A proposal to curb the killing of birds of prey by licensing grouse shooting in Scotland has been blocked by the landowning lobby, according to a report for the Scottish Government.
The government’s grouse management review group – chaired by professor Alan Werritty from the University of Dundee – was forced to weaken its recommendation to ministers because of opposition from members backing grouse-shooting landowners.
A proposal that the group should urge the immediate introduction of a licensing system to regulate grouse shooting was dropped in favour of a recommendation that licences only be brought in after five years if the illegal persecution of eagles, hen harriers and peregrines on grouse moors persists.
The group was “evenly split” and Werritty withdrew his casting vote in favour of immediate licensing in order to win a unanimous recommendation. Discussions on the issue were “contentious” and “fraught” because “personal opinions and values intervened”, he said.
The long-awaited Werritty report also recommends “increased legal regulation” of the mass killing of mountain hares on grouse moors, and the licensing of heather burning by moorland managers, a practice known as muirburn.
The report – published by the Scottish Government on 19 December after long delays – is the latest battleground in the age-old war between landowners and environmentalists over raptor persecution on grouse moors. Some sporting estates are accused of killing birds of prey to prevent them eating grouse so there’s more to be shot.
A report in 2017 from the government’s wildlife agency, Scottish Natural Heritage (SNH), said 40 out of 131 satellite-tracked young golden eagles had disappeared in “suspicious circumstances” between 2004 and 2016, mostly on or near to grouse moors.
This resulted in the Scottish Government asking Werritty to head a six-person expert group set up in January 2018 to examine “the environmental impact of grouse moor management practices”. The group was asked to “advise on the option of licensing grouse shooting businesses” in order to tackle illegal raptor persecution.
The group’s 80-page report to ministers reveals that its members ended up deeply divided. The main recommendation on the licensing of grouse shooting was “contentious”, Werritty says in his preface.
“Because the evidence-base is so heavily contested, reaching a unanimous recommendation was fraught – personal opinions and values intervened. But we did agree that any decision on licensing is ultimately a political one in which wider societal views also need to be taken into account.”
He added: “The group was evenly split on whether or not to license grouse shooting. When, as chair, I sought to exercise a casting vote in favour of the immediate introduction of licensing, this was contested by two members of the group.”
Werritty then decided not to use his casting vote “in order to have a unanimous recommendation on this key issue with the authority that implies”.
The report accordingly recommends that “a licensing scheme be introduced for the shooting of grouse if, within five years from the Scottish Government publishing this report, there is no marked improvement in the ecological sustainability of grouse moor management, as evidenced by the populations of breeding golden eagles, hen harriers and peregrines on or within the vicinity of grouse moors being in favourable condition.”
It adds: “The primary goal of such a recommendation is a decrease in the illegal killing of raptors on or within the vicinity of grouse moors, and a significant improvement in their conservation status in these areas.”
The report does not name the two members who blocked the immediate introduction of licensing. But two members are known to be close to the grouse shooting industry: the Duke of Buccleuch’s consultant and former estate manager, Mark Oddy; and Alexander Jameson, a chartered surveyor with 30 years experience of upland estate management.
The other three members of the group are professor Alison Hester, a natural resource management scientist from the James Hutton Institute: professor Colin Reid, an environmental law specialist at the University of Dundee; and professor Ian Newton, a leading bird expert and emeritus fellow of the Centre for Ecology and Hydrology.
The group rejects an outright ban on grouse shooting, as some campaigners had wanted. “In accordance with our remit to ‘ensure that grouse moor management continues to contribute to the rural economy’ we do not recommend that grouse shooting be banned,” the report says.
Nearly 38,000 mountain hares killed in one season, new data reveals
It also recommends more controls on mountain hare culls, muirburn and the use of medicated grit to feed grouse to protect them against disease. “The shooting of mountain hares should be subject to increased legal regulation,” it says.
“Where the shooting of mountain hares is to be undertaken, land managers should be required to report annually to SNH the number of mountain hares present (using a standard counting method) and numbers shot on an area of land.”
It adds that hare shooting “should only be undertaken at the times licensed and in compliance with a code of practice.”
The report recommends that “muirburn should be unlawful unless carried out under a licence”. The use of medicated grit “should be subject to increased regulation,” it says.
“Should the proposals on mountain hares and medicated grit prove ineffective, we further recommend that all three land management practices be licensed.”
The Scottish Government is expected to decide how to respond to Werritty’s recommendation in the New Year.
Responses from the government, campaigners and landowners will be added as they come in.
