The National Trust (NT) has terminated another grouse-shooting lease in the Peak District National Park after the RSPB uncovered evidence of suspected wildlife crime on one of the NT’s tenanted grouse moors.
The shooting lease, on NT moorland at Park Hall, was held by a nearby grouse shooting estate called the Hurst & Chunal. It is understood that the NT lease on Park Hall was a short-term, one-year lease, initially.
However, in February 2021 the RSPB filmed an unidentified individual at dusk on Park Hall, placing rodenticide blocks (Brodifacoum) inside holes on the moorland that were suspected to be part of a badger sett. This was reported to Derbyshire police who launched an investigation, along with Natural England and the Health & Safety Executive. The RSPB has published a detailed blog about this case – see here.
The police investigation failed to result in a prosecution. Enquiries were made by Derbyshire Police’s Rural Crime Team after the search, including interviews of suspects. After a review, the police informed the RSPB that they could not bring criminal charges in this case.
The Natural England/HSE investigation is believed to be ongoing.
Meanwhile, the National Trust has taken the decision to terminate the grouse-shooting lease and will not be renewing it or offering it to another tenant; instead the moor will be now be re-wilded.
This isn’t the first time the NT has terminated a grouse-shooting lease in the Peak District National Park.
You may recall, back in April 2016, I published a video of an armed man crouching next to a decoy hen harrier on Ashop Moor, which, incidentally, is also part of the NT’s Park Hall & Hope Woodlands Estate in the Peak District National Park.
That video footage, filmed by two local birdwatchers, sparked outrage and significant public pressure was placed on the National Trust to take action against its shooting tenant (believed to be Mark Osborne).
As a direct result of that public pressure, in June 2016 the National Trust announced that it was pulling the shooting lease four years early and the shooting tenant was asked to leave by April 2018.
In June 2018, the National Trust announced a significant change in how it was going to select new shooting tenants, ‘to work with us to create a new exemplar model delivering outstanding moorland nature conservation with grouse shooting’ (see here). Many saw this as welcome progress from the NT but others saw it as a ‘lost opportunity’ to remove driven grouse shooting altogether from NT land.
Since the NT modified its tenancy agreements in 2018, at least one new tenant has been and gone, and at least one current tenant is hosting a number of successfully breeding raptor species whilst moderately managing a driven grouse shoot (far less grouse shot in 2021 compared to the thousands shot on some of the more intensively-managed moors).
It was rumoured last year that the NT had agreed to introduce even more modifications to its moorland tenancies, such as burning restrictions, the removal of medicated grit, and the removal of traps and snares, although I haven’t yet seen a formal statement on this from the National Trust.
I think the National Trust’s decision to terminate the grouse shooting lease at Park Hall, AND its refusal to offer the lease to anyone else, deserves much applause. Full credit too, to the RSPB’s Investigations team for providing the evidence needed by the NT to take such decisive action.
Raptor Persecution UK 
Well done National Trust. Another one down, now make it a full set, and ban all shoots on all your grounds.
Absolutely 💯
Totally agree ,put a stop to this moronic behaviour (can’t call it sport).
About time…
Good to hear that NT is clamping down on this , its time to stop these people who think they can do as they please, and disregard the law , the rewilding is wonderful we need much of this !!!
It looks as though the pressure from members – as a result of criminal investigations and publications such as this – are having a significant effect. Having eventually banned the smokescreen which was trail-hunting, the National Trust are beginning to clamp down on the scam that is grouse shooting.
I am especially pleased about the re-wilding bit… showing the way, no less:-)
Brilliant. I andmy extended family had cancelled our membership of the N.T. because they allowed illegal fox hunting on their land.
After many years we are now members again.
We cancelled our decades long membership also. We’ll rejoin when they stop driven grouse shooting altogether.
Good news! Scottish grouse moors should look at this and realise that this is could effectively be the same as having your licence removed.
I hope the NT take some time to consider actively reversing some of the extinctions caused by decades of destructive burning….. bring back the biodiversity.
More good news for wildlife. Let’s hope that this sort of action against groups that do not respect our wild nature, will continue and the moors will come back to life for us all to enjoy.
The National Trust goes up in my estimation, I may buy a season ticket now.
Excellent…another small step toward what must be the ultimate aim, the complete banning of slaughtering God’s creatures for entertainment.
Absolutely!
