DOCSLIB.ORG

Environmental Impacts of High-Output Driven Shooting of Red Grouse

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Environmental Impacts of High-Output Driven Shooting of Red Grouse Ibis (2016), 158, 446–452 Viewpoint ulating quarry species, hunting season and permitted hunting methods. There is no statutory requirement for hunters to report their bags, although records are col- lected by a non-profit organization, the Game & Wildlife Environmental impacts of Conservation Trust (GWCT). This combination of inten- sive shooting practice with weak regulation is almost high-output driven unique (Mustin et al. 2012), and offers general insights shooting of Red Grouse into the environmental impacts of intensive game man- agement when managers operate without much of the Lagopus lagopus scotica regulation recommended by Loveridge et al. (2009). PATRICK S. THOMPSON,1* DAVID J. T. DOUGLAS,2 There is growing public debate about these impacts DAVID G. HOCCOM,3 JEFF KNOTT,3 (Thompson et al. 2009, Avery 2015, Wightman & Tin- STAFFAN ROOS2 & JEREMY D. WILSON2 gay 2015), part of a wider trend of public engagement in 1RSPB, 1 Sirius House, Amethyst Road, hunting policy (Minnis 1998). For example, the recent Newcastle-upon-Tyne NE4 7YL, UK near-extirpation of the Hen Harrier Circus cyaneus as a 2RSPB Centre for Conservation Science, RSPB breeding bird in England (Redpath et al. 2010) and Scotland, 2 Lochside View, Edinburgh Park, claims of mass culls of Mountain Hares Lepus timidus in Edinburgh EH12 9DH, UK Scotland by grouse moor managers (Anon 2014) has 3RSPB, The Lodge, Sandy, Bedfordshire SG19 2DL, UK prompted three UK public petitions to license or ban dri- ven grouse shooting, one for the introduction of vicarious liability (whereby the rights-holder is held responsible for the actions of an employee) and one for stronger legal protection of Scottish Mountain Hares, collectively amassing over 85 000 signatures by 29 January 2016. To Recreational hunting of game birds and mammals is glob- date, however, wider environmental impacts of driven ally widespread (Loveridge 2009). Habitat and et al. grouse management have received little public scrutiny, predator management is sometimes undertaken to despite an increasing evidence base to inform a debate. increase game abundance and hunting bags (e.g. Hudson Here we assess environmental impacts of driven grouse 1992, Arroyo 2012). This can have environmental et al. management and consider current regulation and policy benefits such as creation and maintenance of wildlife-rich in the context of the objective of securing legal and envi- habitat (Potts 1986, Loveridge 2009), but may con- et al. ronmentally sustainable outcomes. flict with delivering other ecosystem services and public benefits from the same landscapes (Cot^ e et al. 2004). For these reasons, regulations to ensure responsible manage- THE ECOSYSTEM SERVICES OF ment and monitoring of game populations are widely MOORLAND HABITATS recommended (Loveridge et al. 2009, Caro et al. 2014). Here we consider management for recreational shoot- Red Grouse depend on moorland habitats comprising ing of Red Grouse Lagopus lagopus scotica, a subspecies blanket bog and heath beyond the altitudinal and of Willow Ptarmigan Lagopus lagopus that is endemic to climatic limits of enclosed agriculture (Watson & Moss submontane heathlands in the United Kingdom. The 2008). These habitats and the breeding bird assemblages non-lekking, monogamous, highly territorial Willow they support in the UK are of international conservation Ptarmigan has a circumpolar distribution typically occur- importance (Thompson et al. 1995), with large areas ring at low breeding densities (0.1À10 pairs per km2) protected under national and international law. Moor- across northern Europe, northern Eurasia and North lands also provide regulatory and cultural ecosystem ser- America (Watson & Moss 2008). However, in the UK vices. The UK uplands are landscapes that inspire intensive habitat management, predator control and med- millions of people, with associated benefits for local ication are used to secure exceptionally high (150À500 economies, health and well-being. They provide 70% of birds per km2) post-breeding densities of Red Grouse, drinking water in Britain, and support peatlands in Eng- which are then driven (flushed) over static lines of shoot- land and Scotland that are the largest carbon store in ers (Hudson 2008). This high-input, high-output man- the UK, amounting to almost 1800 Mt (Bonn et al. agement is practised in a regulatory environment in 2009, Chapman et al. 2009, Alonso et al. 2012). which landowners set their own bag limits and establish the management to deliver these, with the state only reg- RED GROUSE SHOOTING *Corresponding author. Driven shooting of Red Grouse on moorlands managed Email: [email protected] for the purpose is the economically dominant and most © 2016 British Ornithologists’ Union Environmental impacts of driven grouse shooting 447 prestigious form of