Revive: the coalition for grouse moor reform has published its second report.
Revive commissioned Common Weal and Lateral North to examine alternative futures for Scotland’s driven grouse moors, an area covering almost one fifth of Scotland where the current focus is on maximising the number of red grouse to be killed for sport; an environmentally damaging and unsustainable land use underpinned by wildlife crime (here).
The grouse shooting industry’s main argument against any kind of grouse moor reform is that there are no other alternatives that would contribute as much to the economy and employment as driven grouse moor management.
The new report ‘Back to Life’ looks at other potential land use options and concludes that of all the possible uses of this land, grouse shooting is not only the least moral, it is by far the least economically effective. The authors argue that in fact, almost any other use will create more value and more jobs per hectare.
There’s an article on this in today’s edition of The National (here) with the headline ‘Grouse shooting is ‘least effective’ use of Scotland’s land‘.
Download the Back to Life report here
Download a printable map of alternative uses here
Raptor Persecution UK 
Delighted with this…I was always uncomfortable with the idea of “what next” after we [hypothetically![ stopped the killing of predators on grouse moors. No one seemed to be addressing that..and Im still worried that with any vacuum created by removing grouse moor “management”, this will be immediately be filled with vast areas of conifer plantation [weve more than enough of that already, thanks very much]…..whats needed now is to get the range of ideas out to the politicians and the general public as widely…. and as positively as possible.
…and just wait for all the nit-picking and “cantdoery” which comes from the its aye been brigade…ignore them, theyve been destroying our uplands for centuries now.
Dave, the Scottish Government consultation on Forestry strategy has just closed. I responded. It gave figures of 15000ha of annual woodland creation, but only 3000 to 5000ha of native woodland creation. It was also short of ambition on biodiversity. I responded to the consultation as an individual, and did not give a canned response. There is little enough we as individuals are encouraged to do, but I hope that trying to give such responses to consultations in Scotland is worthwhile. I assume the one on an Environment Act is coming shortly, and I will certainly be giving a response, and have prepare my personal wish list.. At least in Scotland there are fewer deaf ears.
I too liked the document. I have no doubt that if we ever reach ‘post grouse’ the future will be brighter, and not just for wildlife. I hope some estates presently running grouse moors may be getting fed up of the bad publicity generated by some of their peers. It is a pity they have no one to speak for them.
It’s rather amusing when the possibilities of woodland creation are cited in the report, with the ink hardly dry, the knee-jerk reaction is couched in “vast areas of conifer plantation”. Please let’s have a more considered and informed approach based on modern forestry and not memories from the 1980s.
Modern forestry will need to meet the Scottish Governments target of 10,000 ha per annum rising to 15,000 ha by 2025. This to meet climate change targets but also to provide the benefits listed in the report. Best not to forget that forestry, unlike grouse moors, generally provides a safe haven for raptors including white tailed eagle, golden eagle, goshawk and of course hen harrier.
The industry is trying hard to balance the range of sensitivities it has to deal with and biodiversity is part of a long list. Vast areas of conifer plantation, on former grouse moors, is unlikely because of site suitability factors but also because such vegetation would fall under priority habitat with its associated bird assemblage.
I mostly agree John, but the strategy document guides the Scottish Government. It is unlikely to be totally in accord with the wishes of the forestry industry. It is right that the strategy, where possible, should ensure that where it can assist other areas of concern, that the forestry industry does it’s part to an extent set by government. Clearly, the impact that deer had on forestry,for instance, was strongly recorded in the document, but the impact a coherent government policy on forestry could potentially have on Scottish plants and wildlife was noticeably almost absent.
At the same time as we’re looking at a major expansion of commercial forestry the Scottish government is supposed to be promoting the circular economy, the reuse and recycling of products and material rather than the linear path from natural resources to landfill which on a small, finite planet is of course not sensible. In reality reduce, reuse, recycle are woeful in this country and even the material that is collected for recycling struggles to find a market. It would be virtually impossible to get totally shot of commercial forestry, and we can at least minimise it and it’s impacts, but how much of the projected market for wood products is for items and uses that wouldn’t be necessary if we got our waste reduction act together as we’re supposed? Fence posts and pallets that might be made from recycled plastics, paper that could use recycled fibre instead of virgin fibre, magazines and other periodicals that could have been sent electronically instead? Not only a better option re conserving resources and protecting wildlife, but potentially for employment too as forestry and other extractive industries become more mechanised. There’s inconsistency and even conflict between various government policies and we really need to look at that before pushing forward with even more business as usual. From a conservation viewpoint the less material extracted for human use the more natural and healthier the eco system and the better for wildlife, this is true with woodland especially and commercial forestry will never be a substitute for it.
