Grousenomics

[Malcolm]

I'd rather see grouse managed habitat than blanket forestry. That's the other common use for so called wasteland. What puzzles me is that if grouse are very sensitive to the right mixture of young and old heather why is it I see most grouse on remote unmanaged moorland?

[Wildfisher]

why is it I see most grouse on remote unmanaged moorland?

fewer shot there?

[Texxa]

Malcolm
This may be your anecodatal experience but on the whole is far from the case. I used to beat on a grouse moor so loaded with grouse that in times gone by the owners built a railway all the way up to the butts. The council took ownership and grouse stocks have been decimated. I work a pointer and in a day's roaming you would be lucky to flight a couple.

The council weren't buring heather fully, allowed too much grazing, weren't laying grit, divertionary feeding or culling predators....a 24/7, 365 day job. They did exploit the toursim potential of hen harriers and placed a web cam in the nest with live streaming to the vistors' centre. Two years in a row a fox killed the chicks on live video stream...an example of their lax land management and at what cost to the tax payer?

My uncle is a very highly regarded keeper and states the reason for the poor growth in capercaillie on neighbouring estates is that the chumps in National Trust employ are poor land managers who do not control predators such as stoats and foxes;  Capercaillie like other UK galliforms, are ground nesting.

[Wildfisher]

You need to kill foxes to save hen harriers - you need to kill all the hen harriers you have saved to save the grouse. Result you have killed everything so that you can have your sport with artificially high numbers of grouse (or pheasants down in my neck of the woods). Too me that is just wrong.

A fair and accurate summary. Then when grouse numbers get artificially  high parasites and disease take the place of missing predators.  As I understand it this has been the major cause of grouse stock declines. In short grouse were never meant to be there in those numbers. Grouse moor management  just screwed up the balance of nature.

[burnie]

Trouble is once you start to "manage" a habitat,be it moor of woodland,you can't just walk away from it.The diversity of wild creatures has changed,to walk away could set the land back for decades.What does need to change is the attitudes from the estates"kill everything with a tooth or a claw" to the bunny huggers,"you can't kill anything".
Man has removed animals that used to maintain a balance,now unless we re introduce bears and wolves,deer will have to be "managed".
Anglers have in the past removed otters to the point of extinction,for the same reasons that are practised on grouse moors.We now know a few otters are preferable to being over run by alien mink.
Pike are not popular with some,but it has been shown that they and rainbow trout are the top food item for ospreys.
What would be nice was if we stopped poisoning the land and treated it with the respect and help to protect it for the future .Forget short term financial gain with little or no thought for the long term consequences.I would like a stop to all wind farms and covering the land with polytunnels for a bit to just study the effects these things are having on the enviroment.Then maybe proceed if all is well,we seem to have this "fast food" want it now attitude for everything and it is not progress in my eyes.

[Wildfisher]

I agree with pretty much everything  you have posted there Burnie but will  quote the line where it all falls down.

Forget short term financial gain with little or no thought for the long term consequences.

It's worth watching the 'Scotland's Water'   programme that is on iPlayer right now to see how the post war ideals of highland hydro power have been bent, twisted, privatised and sold to the highest, greediest bidder  for the energy "!free market".  Short term gain for companies and shareholders override all other considerations.

[emc]

Trouble is once you start to "manage" a habitat,be it moor of woodland,you can't just walk away from it.The diversity of wild creatures has changed,to walk away could set the land back for decades.What does need to change is the attitudes from the estates"kill everything with a tooth or a claw" to the bunny huggers,"you can't kill anything".
Man has removed animals that used to maintain a balance,now unless we re introduce bears and wolves,deer will have to be "managed".
Anglers have in the past removed otters to the point of extinction,for the same reasons that are practised on grouse moors.We now know a few otters are preferable to being over run by alien mink.
Pike are not popular with some,but it has been shown that they and rainbow trout are the top food item for ospreys.
What would be nice was if we stopped poisoning the land and treated it with the respect and help to protect it for the future .Forget short term financial gain with little or no thought for the long term consequences.I would like a stop to all wind farms and covering the land with polytunnels for a bit to just study the effects these things are having on the enviroment.Then maybe proceed if all is well,we seem to have this "fast food" want it now attitude for everything and it is not progress in my eyes.

:applause :applause

[Part-time]

Well said Burnie. We can't turn the clock back. Leaving nature to it's own devices could be done but the results could be worse than we have now; habitats taken over by imported invasive plant species, red squirrels replaced by greys; woodland grouse die out because predator control stops (RSPB control lots of predators on their reserves but not surprisingly dont publicise this), etc, etc. We need to try to to the best we can with what we have left but its always going to be a difficult balancing act with so many conflicting interests.

On the original question of jobs/acre; grouse shooting does not employ many (like any other business it only employs the numbers needed to get the job done)  but I can't think of any alternative landuse that would currently do much better in terms of jobs on the ground. I guess Sheep farming would be similar, wildlife guides for tourists similar or less, forestry less (although definitely more downstream jobs if productive). The first two along with deer stalking can all be carried out on the same land and some landowners are already doing this so if there is an answer to creating more rural jobs it will involve multiple land use rather than single land use.

[Robbie]

Fachan beat me to the suggestion of fishing employing fewer people / acre.

This has been an interesting thread to read with excellent points made on both sides of the debate.  I do not know enough about land management and grouse to venture an opinion on options to employ more people per acre.  However if someone did would it be a good thing?  I like knowing that I can take off to a hill loch and be unlikely to see another soul.

Robbie

[Wildfisher]

Interesting development on the grouse front.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-13339288