In response to this morning’s news of the massive decline in mountain hares on some grouse moors in NE Scotland, the grouse shooting industry has treated us all to its usual display of outright denial and utter contempt in response to any scientific research that undermines its mantra that grouse shooting is environmentally sustainable and doesn’t need any kind of regulating.
Here’s the full response of the Scottish Moorland Group (part of the landowners’ lobby group Scottish Land & Estates):
And here’s the full response from the Scottish Gamekeepers’ Association:
Both statements are pitiful in their arguments: ‘We didn’t see him’, ‘He never asked us for our data’ and they confuse rigorously-collected scientific data with vested interest opinion, as seems to be the norm these days. On social media several gamekeepers have chosen to make personal attacks on the integrity of the study’s authors, Dr Adam Watson and Professor Jeremy Wilson, both of whom are highly respected experts within their fields. Questioning the honesty of an 88 year old man, just because you disagree with his research findings, is not a good look.
Neither of these two organisations make any attempt to critique the study’s actual scientific methods, although both have disputed the scientific findings and both have posted a copy of a graph from the GWCT, purporting to show ‘no discernible trend’ in the mountain hare population. They’ve probably been encouraged to cite this graph as ‘evidence’ to support this claim because that’s exactly what the GWCT has been doing all day, too:
What none of them seem to acknowledge (or even understand?) is that this GWCT graph bears no relevance whatsoever to the findings of Watson & Wilson that the mountain hare has suffered a catastrophic decline on some grouse moors in NE Scotland over a seven-decade-long study.
This GWCT graph shows data collected as part of the National Gamebag Census as an indication of the number of mountain hares that have been bagged (killed) since the 1950s. It is NOT a graph showing a population census of mountain hares over this period. All it shows us is that gamekeepers have been killing mountain hares at a fairly consistent rate over a long period of time (despite the so-called ‘voluntary restraint’ introduced a few years ago!), irrespective of the species’ declining population status. Dr Hugh Webster has written an excellent blog explaining this (see here).
We might have expected better from the GWCT, although let’s not forget this is the organisation that devised the Strathbraan raven cull ‘study’, recently slammed by scientific experts as being “completely inadequate“, “seriously flawed” and “will fail to provide any meaningful scientific evidence“.
We don’t, however, expect any better from the Scottish Moorland Group (or SLE) or the Scottish Gamekeepers’ Association, as neither are recognised for their glittering academic prowess. Although, the SGA statement does include the sentence, “It will be helpful to scrutinise the study’s methods and consistency given such a discrepancy with the current reality“. Perhaps they’ll ask their mate’s son, that HMRC tax officer (BSc Physics), to critique the authors’ critical thinking and scientific methods. We’ll look forward to that.
But things might be about to change at Scottish Land & Estates – they’re advertising for an ‘Environment Assistant’ with the specific role of ‘developing the organisation’s ability to understand, analyse, interpret and sometimes to challenge, a wide range of scientific reports and data on environmental issues‘:
Read the full job advert here: SLE Environment Assistant job description_Aug2018
God knows SLE needs some help in this area but looking at the job spec, desired experience and salary, SLE isn’t expecting to recruit anyone with much ability. Not that they’ll need much if all they have to do is explain to the Scottish Moorland Director that if the Scottish hen harrier population has suffered a 27% decline over a 12 year period that doesn’t mean the population has “remained static“.
Meanwhile, SNH has responded to the Watson & Wilson mountain hare decline paper with this:
Obviously having learned a lesson from its approval of the “completely inadequate” and “seriously flawed” Strathbraan raven cull licence, SNH is no longer willing to rely upon its own scientific staff and is quite rightly seeking the input of its Scientific Advisory Committee on this important issue.
It’ll be very interesting to see whether SNH is still willing to claim the mountain hare is in ‘favourable conservation status’ (as it did on very shaky evidence last year) in light of today’s publication. If it isn’t in favourable conservation status (and we don’t see how it possibly can be), that should be the green light for the Environment Secretary to extend the closed season year-round, meaning no more mountain hare massacres unless under a specific licence from SNH.
Raptor Persecution UK 
It’s satisfying to see the pressure migrating upwards away from the “I’m only doing my job” parrots to those who believe their education and hidden mentors will save them from embarrassment and possibly lead to other rewards at some future date.
Thank you for another pithy post.
£20,000 for a Post Grad Researcher is pitiful!..They will end up with the taxman again! I can’t wait to see who gets appointed.
Massive denial and industrial sophistry by vested interests. I like the scathing analysis. This nonsense by the vested interests is just too much. How can you possibly respond in any constructive way to this Orwellian distortion of the truth? They seem to live in a parallel universe of “alternative facts”. They’re into the territory of climate change denial, and tobacco industry cover-ups.
