progress in some areas. Grouse moor management is rarely far from the headlines when Scottish countryside matters are considered, and now particularly so with the awaited Grouse Moor Management Group Review. This review could have significant consequences for the way in which our iconic heather moorland – described in 2017 by National Geographic as “our nation’s signature landscape” – is looked after in the future. The global importance of UK heather moorland has been ratified by The Rio Convention on Biodiversity. It supports 13 biological communities listed under EC Directive 92/43/EEC on the Conservation of Natural Habitats and of Wild Flora and Fauna, and 18 species of European or international importance. 75 per cent of the world’s heather moorland is found in Britain, with the bulk of that in Scotland.
Managed heather moorland, supports a wide range of wader species that are in decline elsewhere, including curlew and lapwing. But our moors are such remarkable national assets because they are actively managed. Conservation in these areas is done by heather burning, controlled grazing by sheep and deer, and predator control of crows, foxes, stoats and weasels that prey on ground-nesting birds, such as waders, red grouse and hen harriers.
Much of our heather moorland managed in this way is used for driven grouse shooting, and it is this incentive that encourages landowners to pay for it. Management also means sustainable employment in remote areas, and income for local businesses which the alternatives do not routinely provide at anything like the same scale, however you dress it up. If made the responsibility of the public sector, protection of heather moorland habitat, and its conservation benefits, would require huge amounts of public funding.
It is profoundly unclear whether the alternatives can deliver the same or equivalent benefits at an equivalent cost, or that they can be shown to provide biodiversity net gain. A demonstrable biodiversity net gain can however be achieved from heather moorland managed for grouse shooting. That seems like common sense to me.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel