Grousenomics

[burnie]

Well written part time

[Part-time]

You didn't the post was excellent. I suppose one questions it does raise though is what is "well managed"  and "well managed" for what?

This is what the Government expect you to do and what for if you want to try and claim grant funding:

http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/farmingrural/SRDP/RuralPriorities/Packages/UplandsandPeatlands/Muirburnandheatherswiping#top

[Wildfisher]

Thanks for the link John. I've had a quick look and so far I don't see much chance of getting any cash out of them for weed removal on my couple of acres.    :lol:

[Part-time]

You never know Fred; a bit of imagination and a creative application and you could be in the money for those weeds

[Texxa]

Part -time beat me to the point re subsidies ...not sure what some posters are refering to but I'm not aware of any subsidies directly relating to the activity. The suggested tax breaks are also few and landowners have to demonstrate that the shoots are viable businesses, not just for private benefit. In the past this has been problematic.

There is also this argument of other use...there is a real cap on the amount of red kite based tourism and surely the Galloway example is reliant on the fact it is a localised novelty. With successful wider reintroduction surely there would be little or no public interest..eg who would travel to see a buzzard. The main other economic use for the upland is sheep farming which arguably does far more damage to biodiversity.

I was talking to a gamekeeper on the Hebrides a while back. He pointed out that when the shooters come to stay they hire lodges and hire local caterers, keepers, teams of beaters and dog men. They have large group lunches and dinners all pumping money into the local economy. Birdwatchers stay in a B&B at best and take a pack lunch with them. Not knocking birdwatchers but as an alternative industry it doesn't really add up..what they basically engage in is impossible to charge for.

I just think this thread is a bit of a wider political dig at landowning...from my experience the worst land managers and some of the most restrictive on access rights are the likes of councils and National Trust.

[Wildfisher]

Well Rory,  we all have  the right to hold our own political views on any aspect of land ownership, nothing wrong with that in a democratic country,  but to get back to the  question, is there any other industry employs so few  people per acre of land?

[burnie]

Deer stalking,Falconry,try scoring for Scotland? :crap

[Wildfisher]

try scoring for Scotland?

I tried to write a program to calculate that but kept getting division by zero errors 

[Texxa]

Possibly not but don't really see that it matters...it's not subsidised (as suggested), if anything it enhances access and the only viable land usealternative across the majority of land is sheep farming...which when you factor in overall economic impact probably has less benefit per acre and more biodiversity reduction.

Grouse are very hard to maintain in numbers and public sector custodians have generally failed. Hen harriers and peregrins live off grouse...it can be beneficial relationship if not abused by a minority of keepers that poison. As a proportion I bet there are more fishery managers that kill protected cormorants so as a sporting group we should be very careful about attacking another field sport  :oops:

[Wildfisher]

A fair post Rory, but it's not about attacking anyone. It's a straightforward question about jobs / acre. It certainly does not look like an especially efficient use of the country's land resource.  The reason I posted it in the first place was astonishment at how few people  it directly employs  according to that news item on the BBC. There will always be claims and counter claims about so called indirect jobs, salmon farms use it a lot.