Oh such positive news. I can now see a trend. Any cartoonists out there? Please will you sketch a giant hour-glass timer. In the upper section is a pile of rogue shooters carrying on business as usual. One by one they are squeezed through into the lower section, but they transform into a pristine wild scene with abundant healthy wild and happy creatures. :)
ooohhh….like it!!!
Not before time, now finish the job and get back your credibility and get shut of all these people who think they are above the law and are only interested in making money never mind the consequences and whilst am at it start fining people who let there dog run wild in the peak district !!!
Brilliant work by all concerned; some good environmental news amongst all the bad things going on. Offers hope that positive change can happen and human impact on wildlife can be reduced. Those in position of influence take note.
What good news but why do some people enjoy killing our animals and wild life at the expense of ultimate cruelty?
Come on NT let’s go further and take control and encourage many more members (like us)
Have the NT learned nothing from the devastating wild fires that decimated the flora and fauna over millions of acres in Australia because of a ban on regular burning that kept the excess scrubland growth in check. The annual burning of excess growth had been a practice started by the indigenous population thousands of years ago and served to reduce the build up of excess vegitation that if not kept in check when ignighted could burn out of control causing tremendous loss of both flora and fauna. Similar practices can be found on managed Grouse Moors when heather is burned off in a patchwork thus creating the required levels of habitat that benifit many species not just Grouse. Banning Grouse shooting will only serve to destroy these hither to managed areas when the build up of heather reaches such a density that when it catches fire and it will, the whole moor will burn out of control killing everything in its path. Well done the National Trust for taking an unproven allegation together with a minority opinion, ignoring the science and ultimately putting the land in your trust at grave risk of total destruction, not to mention the ultimate death of all species, including all raptors, that currently depend on the efforts of all moor managers and moor keepers.
I am sure the National Trust will take adequate steps to carefully manage any moorland they own to ensure wildlife and habitat regeneration, just like they do on all the other land that they own and manage through their wardens, contractors and volunteers. So this decision doesn’t mean that that the land won’t be managed, it just means it won’t be managed by those who seem to have an association with criminal behaviour.
The decision is perhaps also an indication that the NT have accepted that the the majority of the public find hunting, shooting and killing wildlife for fun as totally unacceptable and totally incompatible with the now scientifically proved fact that animals are sentient beings.
If this was true I would accept your counter argument, but unfortunately you have been misinformed. There is a much greater diversity of wildlife on moors managed for Grouse shooting than those “managed” by the NT. The NT do nothing with ex Grouse Moors under their control which after only a short while turn into a haven for foxes and crows that with the aid of gulls decimate all the ground nesting birds including their beloved Hen Harriers and other red listed species like Curlew. If the NT re-wilding, another name for doing nothing, was so beneficial why do lectures and students from as far away as Germany wish to visit Grouse Moors to study the diversity of wildlife rather that NT non managed moors. Do not make the common mistake of thinking that all Grouse Moor Managers are killers of raptors. I agree that there are and have been a few rotten apples but 99% of Moor Managers actively support breeding populations of raptors as part of their dedication to Grouse Moor management. To tar them all as wildlife criminals is totally wrong and will lead to the destruction of a unique heritage based only the hysterical outpourings of the anti shooting minority. Red Grouse are not an endangered species and the correct management of Grouse moors not only maintains a healthy population of Grouse but also of many other species of ground nesting birds to include raptors. If you would take the time to study the difference between NT and Shooting moors you would very quickly come to the same conclusion. Go with the science and not the emotion.
Ah yes, Anthony, you mean the German lecturer and his students from the German Hunting Association, who conducted ‘surveys’ on the notorious Glenogil Estate in the Angus Glens, using techniques unrecognised by the usual professional standard?
Thank you for such a courteous reply. I do agree with you that not all gamekeepers are wildlife criminals and it is very unfair to suggest so, as I am aware of some well managed shooting estates where the keepers take great pride in the conservation work they undertake, and where the land owner would not tolerate criminal behaviour.
I also think it is shame that the debate on raptor persecution appears to have split into two opposing and at times very hostile camps where establishing some common ground is at times so difficult.
However the problem remains that at the moment there are still too many shooting estates where criminal activity occurs and where even the lawful predator control of foxes, stoats and crows etc has gone beyond what is necessary to protect ground nesting birds to out and out persecution.
