My own thoughts are that Grouse shooting all ready benefits the diversity, wildlife and tourism in the Highlands why knock it?
What I have read suggests the opposite. Undoubtedly it helps maintain grouse numbers with varying degrees of success. The research into this including the most successful patterns of muirburn was done (back in the 1960s I think) by Adam Watson of the Institute of Terrestrial Ecology near Banchory for his phd thesis. Open blasted heath with no scrub or trees does not promote a natural or diverse environment. Neither does illegally killing raptors which ,allegedly, correlates with the most intensively grouse managed areas of Scotland: Angus, Perthshire and the Borders.
I have no information for wildlife tourism other than that link above and I?d be very surprised if there was a whole lot available. Unlike grouse shooting which has been a faltering economic venture since the 19th century, wildlife tourism is an infant just learning to walk. Killing what the people come to see is hardly likely to help it expand.
In Scotland a total of ?600 million was paid out in land subsidies in 2009. I?m sure most would agree this is not a trifling amount. I don?t know the breakdown, but it?s intended to support farming I believe.
I spoke with workers on the estate we fished on up at Kinbrace in 2005 and they were concerned that the change in the subsidy regime would allow the Laird to keep far fewer stock (mainly sheep) and still receive the same amount of public money each year. They had a real fear that fewer stock would mean fewer jobs. It could be argued then that on a mixed sporting / livestock farming estate if you are getting the same money for doing less farming, then a greater proportion of it is supporting the sporting side. Would that be a good use of public money if it was supporting grouse shooting that directly provides 220 jobs in the whole of the country?
A farmer I spoke with in Glenshee a few years ago was complaining the estate was preventing him using areas of what had always been the best hill grazing for sheep. According to the farmer this was to make way for grouse. This seemed a bit strange as grouse do better on heather and sheep do better on grass.
Huntin? shootin? and fishin? are a perfectly legitimate use of land, all of us here do at least one of them. Legitimate yes, but not to the exclusion of all else and they certainly should only receive public support by way of handouts if there is a wider economic benefit, especially a benefit measurable in jobs.
And while we are on the subject of public money, is this a good way to spend it?
http://www.flyfishing-and-flytying.co.uk/news/view/Montrose_salmon_nets_get_eu_grant/