Hark at them, bemoaning the timing of the report with the Inglorious 12th. Their narcissism has clearly taken a beating…
Men on the ground indeed….they are nothing more than a bunch of tweed clad subservient, ignorant hill apes that are destroying our most sensitive habitats, wild animals and birds.
Diatripe like this simply evidences the levels to which they will descend. They do themselves no favours with this kind of attack but perhaps we should take heart from it as it smacks of desperation and that tells me that we are hurting them as the science and evidence continues to mount against their ‘sport’.
In reality the salary offered for the post of Environment Assistant is similar to some offered by conservation NGOs, but by creating the post it is another indication that their failure to secure credibility with their own ‘science’ is having an impact. As for GW[C]T science, a feeble attempt to appear to be ‘experts’ but sad reality is just more of their ‘spin bowling’ for politicians benefit because no-one else would be so gullible?
The GWCT’s job is to put lipstick on a pig. They are nothing more than paid lobyists… sham science.
The SGA want to extend the science…sort of…..” SGA will push for it to be rolled out to other land holdings with suitable habitat, to see what is happening away from managed grouse moors.”
I see they are referring to the new industry standard, the …. “just to see what happens” test.
Are the SGA writing press statements for SNH or is SNH writing press statements for SGA???
“It will be helpful to scrutinise the study’s methods and consistency” errmmm what do they think happens during peer review?
“given such a discrepancy with the current reality” whose reality is this then?
Glad to see that it is all moving in the right direction !
After all, since the Grouse shooters question the data and have no credible data themselves, the only way forward is for independent monitoring.
This would naturally require a moratorium on killing hares to ensure that the data was sound and a baseline reached.
The effects on Grouse stocks could also be independently monitored to ensure that the links between the health of the species’ populations can be also be studied with increasing hare numbers.
This is entirely independent of whether their industry is placed under more regulation.
There can be no possible argument from the industry since they would presumably maintain that the monitoring would prove their data correct ?
They surely can have nothing to fear ?
Independent monitoring of BREEDING and wintering raptors on the grouse moors would also show the huge density that exists there, thereby proving their stewardship !
The highlighting of raptor persecution through increasingly sophisticated methods, will similarly continue regardless of regulation.
If Government is unwilling to put up the cash to help such a hard pressed industry I’m sure that we could arrange significant funding.
Keep up the pressure !
What they don’t really need is an honest interpreter of data, after all their people on the ground seem to “know” everything. No what they need is somebody like Gilruth for GWCT or Anderson for MA, somebody who can twist reality into a perversion of the truth that fits with their mindset. Considering how rigorous some of the data in papers are these days it is going to require miraculous powers to twist it the way they want and the last time I looked miracles cost somewhat more than the salary they are offering, plus most people with any scruples and self respect will avoid it like the proverbial barge pole.
This entire saga gets more bizarre and surreal as each day passes. We now have the strangest situation developing, almost credibly influenced by the philosophy of DJ Trump, where a whole industry of ‘fake science’ is challenging the critically robust science that has evolved through time. The very fact that a wealthy organisation appears to believe that a salary of £20,000 befits a qualified ecologist says a lot. As for GWCT, the quality of their science, as far as I can perceive, is simplistic and engineered towards reaching a desired conclusion, with no real sense of objectivity. At best in my opinion, they are nothing more than clever wordsmiths who specialise in distorting the truth to fit their own interests. In fact I had to think twice when reading RPUK’s statement “We might have expected better from the GWCT, …”, before realising it was probably ironic!
What particularly struck me about the statements from the shooting PR bodies was do these people really spend any time in the countryside? I don’t have data to prove it, but my memory over the time period concurs with Adam Watson’s research results, although my experience did not begin until the mid 1960s. Serious persecution of mountain hares within my study area did not commence until the late 1980s, but was ruthless and this year for the first time not a single mountain hare has been recorded by harrier monitors. It is astonishing, and revealing, that the shooting bodies are insinuating that Adam Watson’s data are suspect and that his conclusions are faulty. Dr Watson is a deservedly respected scientist with great experience, and as he showed in interview on BBC a couple of nights ago, his mind is still sharp as ever at the age of 88. The fact that gamekeepers ‘never saw him’ on the hills in question is perhaps testimony to his skills as a fieldworker!
By way of context, the Journal of Applied Ecology in which the paper appeared is one of the most prestigious and highly-rated journals in the field of conservation and ecology – it’s absolutely not lightweight or second-rate.
Very little GWCT research is of a standard to get accepted for publication in top-rank journals such as this.