gamebird shooting in the UK (Hud- sheep and deer and control of Bracken Pteridium aquil- son 1992, Sotherton et al. 2009). Grouse are driven by inum by herbicide spraying are also used to maintain lines of ‘beaters’ to fly over a row of shooters who Heather dominance (Grant et al. 2012). expect to kill more grouse in a day (30À40 each) than on a ‘walked-up’ shoot, where hunters walk in line using dogs to flush grouse. Most of this shooting takes place Treatment of grouse disease on private land. Red Grouse are vulnerable to strongylosis, a disease Fewer Red Grouse are now shot over a smaller land caused by the gastrointestinal nematode Trichostrongylus area than in the heyday of driven grouse shooting in the tenuis which depresses body condition, may cause death, early 20th century (Hudson 1992). However, grouse and can reduce brood sizes and population densities shooting still takes place over approximately 850 000 ha (Redpath et al. 2006). Following trials (Newborn & Fos- (Douglas et al. 2015), with the intensity of management ter 2002), Red Grouse are now routinely treated with (number of gamekeepers employed, vegetation burning anti-worming drugs (flubendazole) by medication of grit, and grouse medication) increasing over the last which the birds take to aid digestion of Heather. This 20À30 years (Natural England 2009, Clutterbuck & Yal- medicated grit, including ‘super-strength’ varieties lop 2010). This reflects an industry choosing to intensify (Osborne 2013), is dispensed from boxes typically further to meet perceived market demands, with eco- located 100À200 m apart across the moor (i.e. one box nomic returns apparently reliant on producing ever more per territory). Red Grouse are also susceptible to loup- grouse (Osborne 2013). Annual monitoring of post- ing-ill, a virus causing encephalomyelitis in sheep that is breeding Red Grouse densities by the GWCT on a sam- also carried by wild mammals such as hares and deer, 2 ple of moors shows a 90% increase from 171 per km and is transmitted by the tick Ixodes ricinus (Watson & 2 (1990À1994) to 325 per km (2010À2014) in England Moss 2008). To reduce the infection risk from louping- 2 and a 74% increase from 81 to 141 per km over the ill, some gamekeepers treat sheep with acaricides which same period in Scotland, with the rapid increase attribu- can reduce tick burdens by 90% and also shoot Moun- ted to higher strengths of medicated grit to combat tain Hares and Red Deer Cervus elaphus (Watson & strongyle worm infections in grouse (Game & Wildlife Moss 2008, Newborn & Baines 2012). Conservation Trust 2015). In places, Red Grouse are now more abundant than at any time since the 1930s (Osborne 2013). ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF MANAGEMENT PRACTICES GROUSE MANAGEMENT PRACTICES Predator control Predator control Control of corvids, foxes and mustelids can increase the breeding success and abundance of other ground-nesting Gamekeepers kill predators of grouse to maximize the birds, including Northern Lapwing Vanellus vanellus, shootable surplus. Red Foxes Vulpes vulpes, Stoats Mus- European Golden Plover Pluvialis apricaria and Eurasian tela erminea, Weasels Mustela nivalis and some corvid Curlew Numenius arquata (e.g. Tharme et al. 2001, Corvus species are legally shot and trapped. However, Fletcher et al. 2010), as well as Red Grouse. However, illegal trapping, shooting and poisoning of protected protected raptors, mammalian predators such as Wild- birds of prey and mammalian predators also takes place cats Felis silvestris, Badgers Meles meles, Pine Martens and limits the national range and population size of Martes martes and even domestic cats are regularly killed some species (Whitfield et al. 2003, Redpath et al. illegally (Harris & Yalden 2008, RSPB 2015). The 2010, Amar et al. 2012). impacts on raptors have received the most attention. For example, (1) illegal use of poisons to kill predators is associated Managed burning, grazing and vegetation with land actively managed for grouse shooting control (Whitfield et al. 2003); Red Grouse feed mainly on young, nutritious Heather (2) Hen Harriers are almost entirely absent from dri- Calluna vulgaris shoot tips and use older, deeper ven grouse moors across the UK, yet estimates Heather for nesting and protective cover. Vegetation is based on habitat area indicated there was sufficient burned on rotation (every 10À30 years) to create and habitat to support almost 500 pairs on driven maintain a mosaic of different ages of Heather and other grouse moors (Redpath et al. 2010); dwarf shrubs to benefit grouse (Hudson 1992). Managed (3) illegal killing of Golden Eagles Aquila chrysaetos and burning also maintains open habitats by inhibiting wood- Red Kites Milvus milvus in Scotland,
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Scottish Birds 37:3 (2017)