I also fail to understand the shooting industry’s opposition to the introduction of legally enforceable regulations. Having read through things like the BASC Code of good shooting, and some of the guidance published by the GWCT, it seems clear to me that if every shooting estate fully adhered to this guidance then many of the problems I read about wouldn’t occur. It would therefore seem a logical conclusion to make this guidance into legally enforceable regulations which if not adhered to would result in sanctions. This could have the effect of creating a level playing field, and those estate engaging in dubious or illegal practices wouldn’t be able to generate higher game bird numbers than their lawful neighbours. However, having given this matter a great deal of thought I have come to the conclusion, that the shooting industry’s reluctance to agree to such regulations is that both “good” and “bad” estates benefit from the illegal and bad practices, particularly when it comes to the suppression of raptor numbers. It is therefore not in the industry’s interest to agree to legally enforceable regulations.
I also understand the concept of grouse moor owners using shooting as a way to generate income to help pay for the land management and the conservation work which takes place, and I think it would be interesting to carry out a proper independent scientific study to ascertain any long term differences on nature and biodiversity between a moor lawfully managed for grouse shooting vs a moor not managed for grouse but reliant totally on payments from government environmental schemes, donations or work undertaken by volunteers. Perhaps this NT moor could offer a place to undertake such a study, to see what changes occur as the moor transitions from one managed for shooting to one managed for re-wildling.
However, what is imperative is that the regeneration of the environment and nature now takes place to halt the catastrophic decline in wildlife and biodiversity, and I would suggest that there can be no place for those shooting estates where dubious or unlawful activity is suspected. In that respect the NT may have made the right choice with this particular moor.
Utter BS, moorlands managed for grouse are devoid or severely depleted in the amphibian and reptile species that would be found in such habitats. This is solely due to predation from the grouse and massively affects the biodiversity found within the habitat.
xxxxxxx Learn to spell.
So glad that you at least agreed with my post even if I misspelled a word or two.
In a way I agree that it is regrettable that this situation has come to pass. Some elements of land management for shooting can be positive – but it depends on who is in charge and what their aims are, as there is a spectrum of management from light touch to intensive. People are finally waking up to the business models of the management companies. I think anyone of good conscience that looks closely into their activities would give them the the boot, so well done to the National Trust.
I’m no expert. I believe Eucalyptus are adapted to burning. The dead leaves accumulate, helping to support wildfires, flammable loose bark hangs down from trunk & major branches. Fire kills competitors, insects and parasites (like mistletoe), the tree may lose leaves but under-bark buds survive and re-grow.
I don’t see much Eucalyptus in UK native woodland & pasture, which is the intended future condition of pennine moorland. The result of stopping burning which maintains the current artificial state. You won’t see Chaparral here. That’s found in a Mediterranean-type climate.
You obviously did not see or hear about the total devastation of millions of acres nor the death by fire of every living creature in the affected areas of South Eastern Australia in 2020 when an estimated three million animals and birds were burnt to death. Do some research and then make dilly comments.
‘Black Thursday Bushfires’ is interesting, starting with a hot dry climate and low humidity. What applies there, with a different ecology, climate, and evolution process, doesn’t apply to Pennine moorland, artificially reduced towards heather and grouse dominance.
Here’s the NT restoring peat moorland –
https://www.nationaltrust.org.uk/visit/liverpool-lancashire/gawthorpe-hall/holcombe-moor-restoration-project
https://www.nationaltrust.org.uk/visit/yorkshire/marsden-moor/our-work-to-protect-marsden-moor-from-fires
So all the wild fires on the Pennines over the past 10 years, started either deliberately or by carelessness on the part of hill walkers, have been the figment of news readers imagination when reported via the BBC.
Well, many of the “wildfires” have been grouse moor burns going out of control, many others have been the result of arson: perhaps some disgruntled grouse moor owner trying to make the point you are trying to make by illegal means. Let’s be honest: criminality & driven grouse moor ownership go together. Others have been the result of human idiocy: virtually none of them have been the result of climate / weather: unlike the situation in Australia.
“Have the NT learned nothing from the devastating wild fires that decimated the flora and fauna over millions of acres in Australia because of a ban on regular burning that kept the excess scrubland growth in check”
Except, of course, that wild life in Australia survived FAR better before Aboriginals arrived a mere 65,000 years ago. There was no requirement to keep “excess scrubland growth in check” because there was no such thing as ‘excess scrubland’ before man arrived.