Absolutely fantastic stuff. This is what we need. Positive alternatives with publicised reports based on facts. The grouse lobby will be freaking out!
Thanks so much all those involved!
What’s positive about the alternatives suggested ? Biomass, solar power, agriculture and housing ?
The lack of wildlife crime, for one.
They are just giving options and demonstrating that grouse moors are the worst option. I would prefer to see the grouse moors brought under public ownership and rewilded as really wild national parks. It is up to the public and their government and NGOs to decide what to do with the information. At the very least this report shows that tax payers money is being spent on the worst possible land use both in economic and environmental terms.
Brilliant ,this methodically and scientifically destroys one of the major arguments that the Grousers continually churn out. We now need to once and for all to debunk the nonsense that Grouse moors are “good for nature” then they will have no where to turn.( is their such a such a scientific paper already?) Then we will have solid scientific evidence to use against them at every occasion.
A major breakthrough well done, soon they will have to admit what any right thinking person has known for years, that there is no other justification for their disgusting “hobby” other than the fact they they get a kick out of killing things.
It will be entertaining to see how they bend logic to attempt to get out of this one . Get ready for greater lobbying (of an indecisive Scottish Government) propaganda and “makey uppy” science , they are rattled.
This needs to pushed out for all to see. We do also need to see sensible and authentic accounts of how much the economy benefits from the grouse killing Mob, instead of their airy fairy stories.
Or should that say hairy fairy stories. Either way, we know the grouse killers can spin a ropy yarn.
Doug
An interesting and worthwhile beginning as to how we can move forward and at last concrete suggestions as to what can replace driven grouse shooting on the table – no matter how much evidence you provide why grouse moors are pish if you don’t simultaneously put forward economic alternatives it will still look better than nothing from a jobs viewpoint. Thankfully that hole has now been plugged, so this report is a hell of a big step forward even though it’s still a first step. I’m sure most people who read the report will have their quibbles with it, what they’re not so keen on and what might have been left out, but even as it currently stands it’s a massive improvement on the status quo. Certainly a very important catalyst for discussion.
A few points I’d like to make myself. Planting large areas for future biomass production is a dam sight better than having forest in the southern United States chipped so it can be sent to UK power stations to replace fossil fuels, but it still means land that could have went for proper ecological restoration and return of eco services is lost to a form of industrial development that actually means business as usual rather than a proper look at conserving resources and the application of reduce, reuse, recycle. This is woeful not only from an environmental viewpoint, but a social one as we are losing a considerable number of reprocessing jobs because of it. I’ve worked on a govt sponsored anti fuel poverty, carbon reducing home energy scheme and I know there’s a definite need to provide proper woodlot forestry for people without mains gas even when they’ve done everything to insulate their homes. This isn’t somebody having a natty wood stove centrepiece so they can be all rustic and ‘carbon neutral’, it’s people genuinely desperate to keep their families warm. Using the land to fuel power plants is another beast entirely.
The excellent Dogwood Alliance has recently drawn attention to the dangers of the ‘Biofutures Platform’ where everything from power station fodder to bioplastics will be produced by growing them. Many governments are pushing this because it’s an alternative to use of fossil fuels and of course technically ‘sustainable’. However, what it’s not an alternative for is intelligent use of natural resources rather than just shifting the goalposts as in cutting down rainforest to create oil palm plantations so gas guzzlers can use some ‘green’ biofuel rather than of course getting people to drive smaller and more fuel efficient cars. Not doing so was a moral cop out and a piece of ecological insanity. Likewise using ‘sustainable’ and\or degradable bioplastics to produce disposable crap and over packaging that should never, ever have been made in the first place will probably mean lots of potential wildlife habitat lost to business as usual. I’d much rather see money invested in home insulation, energy conservation and education initiatives than large scale planting to produce fuel pellets – rural communities have probably got more than most an opportunity to benefit from the former. I know this sounds a long way way from discussions about driven grouse shooting, but it’s not to the fundamental point re how we use resources and accommodate wildlife. I’d hate to see just few more scraps of rewilding amongst a sea of willow biomass monoculture or commercial forestry – especially if we had far more of them than we really had to as a rather complacent and unthinking rush to embrace ‘sustainability’. I’m sure we could have not only a better environmental, but also social and economic outcome by not going down the ‘Biofutures route which has the scope to cost us vast swathes of existing and potential wildlife habitat. Some judicious woodlot forestry could be far better.
