Why do people refuse to recognise the conservation benefits of grouse moor management?

More News

In Monday’s ‘Thunderer’ column in The Times Andrew Gilruth, Chairman of the Regional Moorland Groups, wrote about what he terms ‘conservation snobbery.’

Driven grouse shooting, he says, is one of the world’s most successful conservation stories. So why does no one talk about it; or even acknowledge this? The reason, he argues, is down to conservation snobbery. He writes:

“Conservation organisations and our statutory environmental bodies now position their policies from the lofty assumption that they know best. Worse, they rarely listen to or respect the communities in which they wish to work or exert influence. This snobbery has resulted in the views of those who look after our moorlands being ignored because someone working in a windowless office in London feels they know better.”

However, he says, when these conservation organisations fail to do what they promise, it’s not a problem.“Failure is not a concern to the conservation industry because it ensures it receives yet more funding. Despite these ever-widening streams of taxpayers’ cash, the RSPB tells us we have lost a pair of birds from our countryside every minute for the past 50 years. Obviously not from everywhere: in spring, driven grouse moors are still lifting with wildlife. Globally threatened species such as curlew and merlin thrive, as do golden plover, greenshank and many unique plant communities.”

He goes on to reference a study carried out by the Game and Wildlife Conservation Trust, which can be read in full here, which highlights that many of the daily activities carried out on grouse moors produce a wide range of public goods, including increasing biodiversity and saving threatened species, mitigating climate change and reducing the risk of wildfire.

In fact, the conclusion of the study was that moorland ecosystems managed for grouse shooting deliver a net gain for society as defined by the Government’s long-term sustainability goals.

The likely benefits of alternative land uses such as rewilding, commercial forestry, energy production and agricultural intensification, were also compared in the study.

Analysed against the goals of Government’s 25-year environment plan alternatives such as rewilding – particularly when it involves reintroduction of new species and a stop to management practices entirely – and commercial timber performed surprisingly poorly. One of the co-authors of the study states that: “It must be risky to base policy on an assumption that the outcomes of rewilding are better than grouse moor management”.

If we are in a “nature emergency”, which many believe we are, then surely, says Mr Gilruth, “it makes sense to drop the snobbery. Who cares if the people that can help you are dressed in tweed? Nor should it matter to the conservation industry that driven grouse shooting achieves these results without needing vast sums of funding from the taxpayer.

“It’s clear money alone is not enough: conservation needs allies. The biggest natural allies of conservation are the gamekeepers — and those willing to fund them.”