What the Aboriginals did was destroy the great Australian forest, and changed both the landscape and the climate for ever (Ref: Paleoceanography & Paleoclimatology)
“Similar practices can be found on managed Grouse Moors when heather is burned off in a patchwork thus creating the required levels of habitat that benifit many species not just Grouse”
‘Similar practices’ indeed: deliberately damaging the natural environment which has most definitely NOT benefited the original floral, invertebrate or reptile biodiversity, never mind any of our natural predators.
“areas when the build up of heather reaches such a density that when it catches fire and it will, the whole moor will burn out of control”
The ‘build up of heather’ is ENTIRELY the result of the shooting industry’s land mismanagement, which is man-made and unnatural (see heather beetle infestation Ref: Heather Trust).
The only reason ‘the whole moor will burn out of control” is because of the shooting industry’s industrial-scale drainage of moorland (required for heathers which are susceptible to phytophthora root rot in waterlogged soils Ref: RHS). Restoring waterlogged moors will both severely REDUCE heather cover (in favour of more moorland plant species) *and* the scale of wild fires: because wet moorland does not burn as well as dry moorland.
The only people ‘ignoring the science’ are clearly yourself and your fellow shooters.
My apologies, I did not realise that the Aborigines in Australia were responsible for the scrub growth and nor did they by the way. You are obviously in favour of re-wilding, or doing nothing with ex Grouse Moors as is the practice of the NT so before you clap your hands in glee at the sheer stupidity of their actions perhaps you would care to compare the diversity and depth of the fauna to be found on Managed Grouse moors compared to that found on NT uncared for moors, if you do you would find to your disappointment that the former are far more productive as proven by the science. Furthermore you are obviously totally unaware of the methodology or the results of Grouse Moor heather management so I would with respect advise you to read up on the subject before you make an even bigger fool of yourself and finally before I bid you goodbye may I state that I do not shoot Grouse but that I do respect the efforts that Grouse Moor managers make and the incredible amounts of finance that it takes to maintain this habitat for all ground nesting birds, neither of which the NT or its so called supporters are prepared to do, to create and maintain the moor for all to enjoy including members of the bird watching community. Have a nice day.
I guess we won’t see scientific data (eg from a peer-reviewed journal) on the species diversity on an intensively-managed grouse moor.
I’d hoped to learn more about the NT’s so-called volunteers, too, having been one of the normal sort.
PS – It’s a different climate, mainland OZ extends from about 10 – 38 deg South. The Pennines are about 54 deg North.
“My apologies, I did not realise that the Aborigines in Australia were responsible for the scrub growth and nor did they by the way.”
Aboriginals in Australia used fire to clear the great forest and create grassland. (Do you think they were *unaware* that they were clearing the forest, then?) It has since been used as a tool to maintain that grassland, but some Australian plant species are adapted to it.
Otherwise, there could be no ‘scrub growth’ in an established forest, requiring to be ‘kept in check’ – as you claim. It is as man-made an environment as current UK moorland.
“perhaps you would care to compare the diversity and depth of the fauna to be found on Managed Grouse moors compared to that found on NT uncared for moors”
Certainly, National Trust managed moors reduce flood risk, reduce carbon emissions and INCREASE biodiversity:
https://www.nationaltrust.org.uk/visit/yorkshire/marsden-moor/why-we-dont-use-controlled-burning-on-marsden-moor
“Furthermore you are obviously totally unaware of the methodology or the results of Grouse Moor heather management”
No, I am not. Your ‘management’ drains the land and burns all the vegetation in rotation, just to produce a monoculture of man-made heather of different ages to suit an unnaturally high population of Grouse, which are then shot with toxic lead, and the poisonous carcasses are dumped in incinerators or stink pits. The unnaturally high population of Grouse naturally attract unnaturally high populations of predators (foxes, stoats, weasels, hen harriers, buzzards etc) which are then mercilessly killed, in many cases illegally.
“the incredible amounts of finance that it takes to maintain this habitat for all ground nesting birds” such as hen harriers, which are then killed illegally.
“I bid you goodbye”
Run away.
“Run Away” sorry to disappoint but I will be here for a very long time in an effort to educate people like you who have unfortunately been brainwashed into believing the rubbish that has been spouted by the anti shooting brigade, rubbish that has been concocted in a vein effort to ban shooting on Grouse Moors based purely on a misguided basis linked to emotionally unstable individuals that probably believe the moon is made of cheese and the earth is flat. Please just read and accept the science and don’t worry about the lies invented by the anti shooting minority.
Perhaps you’d like to expand on your theory of “emotionally unstable individuals”? Anyone in particular?
Or is it just a general term that you use in a vain (yes, that the correct spelling) attempt to disguise the fact that you’ve run out of tired, long-discredited arguments to parrot?
As I said earlier on this blog, there is a spectrum of options to manage land either primarily for or partly for shooting interests. From light touch to intensive, and all things in between. But any management model that ends up with people breaking the law in the varieties of ways that are diligently reported on this blog and others – and in this case apparently sneaking about at dusk poking rat bait into a badgers sett – is surely indefensible, is it not?. Any shooting man / woman who cares about the continuation of genuinely sustainable and law abiding shooting should welcome an instance where these rogues have had their arses booted off a tenancy, and should support efforts to get them thrown unceremoniously off all land they are involved with . Many good shooting people are failing their side by “knowing their place” and not standing up against the powerful Sporting Agent led commercial / intensive wing, and not doing what they know in their hearts is morally right – opposing it.
This would suggest you are one of the OVER RICH under
employed clan of illegal wildlife killers game warden a good likeness is traffic wardens and BTW i shoot but ONLY harmfull things like grey squirrels rats i would take out Canada geese as well but like the grey vermin some strange woke woofies think they are nice humm.
Grouse shooting is a toffs sport vermin hunting is a needed thing
By the tone of your reply it is people like you who will eventually bring down the shooting community. Your “I’m alright Jack” attitude is completely wrong and you will suffer the hassle from the minority morons unless you and others like you make the effort to support ALL disciplines of shooting. Ever hear of the saying “Divide and conquer ” well that is what these people hope to achieve and if you think that your Rat and Squirrel campaign will remain unchallenged once the Grouse shooting has been stopped you should think again. For your information I supported Fox Hunting even though I did not hunt, I support Grouse shooting even though I do not shoot Grouse and as for being an over wealthy under emplyed person you are only part right. I am under employed because having worked all my life I am now 73 and looking forward to retirement. Regarding being over wealthy, if you count trying to live on a UK pension as being over wealthy then in your eyes perhaps I am. Just remember that once they have finished with Grouse, Pheasant will be next, followed by Pigeon, Rabbit then vermin, so unless you guys wake up and smell the roses you will suffer the same fate. These so called countryside lovers all live in the city, know nothing about country life yet are dedicated against all country pursuits for some perverse reason. Join a shooting organisation and support your future and your right to continue, do not sit on the sidelines thinking that these people will leave you alone because you only shoot vermin, to them all wildlife is sacred. Consider this as a free piece of advice from an old man who has some idea of what is really going on.
“These so called countryside lovers all live in the city”
Yet another sorry old falsehood trotted out.
“it is people like you who will eventually bring down the shooting community”
Which, of course, is your ONLY concern. A shooter, telling lies about conservation.
“you will suffer the hassle from the minority morons ” and “like you who have unfortunately been brainwashed” and “linked to emotionally unstable individuals that probably believe the moon is made of cheese and the earth is flat”
And then you write: “Please leave out the emotion”
What a raving HYPOCRITE you are.
“These so called countryside lovers all live in the city”
You are LYING again. You have NO IDEA where anybody lives.
“I am now 73” and “an old man who has some idea of what is really going on”.
No, you are a shooting bigot who is clueless about wildlife.
[Ed: comment deleted]
“may I state that I do not shoot Grouse”
What do you shoot?
Nothing, but I still support shooters who have the right to legally follow their chosen discipline, sport, passtime, hobby, profession or whatever you wish to call it. If people do not want to shoot then they shold be left in peace and the same goes for those who do. As long as it is lawful there is no reason for those who do not wish to shoot to force their beliefs on those that do. I suppose that if I tried to stop law abiding citizens from cutting their lawns because of the damage it does to the grass and all the little insects that live in their gardens, they would not be amused so why do you think it is right to force your beliefs on others. Obviously if someone who shoots deliberately targets any protected species, they deserve to be held accountable for their actions and I fully support that. But do not think that all shooters are cast from the same mold, just as all people are not murderers just because some have commited murder.
