TODAY marks the opening of the controversial grouse shooting season. But is it still the “glorious twelfth”?
Polling has previously shown that seven in 10 Scots are against the so-called sport. The common association between grouse moors and the illegal persecution of Scotland’s protected birds of prey has been ruining the industry’s reputation for decades. As far back as 1998, Donald Dewar called it a “national disgrace” and it remains so today, more than 20 years later.
For this reason the Scottish Government has committed to introduce licences on grouse shooting estates, despite protestations from industry lobbyists. The fact that a licence has never been required to manage shooting estates will be shocking to some, but the Government recognises that the failure of self-regulation has left the industry with no-one to blame but themselves.
READ MORE: Why the SNP should back an end to grouse shooting on Scottish moors
Put simply, a licence would mean that if the law is broken or if the terms of a grouse moor licence is not adhered to then an estate could lose that licence.
The REVIVE coalition believes there is a circle of destruction that surrounds grouse shooting which goes well beyond potential illegality and the more people that know about it, the more they will question why it is allowed to continue.
More than 100,000 foxes, stoats, weasels, crows and non-target species like hedgehogs are (legally) snared, trapped and killed in Scotland each year on grouse moors. Grouse, a wild animal, are medicated en masse by tens of thousands of toxic chemical grit stations to keep their numbers unnaturally high.
Meanwhile, in the year we host COP26, much of Scotland’s uplands are still subjected to heather burning which threatens the environment, our vital peatlands, restricts biodiversity and reenforces barren monocultures. Scotland’s peat contains much more carbon than all the UK’s forests put together and yet the burning continues. Tons of lead shot is sprayed across the uplands while bulldozed hill tracks scar the landscape and remain unregulated.
All of this and more takes place to make sure that a few more grouse can be shot by a few people for sport over huge swathes of Scotland. The terms of the grouse moor licence will be key and must address these wider issues.
READ MORE: Scottish Government set to require grouse shooting licences
Grouse are an iconic Scottish bird yet shooting them out of the sky as part of driven grouse shooting – the most unsustainable kind of shooting that depends the most on “high bag numbers” – is a blood sport that goes back to Victorian times. But the economic benefits to the public for maintaining this frivolous pursuit is not as high as many might think.
Grouse moor management in Scotland takes place over an area around half the size of Wales – and brings in about £23 million to Scotland’s economy – 0.02% of the economy. To put this another way, if Scotland’s economy was the height of Ben Nevis grouse shooting’s contribution would be the height of a bottle of Irn Bru.
Wildlife tourism, a burgeoning industry that sometimes involves shooting animals with cameras instead of guns, already brings in about five times more to our economy. Forestry and its associated industries also bring in many times more to the economy. The point is that while there is no silver bullet, a mosaic of more environmentally friendly alternatives to grouse shooting are available now benefit our people and our wildlife as well.
The Scottish Government should have nothing to be afraid of despite a powerful grouse shooting lobby. Within the Scottish National Party REVIVE, The Coalition for Grouse Moor Reform’s aims are immensely popular. A member’s resolution to end the circle of destruction of grouse shooting was the most backed motion submitted for the last SNP conference. It was signed by more than 25 party branches and MSPs. The Scottish Greens and Scottish Labour are also keen to meet this ambition so the only thing in the way of the Government seems to be political will.
REVIVE represents the middle ground in this debate. We are not calling for a full ban on all grouse shooting but for an end to all the unsustainable activities that take place to make sure there are more grouse to shoot for sport. Driven grouse shooting likely depends on these unsustainable practices but it’s up to the industry to prove that it does not.
If driven or any other type of grouse shooting depends on muirburn, mass chemical medication, unregulated bulldozed hill tracks and the slaughter of hundreds of thousands of animals to sustain it, then perhaps it doesn’t deserve to exist. Licensing should be used to end the circle of destruction and to help make huge swathes of Scotland sustainable again.
In a time of climate and biodiversity crisis we must urgently move towards better land uses via a just transition. If we don’t act on this then how can we expect to transition away from far bigger industries like oil?
If we do act, then unsustainable grouse moor estates will no longer represent the peak of what’s possible in the rural areas they occupy. By unlocking our land’s potential, in tandem with greater land reform, we can open the door to thousands more jobs across rural Scotland than are currently allowed to exist.
If Scotland is to become a modern 21st century nation, moving away from unnecessary and harmful archaic practices like driven grouse shooting is essential. When we show the political will to do it, this will be to the benefit of all our people, our wildlife and crucially, the environment.
Max Wiszniewski is the campaign manager for REVIVE, a coalition of like-minded organisations working for grouse moor reform in Scotland. It is made up by Common Weal, Friends of the Earth Scotland, League Against Cruel Sports Scotland, OneKind and Raptor Persecution UK
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel