NOT for the first time, your paper has highlighted the continuing and serious threat to the viability of our native mountain hare (Call for temporary hold on hare culls, The National, October 13).

So grave is the situation that a coalition of wildlife bodies is calling for a temporary ban on culling.

They are of the belief that the voluntary restraint called for several years ago while research was carried out has been largely ignored, notwithstanding the denials of the gamekeeper bodies.

As one of our native species, the mountain hare is covered by the EC Habitat Directive and is entitled to appropriate protection – as are golden eagles, peregrine falcons and our other raptors, stoats and weasels etc.

Yet it seems that the most effective protection is enjoyed by pheasants and red grouse, not in law but through the persecution of their natural predators by estate managers and gamekeepers.

When it comes down to the interests of grouse moors and shooting estates there is no appetite for “laissez faire” or the rule of market forces (the laws of nature).

Sadly we are all too familiar with reports of wildlife crime, disappearing tagged birds of prey, rare species being shot or trapped and the subsequent failure of police and prosecutors to enforce the law.

We are surely entitled in these circumstances to believe that this issue is not being taken seriously and those guilty of these actions, seeing this indifference, are encouraged to continue flouting the law.

These matters fall within the remit of our secretary for environment, climate change and land reform which, among other things, has commissioned research into “the costs and benefits of large shooting estates for Scotland’s economy and bio-diversity”.

In terms of their economic benefit the value of the shooting estates is dwarfed by what hillwalking/climbing activities brings to local economies.

But for the restrictions created by the interests of the shooting estates, there is scope for greater benefits to be realised by those who would wish for greater access to our wild places. Our right to roam is greatly valued but is still subject to the demands of landed interests.

With regard to landscape and biodiversity much of our countryside and wild places present an artificial environment.

Overgrazing by excessive numbers of red deer has resulted in a landscape largely denuded of native woodland.

It is high time that the Deer Commission was held to account for its failure to control deer numbers and, if they cannot do the job, perhaps the re-introduction of wolves and lynx can.

The grouse moors are managed solely for the benefit of privileged “sportsmen” to allow them to shoot one bird species which has been pampered and protected at the expense of other species.

The mountain hare’s misfortune is that it can carry ticks which might in turn infect the grouse: but so can sheep, horses and humans. We are not culled, the hare is.

So let us hope that this latest research does not turn out to be another talking shop, a token but empty gesture. It is quite clear as in banking, the media and other fields that allowing self-regulation is totally inadequate and only postpones resolution of the abuse.

Time for real effective action and tough measures.

It may have been stolen from us over the centuries but this land is our land and we should accept nothing less!

J F Davidson
Bonnyrigg, Midlothian