RSPB falls foul of the
Scottish Gamekeepers Association (SGA)
over the management of Raptors

SGA Case Study: Langholm Moor

www.land-care.org.uk
(Filed 25 March 2003)

The Scottish Executive, in 2001, published a Policy Statement entitled “The Nature of Scotland” (1).

The Scottish Gamekeepers Association (SGA) published their response (2) to that Policy Statement in May 2001.

The following is an extract from that SGA Response which relates to the management of Langholm Moor on the Duke of Buccleuch’s Estate. To put it mildly, the SGA express their strong dissatisfaction with the conduct of the RSPB over this matter, and describe the disastrous consequences.

The SGA has plenty more criticism of the Scottish Executive’s “Nature of Scotland” policy, but the present article will focus on the management of a prestigious grouse moor, the Langholm Moor, in relation to the interaction between raptors, grouse and other birds.

From the account given here by the SGA the behaviour of the RSPB could only be described as despicable.

Subsequently the SGA submitted, in January 2002, a Petition to the Scottish Parliament (3).

This submission, which will be the subject of a later article in Land-Care, was entitled

“Call for an independent investigation into the impact of predatory birds on
1) waders and songbirds
2) private stocks of fish & gamebirds”

EXTRACT FROM SGA RESPONSE (2)

Ten years ago, the Buccleuch Estates agreed to a remarkable experiment in conservation on their finest grouse moor. They proposed to resolve the age-old argument about whether birds of prey and the grouse they hunted could survive together if there was no interference from human beings.

For years the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB) had accused the owners of sporting estates of killing rare birds of prey, scaring them off, or destroying their nests, in direct contravention of the law, in order to preserve the grouse that provided their sport - and sometimes their livelihood.

If only nature were allowed to take her course, said the RSPB, a healthy balance could be maintained.

The landowners, in turn, said that would be disastrous. While one or two pairs of peregrine falcon or hen harriers were manageable, unimpeded breeding would simply lead to grouse being wiped out, the end of their sporting business, and the loss of all the local jobs that depended on it. The argument went back and forward, but it was a sterile one, because both sides had only prejudice to go on.

Then, in 1992, the owner proposed that the RSPB's theory should finally be put to the test. He would instruct the five gamekeepers on his 12,000-acre Langholm Moor estate in the Scottish Borders to protect the birds of prey, or raptors as they are known, from egg-collectors, or anybody seeking to control their numbers, for five years. The experiment would be monitored by the RSPB, SNH and by other conservation bodies, so that it was fairly conducted. At the end of the five-year period, they would take stock, and see what had happened. All the parties involved agreed to accept the results.

By 1997, there was little doubt about the outcome. The number of hen harriers had increased from two to 28 breeding females, the peregrine from two to seven pairs. The grouse had fared less well. They had been virtually wiped out. What had once been one of the most successful moors in Britain had ceased to be viable as a commercial proposition.

Given the terms of the experiment, the RSPB should, at this point, have accepted the conclusions and got together to find means of reducing the harrier numbers. Various approaches were suggested, such as scaring off the harriers at nesting time. The most realistic, from the Game Conservancy Board, was an extensive programme of relocation - moving the harrier and peregrine to areas where there were none at present, so that they could continue their breeding.

Instead of this, however, the RSPB simply moved the goalposts. The decline of grouse, they said, had nothing to do with the raptors. It was due to the poor state of the moor, the lack of heather cover, and the way the earl's sheep had grazed the hills over the years. If only sheep were removed, and heather allowed to grow, the grouse would find somewhere to hide.

Not surprisingly, the owner protested. None of this had been raised at the outset, and grouse had always flourished alongside the sheep in this supposedly poor habitat. Who was to pay for the moor now? With no grouse to shoot, and therefore no income, he would have to lay off his keepers. Surely, the point of the experiment had been to find a solution, not to destroy the only local source of employment.

The conservationists then came up with their own solution. It had a sort of mad logic to it. If only the harriers - the real killers of the moor - could be persuaded to eat something else, perhaps they would give the grouse a chance. Thus, it has transpired that every day a supply of dead rats (white ones are favoured) is put out on the moor to provide the harriers with a ready-made larder. The rats are shipped up from England, no expense spared. The harriers are delighted. Instead of having to cruise the hills in search of elusive grouse, they are given their feed, almost literally on a plate.

Despite the alternative-feeding programme running for 2 seasons following the experiment, in 2000, hen harrier nests were down to 7 as the natural food supply (grouse, meadow pipits, skylarks etc) dried up. Because of the lack of keepers, foxes predated 2 of the harriers’ nests and only 5 nests were successful.

What of the grouse? They have not thrived. Their numbers remain so low that shooting has had to be suspended. The five keepers have been reduced to one part time. Net result: raptors 20, grouse nil, keepers nil, landowner distraught.

Everybody knows it is lunatic, but the RSPB cannot publicly admit it. The society is, of course, a prisoner of its members who would never agree to interfere with these magnificent hunters of the skies. Nature must be allowed to take its course, goes the argument, even if that means sacrificing large numbers of rats (who nobody minds about) and the grouse, which come lower down the pecking order.

To suggest that feeding dead rats to wild hen harriers is restoring nature’s balance is not just dotty - it is offensive. The habitat is entirely unnatural in the first place, and has been for centuries. Man has cut down the trees, introduced sheep and cattle, allowed the heather to grow by burning it in rotation. The scenery so cherished by ramblers and tourists alike - rolling purple hills, rocks and golden bracken - is in fact preserved by gamekeepers, who know how to maintain the balance of wildlife in the countryside and who are able to sustain biodiversity and employment in rural areas by creating a shootable surplus and farming that crop carefully. Take away one element - the grouse - and all that is at risk.

Try arguing that with the RSPB however and they will talk about poor habitat and overgrazing. What you will not hear is anything about the human beings who have lost their jobs, the small birds and grouse that have gone, and the countryside that has been denuded - all in the name of so called “Conservation”.

References

1. Scottish Executive (2001). The Nature of Scotland: A policy document.
www.scotland.gov.uk/library3/environment/nas-00.asp. (Download PDF).

2. Scottish Gamekeepers Association Response to the Scottish Executive Policy Statement "The Nature of Scotland".
(Filed 13 January 2003, www.land-care.org.uk, click here to view).

3. Petition by Mr Alex Hogg, on behalf of the Scottish Gamekeepers Association (SGA), calling for the Scottish Parliament to initiate an independent investigation into the impact of predatory birds on waders, songbirds, fish stocks and gamebirds. January 2002. (Download PDF).

MENU

25 March 2003

RSPB falls foul of the
Scottish Gamekeepers Association (SGA)
over the management of Raptors

SGA Case Study: Langholm Moor

www.land-care.org.uk
(Filed 25 March 2003)

EXTRACT FROM SGA RESPONSE (2)

References

Further Reading Recommended by Land-Care

MENU

25 March 2003

RSPB falls foul of the Scottish Gamekeepers Association (SGA) over the management of Raptors

SGA Case Study: Langholm Moor

www.land-care.org.uk (Filed 25 March 2003)

EXTRACT FROM SGA RESPONSE (2)

References

Further Reading Recommended by Land-Care

RSPB falls foul of the
Scottish Gamekeepers Association (SGA)
over the management of Raptors

www.land-care.org.uk
(Filed 25 March 2003)