Maybe I missed it, but I can’t recall anything much about eco system services, certainly nothing about large scale restoration of riparian woodland to improve water quality, reduce the effects of drought and flood, and also create more effective fire breaks in the uplands. Of course all of these points are complimented by the return of the beaver. There are now plans to do yet another trial beaver reintroduction in Pickering, Yorkshire, to see how effective this will be in reducing flood risk for the town. This is getting very, very close indeed to the grouse moors and a major replanting\reintroduction strategy for what are mostly unproductive uplands and the implications for grouse moors owners must be bloody terrifying – try arguing against something that will save businesses and homes because it will compromise ‘sport’. That on its own could finish off driven grouse shooting, and now another trial in Essex will see if beavers can reduce flooding there. I suspect that technically we are now beyond the point of knowing beavers will significantly reduce flooding, it’s just grubby political allegiances that are stopping a nationwide plan.
I appreciate that two of the five Revive coalition members are animal welfare organisations and in fact I’m a member of one the League Against Cruel Sports, so it’s understandable that no mention is made of hunting, fishing, shooting in a more ecologically responsible form, but that could slow down acceptance not only of the general plan, but potentially progress re animal welfare too. A step down to less intensive field sports could be far more practical than a giant leap to not having them in the mix what so ever from the current situation where unfortunately they are dominant to the point of excluding almost everything else. This is taking the Glen Tanar model which I think is going to get us where we want to be quicker. Muirburn is almost certainly very bad for game fishing especially and pointing that out can only facilitate change. Make provision to accommodate some hunting, fishing, shooting and that probably means getting rid of snares, stink pits, pole traps, carbofuran laced rabbit carcasses, trampled hen harriers chicks, by catch in tunnel traps etc, etc, etc will come to an end all the sooner. To me that means morality is compromised by expecting an immediate end to field sports as opposed to stepped reduction, it won’t happen and in fact will prolong suffering.
One last thing, having taken part in two working conservation holidays myself in the forest of Bowland I believe there’s an enormous potential to develop these for the public, corporate groups, team building weekends etc. This is especially true if there’s a definite element of rewilding in it, the big picture as it were. Our shitty over burnt, over grazed hills can be brought back as something much better for people and wildlife and you can be part of it. Plant trees along streams to help bring back the beaver and to help prevent some poor sod’s house from getting flooded, help restore peat bog, monitor raptors, work on conservation projects with the local community. A big step in re establishing links between the people and the land in a country where some wanted us to behave ourselves, know our place and just keep to the road and be content with taking snaps of a stag on a bare mountain summit, or a gaudy purple grouse moor from the tourist coach.
I loved the idea of new villages and thought it was fantastic there was a mention of new lighting technology allowing us to grow more food locally. There are serious proposals to use LED lighting to grow food in some of our old coal mines. Imagine growing strawberry there rather than importing them from the polytunnels that cover a massive area of southern Spain? Mind boggling stuff, and that’s what can draw a lot of people in exciting possibilities not just contempt for the status quo. Excellent start, well done and thanks.
Agreed on the field sports thing. Other forms of them which aren’t as intensive as current driven grouse moors could work, and those would actually be able to coexist with some other land uses in a way which current intensive shoot management is not.
I have to say, some of the stuff in this report worries me a bit. Can’t complain about gamekeepers burning peat and draining the moors but then promote commercial forestry on that same land (and if we’re talking economics it almost certainly will be commercial conifers rather than native woodland restoration). We all know what damage forestry can do on inappropriate sites, and promoting stuff like that as alternatives to grouse shooting just gives the shooting industry an easy opportunity to discredit their critics.
Some form of “rewilding” plus tourism is the only one of these alternatives that doesn’t really industrialise the uplands. I do think this needs a lot more work.
Ethics of hunting aside, when there is shooting raptor crime follows to some degree. The only solution that i can see is to licence all shooting. I have never understood why the RSPB focuses only on driven grouse moors. Of course they are the worst offenders but licensing driven grouse moors will have no impact on persecution in the lowlands. I presume the RSPB are thinking that licensing driven grouse moors is a first step but to me it is just wasting time.
Before you start singing the praises of this report, I suggest you actually read it . The first paragraph reads :
”The report – Back to Life – examines a range of other uses for the land, including biomass, solar power, agriculture and housing, all of which would produce far greater value”.
So out of biomass, solar power, agriculture and housing, which would create the better habitat for the Hen Harrier ?
Exactly the cantdoery and it was aye like that attitude that Dave Dick warned us off. What a bloody attitude, I despair.