And now the good old libertarian excuse!
Regardless of how damaging to the environment (which we all share) it is…
Regardless of how crime dependent it is…
Regardless of the impact on local communities…
Regardless of the cruelty and suffering involved…
Regardless of all published, peer-reviewed evidence of the above…
Mr Johnstone chooses to defend DGS (the subject in question here, not all shooting) by resorting to yet more ridiculous analogies.
His libertarianism doesn’t, of course, appear to extend to those who challenge the status quo, who he describes as “brainwashed”…”morons”…and “emotionally unstable” (a claim he has yet to show the courage of expanding upon).
Yet he still, no doubt, feels entitled to opine on a subject of which he evidently has little or no experience, and to repeatedly post evidence-free falsehoods, while arrogantly claiming that he seeks to “educate” those here.
“Hypocrisy” doesn’t even come close.
Coop, is that not something that a pigeon or chicken deposits in every night, no wonder your outlook is so full of , what’s the word ah yes, rhetoric. Mr. Coop it must be well past your bedtime now so put your crayons away there’s a good boy, I bid you good night and you have a wonderful life learning how to grow up.
[Ed: Ok, Anthony, you’ve ignored the warning, you’re blocked]
Toodle-oo😃
What do you shoot?
“Nothing”
I don’t believe you.
“but I still support…. ” followed by a load of puerile nonsense.
Very dodgy making comparisons between Australian fire stick farming and UK grouse moor muirburn to say the least!!! As with so many parts of the world when the first peoples arrived in Australia most of the megafauna promptly disappeared. That included giant kangaroos, two ton marsupials called diprotodon and a tortoise the size of a small car with backward projecting spikes on their heads among many other species. It’s quite possible that with the burning regimes the aborigines developed to boost game numbers they were replicating some of the processes that had been enacted by the big animals that were lost – grazing animals can reduce the build up of fuel load and the severity of resulting fires.
All of this is definitely not the case with grouse moors, it’s a bit of a desperate comparison to be honest. If you want to reduce fire risk on grouse moors there’s a specific way that would not only do that, but increase biodiversity and reduce the effects of flood and drought too – bit of targeted tree planting on the moors then bringing in beavers. While trees are becoming established you could even look at bringing in wood waste (what tree surgeons produce) and supplementary food so the beavers can start building dams and reducing the number of houses that get flooded right away, not far fetched or unrealistic when you take into account the astronomical financial and human cost of flooding. We already have beavers in Scotland a much better answer, among others, than pointing at aboriginal burning practices thousands of miles away in a totally different situation.
You really need to stop swallowing the propaganda of the shooting industry: the same control can be gained by cutting, something the RSPB do, it is just that it is more expensive and the DGS profiteers don’t want to spend anything that will reduce the profits that they can ship into their offshore tax havens.
[Ed: comment deleted]
And not before time . It is a pity people have got away with wholesale killing of raptors just so.the toffs can shoot grouse the pressure needs to be increased so that tne guilty are either ecposed or hand themselves in . I have ZERO trust in gamekeepers .
Stand by for another round of anti NT waffle and claims of wokery from the usual suspects in various mainstream media outlets in an act of spite and revenge.
About time, there are to many gun licences issued, we attended a talk on gosshawks on Wednesday d w t and we were shown a nest that had a hole through the middle clearly a gunshot. Who could hurt such a magnificent creature, I for one would hope that the gun backfires and justice will be done, the police do nothing even when they have clear evidence.
There are other means of controlling heather growth and creating fire-breaks than by burning. Less polluting and no doubt more wildlife-friendly.
You may be right but who is going to do it, you. Because the NT won’t and nor will their army of so called volunteers.
The claims you make about gamekeepers essentially being conservationists Is tommyrot like everything else you write. Some waders do well on moors but they do even better on wetmoors like RSPB dove Stone where the damp conditions sliwed down a Fire in nearby grouse moor started by keepers. The so called could burns that end up with Fire engines being called out. Moor management destroy nature in – let’s use a statistic you like – 99 percent of the case. You are simply an apologists for the unforgiveable. Unpardonable destruction of habitat and wildlufe by shhoots. Pheasants too which are waiting out reptile pops in UK.
Tommyrot! What a childish and obnoxious reply to a fact based comment. Please leave out the emotion and just look at the science.
