Calendar An icon of a desk calendar. Cancel An icon of a circle with a diagonal line across. Caret An icon of a block arrow pointing to the right. Email An icon of a paper envelope. Facebook An icon of the Facebook "f" mark. Google An icon of the Google "G" mark. Linked In An icon of the Linked In "in" mark. Logout An icon representing logout. Profile An icon that resembles human head and shoulders. Telephone An icon of a traditional telephone receiver. Tick An icon of a tick mark. Is Public An icon of a human eye and eyelashes. Is Not Public An icon of a human eye and eyelashes with a diagonal line through it. Pause Icon A two-lined pause icon for stopping interactions. Quote Mark A opening quote mark. Quote Mark A closing quote mark. Arrow An icon of an arrow. Folder An icon of a paper folder. Breaking An icon of an exclamation mark on a circular background. Camera An icon of a digital camera. Caret An icon of a caret arrow. Clock An icon of a clock face. Close An icon of the an X shape. Close Icon An icon used to represent where to interact to collapse or dismiss a component Comment An icon of a speech bubble. Comments An icon of a speech bubble, denoting user comments. Comments An icon of a speech bubble, denoting user comments. Ellipsis An icon of 3 horizontal dots. Envelope An icon of a paper envelope. Facebook An icon of a facebook f logo. Camera An icon of a digital camera. Home An icon of a house. Instagram An icon of the Instagram logo. LinkedIn An icon of the LinkedIn logo. Magnifying Glass An icon of a magnifying glass. Search Icon A magnifying glass icon that is used to represent the function of searching. Menu An icon of 3 horizontal lines. Hamburger Menu Icon An icon used to represent a collapsed menu. Next An icon of an arrow pointing to the right. Notice An explanation mark centred inside a circle. Previous An icon of an arrow pointing to the left. Rating An icon of a star. Tag An icon of a tag. Twitter An icon of the Twitter logo. Video Camera An icon of a video camera shape. Speech Bubble Icon A icon displaying a speech bubble WhatsApp An icon of the WhatsApp logo. Information An icon of an information logo. Plus A mathematical 'plus' symbol. Duration An icon indicating Time. Success Tick An icon of a green tick. Success Tick Timeout An icon of a greyed out success tick. Loading Spinner An icon of a loading spinner. Facebook Messenger An icon of the facebook messenger app logo. Facebook An icon of a facebook f logo. Facebook Messenger An icon of the Twitter app logo. LinkedIn An icon of the LinkedIn logo. WhatsApp Messenger An icon of the Whatsapp messenger app logo. Email An icon of an mail envelope. Copy link A decentered black square over a white square.

Landowners and animal welfare activists clash over findings of report into driven grouse moor

Edward Mountain.
Edward Mountain.

Lairds and gamekeepers yesterday clashed with animal rights activists over the findings of a 10-year study into a driven grouse moor and birds of prey.

Landowners, keepers and country sports enthusiasts hailed the project as “ultimate proof” of the conservation benefits of grouse moor management after bird populations rose and heather loss recovered.

But yesterday’s report into the Langholm Moor Demonstration Project (LMDP) also found that not enough grouse were produced on the land for commercial shooting.

The LMDP was established to find out if a grouse moor in the south of Scotland could be commercially viable while protecting hen harriers and other raptors.

Grouse shooting has become an emotive political issue, with Labour calling for “robust” licencing of moors and Revive, the animal rights coalition, arguing for a move away from blood sports.

The LMDP’s objective was to establish the land as a driven grouse moor while meeting conservation objectives and was funded by the landowners Buccleuch, Scottish Natural Heritage, the Game and Wildlife Trust, RSPB and Natural England.

A report into the project published yesterday said some elements were “markedly successful”, including the reversal of decades of heather loss.

Gamekeepers were observed managing the land during the research, which found that predator control enabled the recovery of birds such as snipe, curlew and golden plover.

But the report warned the “gamekeeper management” which resulted in the improvements “could not be afforded in the long run” because there were “insufficient” grouse available to be shot to achieve an economic return.

Red grouse numbers increased with a four to five-fold increase in density from 2008 to 2014, but there was then a decline by almost half.

The best grouse breeding years were those when foxes and crows were “suppressed”.

Diversionary feeding of hen harriers reduced the number of grouse chicks brought to the raptors’ nests.

Despite this, the report “Managing Moorland for Birds of Prey and Red Grouse” said the “key losses” of grouse still seemed to be down to predators.

It said “new legal predation management options” could be needed for further grouse recovery.

The British Association for Shooting and Conservation, Scottish Countryside Alliance, Scottish Gamekeepers Association, Scottish Association for Country Sports, Scottish Land & Estates, Moorland Association & National Gamekeepers’ Organisation issued a statement saying the project was “ultimate proof” of the “important conservation value” of grouse moor management.

Highlands Tory MSP Edward Mountain added: “If we do not manage predation through best practice, then populations of vulnerable species crash.”

But Revive campaign manager Max Wiszniewski claimed grouse shooting was “not morally sustainable”.

“The focus of the project was predominantly on illegal killing of birds of prey and showed that where these birds of prey are not illegally killed, driven grouse shooting was commercially unsustainable,” he said.