A bit harsh I think, we need to be careful that what’s put forward will not compromise the proper extent of ecological restoration we could and should have in the dash to demolish driven grouse shooting. 51% of the palm oil that comes into the EU is for biodiesel that goes in fuel tanks, a kneejerk reaction to the very loud, strident, incessant climate change and anti fossil fuel campaigning politicians were subjected to. l’ve just re read some of the points re biomass especially burning trees to create electricity and it rather horrifies me this concept in any context is being given credence because it’s opening the door to a massive conversion of forest to fuel on a global scale. Once the original forest is cleared it can then be replaced with a plantation to keep fuel chips coming in – hardly progress. This is business as usual to me rather than proper conservation which means protecting wildlife via conserving natural resources. The ideas about hydroponics, LED lighting reducing the eco footprint of our food are fantastic, but at the same time pushing these and not acknowledging that worldwide one third of the food grown gets wasted is bonkers and means we could compound the pressures agriculture is putting on the environment, would it be clever to increase food production in the uplands when we just have to reduce the wastage of food grown already including hundreds of thousands of tonnes of cereal fed to pheasants and red legged partridge many of which will end up as road kill? Cut food waste AND bring in more efficient farming then you’ve hit the bullseye. With emerging technologies we could increasingly see all our needs being met including job creation while actually dramatically reducing our ecological foot print and allowing more land to be given back to wildlife. In reality the opposite could happen given the mentality in some quarters that unless money is going into a bank account from it one way or another then land has no value. And of course there are just those who want to make money even if doing so wrecks the land and doesn’t provide a genuine benefit to anyone else – massive public subsidies for ludicrously marginal hill farming spring to mind. How much of the projected increase in commercial forestry will be for virgin fibre toilet rolls when ‘waste’ paper from kerbside recycling schemes is struggling to find a market, or to make shitty wooden pallets when reusable ones made from recycled plastic are an option? A lot of questions and thinking needed when we’re moving from knowing how shite grouse moors are to what’s going to be a better, preferably the best replacement. We certainly need to avoid the trap of pushing something that doesn’t make sense just because it represents some form of economic activity even if it’s really uneconomic activity. Could willow coppice biomass become the new upland sheep farming? If what’s done to create employment not only requires subsidy but also makes the place not very nice to live in, e.g miles of barren sheep wrecked hills,then what’s the bloody point? Far better for us if we let the real wild return, better occasional visit to real wildlife habitat than permanent habitation in an ecological slum, and any money saved could go the NHS.
Yeah you have a good point. Although Scottish ‘sporting’ estates are so effen awful it would be very difficult to be worse and I still think the current report is an improvement as it stands, I can also see the SGA saying that conservation is being marginalised and they would have a bit of a point. Using trees to create electricity has got horrendous potential to turn a lot of real and potential wild land into a biomass monoculture so common goods become private profit. Historically in Europe and still today in many parts of the world the use of wood as fuel has driven massive forest loss and along with it threatened wildlife, caused soil erosion and flooding. We’ve really lost the plot if we are now burning trees to save coal. To me the fundamental issue is how the land is treated, I’m not interested in it and it’s wildlife being hammered to death by the many not the few. Aye there are plenty of land owners and their lackeys who are so nasty and ridiculous they are effectively pantomime baddies, but sadly doesn’t mean you’re automatically a saint because you’re not one. That land reform is inherently good for conservation or for that matter full social justice is therefore bollocks IMHO. The idea that because many of the now empty glens were once inhabited means they all should be peopled again, and in fact need to be is a bogus and rather arrogant one to me. Our forests and wildlife have been obliterated, whereas the descendants of those who left or were pushed of the land are almost certainly better off materially than our poor ancestors, but somehow they are deprived because they live here and not there. This goes back to the point i made a few weeks ago after the Revive launch re Lesley Riddoch’s remarks it’s somehow people who’ve been the real victims, and the duty and responsibility to make space for nature for its own sake is pushed aside. Having had direct dealings with the ‘poor’ crofters of Lewis I can’t say they’re my idea of a deprived minority although you wouldn’t think that to listen to a lot of them. I certainly wouldn’t want to see what amounts to the horrendous suburbanisation around Stornoway to become the template for the uplands.
Duncan..we dont need a better habitat for hen harriers, we just need a safe one…..stable ecosystems, not boom and bust grouse moor. Populations of some species may well decrease as others increase but the race to the bottom would be stopped.
I’m a little confused why sustainable tourism isn’t included in the charts in the report even though it is covered in the report and appears to have a major contribution to the economy.
SUSTAINABLE TOURISM
― Annual economic impact: £3,761
million
― Jobs created: 207,000
― Impact: Major export industry,
sustains jobs in areas which need
them, takes pressure off current
tourist hotspots, promotes Scotland
internationally
This surely destroys the grouse shooting economic argument for good, very well done to all concerned.