Here’s some science for you…
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/ibi.12356
https://www.leeds.ac.uk/news/article/3597/grouse_moor_burning_causes_widespread_environmental_changes
https://besjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/1365-2664.13708
Click to access grouse_moor_evidence_review_final.pdf
Click to access bop-in-niddaonb-evidence-report-final-sept-2019.pdf
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-019-09044-w
https://www.jstor.org/stable/2405296?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents
https://besjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1046/j.1365-2664.1999.00419.x
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S000632070300363X
https://www.nature.scot/snh-commissioned-report-982-analyses-fates-satellite-tracked-golden-eagles-scotland
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/hen-harrier-satellite-tracking-programme-results-published
https://besjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/1365-2664.13235
Thank you for confirming that my arguments are totally correct. It pleases me to read so much information that confirms that properly managed Grouse Moors are of tremendous benefit to wild birdlife compared to the way that unmanaged moors depleat the numbers and diversity of our native species.
I’m sure you’re fully aware that I’ve confirmed nothing of the sort. Nobody here is fooled for one moment by your amateurish gaslighting.
“Thank you for confirming that my arguments are totally correct”
Johnstone is a Troll, simply making stuff up, unable to provide any peer-reviewed scientific references…
I concur, Keith. Another self-appointed “countryside authority”, completely out of his depth.
You always know when an argument or debate is lost, one side starts to call the other side nasty names. You need to grow up and try to argue your case with respect and maturity instead of resorting to schoolyard antics.
[Anthony, you’re a hypocrite. In your last post you described others as ‘minority morons’. What’s that if it isn’t resorting to calling people ‘nasty names’? It’s pretty clear that you’re just here to waste everyone’s time. Unless you’ve got something of value to contribute to the discussions on here, and you can manage to do that respectfully, your comments will no longer be posted]
Not to mention “emotionally unstable individuals”.
What a charmer!
Thank you for posting these links. A lot of information to read and digest, which will improve my knowledge on this subject. It is a shame that we can’t create a “library of links” which folk could dip into when they have time to read something, especially as the more frequently used internet search engines often give poor returns when trying to research a subject. Really appreciate your post.
You’re more than welcome, John.
Your comment is opinion not fact. The shooting industry has a definition of conservation not accepted by any genuine conservation organisation: just the BASC and the GWCT, the first of which is dedicated to killing both wildlife and farmed and released quarry species, the second of which is funded by the shooting industry to provide propaganda to pretend that what the shooting industry does is conservation. In both cases the “ervation” is redundant because they are both a “con”.
[Ed: comment deleted]
Great news. I shall renew my NT membership.
Well done RSPB Investigations.
Well done the Nationsl Trust. Good to see the end of a grouse moor, killer keepers & killing for gun.
Killing for fun!
Anyone seen Nick Knowls on the Grand Canyon. They are releasing injured Californian Condors. They have banned lead shot as it was killing the Condors they are scavengers like Vultures.
But only in California:-(
In 1991, the Federal Government of the USA banned lead shot for shooting waterfowl.
On the last day of the Obama administration, the US Fish & Wildlife Service Director announced the phasing-out of lead shot and lead fishing tackle by 2022. On the last day!
On his second day in Office, 2nd March 2017, Republican Ryan Zinke ‘struck down’ the Order.
It has not been restored under Biden.
Heads you loose, tails they win.
Don’t make the mistake of thinking this is good. It is just less bad. How on earth did the NT manage to let a moor to Osborne, the high priest of super-intensive grouse management ? With the long catalogue of issues, and the desperate record of the Peak District generally the NT needs to show some leadership and pull out of driven grouse lets altogether. But I’ve grown old waiting for the sleeping giant of English nature conservation to live up to its potential and responsibilities. The Nt is not – and should not be – a surrogate private estate, but that is how it all too often behaves. Its founders must be spinning in their graves.
I think the first answer might be that the NT set out a Lease with T & Cs plainly stated. Their constitution, or the land acquisition contract, may require this. And on the positive side, it serves as a demonstration that co-operation with a grouse-shooting organisation hasn’t worked, twice. This, then, will serve in future. Meanwhile they work to restore peat and re-establish broadleaf trees along with sustainable grazing by local farmers.
The RSPB blog linked to above, end of third para of story, seems a little critical of NE’s action, or possibly inaction. One waits patiently for more.