A brilliant counter argument, just a point following the negative comments on forestry, much of the uplands of the UK was once covered in woodland, much of this was felled and burned to make way for agriculture or grazing. We now condemn third world countries for doing exactly the same. How about instead of being the second most backward country in the world for fighting wildlife crime we take the lead and stop the ridiculous situation of one man owning a mountain and destroying every living creature that lives there for fun and take a look at what can be done with forestry, start planting and look what can be done with positive examples like centre parks Sherwood forest. (try booking in peak season)
The restoration of Caledonian forests would be a fantastic start for biodiversity.
The uplands were once wooded, but this report is about economic alternatives, so it will be referring to commercial forestry of non native conifers, not the sort of natural woodland which would once have covered those areas. To establish a forest for commercial timber, trees are planted very densely and they have limited value for wildlife due to the complete lack of ground flora in the stands for much of the cycle. Most forestry in the UK is also managed under clear fell, especially in upland areas where the windthrow risk is much greater, so you’d have the effects of that to deal with in the future as well, erosion and runoff and stuff like that. Not to say forestry couldn’t have a place, but we’ve got to be careful.
Native or mixed woodland restoration would be different and might have tourism opportunities as well as the clear conservation benefits.
We need to get the biodiversity and resilience of our habitats right first, then we should not need to worry about the harriers and other predator species.
The grouse management suppresses and distorts the natural habitats.. huge expanses of knackered blanket bog and impoverished heath are a national disgrace. Harriers benefit from patchy scrub and open glades. Waders evolved to live on natural unmanaged blanket bog. The species mix will change slowly but there will be a natural resilience.
Putting forward viable alternatives rather than just objecting is definitely the right way to go, and this report at the very least is a baseline for debate.
However, It seems to have taken a very traditional (outdated ?) ‘hard commodity’ approach which concerns me greatly – especially the assumption of near-industrial land use as the alternative to grouse shooting. Whilst it’s right to tackle the ‘oppositions’ issues like jobs, there’s the risk of falling into the trap of being directed by their agenda – and I feel that has happened here. Personally, I haven’t advocated pure timber production forestry as a job creator for at least 20 years – like with farming, the facts show a continuing decline as mechanisation develops.
What we do not need as the alternative is a new industrialisation of these landscapes, whether with industrial forestry, biomass, windfarms or, worst of all, covering the landscape in solar panels (in sunny Scotland).
Looking back from the modern outcomes proposed by the Natural Capital Committee, carbon is a clear winner, and within carbon, peat beats trees hands down. Tourism continues to be treated as an also ran -as it so often is in this Britain – yet surely it is the strongest potential generator not just of jobs but of communities as well in these remote areas ?
Remember that most of these uplands are receiving Government subsidy for sheep farming at present – more than enough to manage them properly for biodiversity and return a saving to the tax payer.
There should be more trees – but what sort of trees ? I share Dave Dick’s concern that an increased enthusiasm for forestry to some people means a return to the 1980s – which would be disastrous for both wildlife and forestry. It is a great shame that after the Flow Country conservationists largely stopped thinking about forestry, wasting the space in which a better approach could be imagined. As a starting point, we need to go back to the lead up to the Flow Country which has been written out of the conservation narrative – that the real driver was Daffs protection of sheep farming and its refusal to allow planting further down the hill – although everyone knew at the time that the farms it was defending as ‘viable’ sheep farms were anything but. The trees should have been lower – and still should be, especially as much of the lower land will have had any remaining biodiversity value squeezed out be intensified management. Best of all, as envisaged by the NCC, would be a work over of Scotland’s central belt to create to transform dereliction into beauty, with multi-purpose forests at the heart.
I strongly welcome this report. As Paul Irving says above, it totally destroys the ridiculous nonsense endlessly peddled by the shooting industry claiming huge economic benefits for blood sports.
I think some of the more critical comments may stem from the slightly unfortunate title chosen for the report – in my view, it is most definitely not a well-crafted vision for the future. What it does brilliantly is just lay out in a factual way the economic and employment benefits of shooting in comparison with other land uses currently practised in Scotland for which solid data are available. Other more imaginative alternative land uses might be much better for wildlife, but the data for these uses would be more speculative rather than authoritative.
This is made clear in the Overview – ‘this report examines the economic case for grouse shooting alongside illustrations of other more productive uses of Scotland’s land.’ In this, more limited, ambition I think it succeeds admirably.
This report was covered in The Canary today
https://www.thecanary.co/discovery/analysis-discovery/2019/01/21/a-new-report-says-almost-any-other-use-of-land-would-be-better-for-scotlands-economy-than-grouse-shooting/