    Contents Scottish Birds 37:3 (2017) 194 President’s Foreword J. Main PAPERS 195 Potential occurrence of the Long-tailed Skua subspecies Stercorarius longicaudus pallescens in Scotland C.J. McInerny & R.Y. McGowan 202 Amendments to The Scottish List: species and subspecies The Scottish Birds Records Committee 205 The status of the Pink-footed Goose at Cameron Reservoir, Fife from 1991/92 to 2015/16: the importance of regular monitoring A.W. Brown 216 Montagu’s Harrier breeding in Scotland - some observations on the historical records from the 1950s in Perthshire R.L. McMillan SHORT NOTES 221 Scotland’s Bean Geese and the spring 2017 migration C. Mitchell, L. Griffin, A. MacIver & B. Minshull 224 Scoters in Fife N. Elkins OBITUARIES 226 Sandy Anderson (1927–2017) A. Duncan & M. Gorman 227 Lance Leonard Joseph Vick (1938–2017) I. Andrews, J. Ballantyne & K. Bowler ARTICLES, NEWS & VIEWS 229 The conservation impacts of intensifying grouse moor management P.S. Thompson & J.D. Wilson 236 NEWS AND NOTICES 241 Memories of the three St Kilda visitors in July 1956 D.I.M. Wallace, D.G. Andrew & D. Wilson 244 Where have all the Merlins gone? A lament for the Lammermuirs A.W. Barker, I.R. Poxton & A. Heavisides 251 Gannets at St Abb’s Head and Bass Rock J. Cleaver 254 BOOK REVIEWS 256 RINGERS' ROUNDUP Iain Livingstone 261 The identification of an interesting Richard’s Pipit on Fair Isle in June 2016 I.J. Andrews 266 ‘Canada Geese’ from Canada: do we see vagrants of wild birds in Scotland? J. Steele & J.
    [Show full text]
  • Driven Grouse Shooting
    Driven grouse shooting RSPB Council updated our previous policy on driven grouse shooting in October 2020. Our policy is to support licensing of driven grouse shooting across the UK, following expected progress on this issue in Scotland in 2020. Unless substantial progress (including effective licensing, stopping raptor killing, cessation of burning on peat soils, and banning use of lead ammunition) is made in reforming driven grouse shooting by 2025 in line with RSPB principles for sustainable gamebird shooting, we will consequently call on governments to introduce a specific ban on driven grouse shooting. Background Driven grouse shooting is defined as where shooters sit in lines of grouse butts on open moorland, and red grouse are then driven by beaters and dogs over the guns to shoot. The activity usually involves shooting large grouse “bags” (where large numbers of grouse are shot in a day). It is a unique hunting type to the UK (mainly England and Scotland) and shooters will pay large sums of money for a day’s shooting. Typically, gamekeepers are employed to kill predators that eat grouse; heather is burned to create young heather (the main foodplant of red grouse); and other additional management techniques are employed to produce as many red grouse as possible for shooting. The red grouse shooting season opens on the 12 August (“the Glorious Twelfth”). The alternative walked up grouse shooting involves a small number of shooters accompanied by dogs. They generally take small and sustainable numbers of grouse, as walked up shooting is more about the hunting experience. This is much less of a conservation issue for us.
    [Show full text]
  • Review of Illegal Killing and Taking of Birds in Northern and Central Europe and the Caucasus
    Review of illegal killing and taking of birds in Northern and Central Europe and the Caucasus Overview of main outputs of the project The information collated and analysed during this project has been summarised in a variety of outputs: 1. This full report Presenting all the aspects of the project at regional and national levels http://www.birdlife.org/illegal-killing 2. Scientific paper Presenting results of the regional assessment of scope and scale of illegal killing and taking of birds in Northern and Central Europe and the Caucasus1 https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/bird-conservation-international 3. Legislation country factsheets Presenting a review of national legislation on hunting, trapping and trading of birds in each assessed country http://www.birdlife.org/datazone/country (under ‘resources’ tab) 4. ‘The Killing 2.0’ Layman’s report Short communications publication for publicity purposes with some key headlines of the results of the project and the previous one focussing on the Mediterranean region http://www.birdlife.org/illegal-killing Credits of front cover pictures 1 2 3 4 1 Hen harrier Circus cyaneus © RSPB 2 Illegal trapping of Hen Harrier in the UK © RSPB 3 Common Coot (Fulica atra) © MISIK 4 Illegal trade of waterbirds illegally killed in Azerbaijan © AOS Citation of the report BirdLife International (2017) Review of illegal killing and taking of birds in Northern and Central Europe and the Caucasus. Cambridge, UK: BirdLife International. 1 Paper in revision process for publication in Bird Conservation International in October 2017 when this report is released 1 Executive Summary The illegal killing and taking of wild birds remains a major threat on a global scale.
    [Show full text]
  • The Effects of Upland Management Practices on Avian Diversity
    The Effects of Upland Management Practices on Avian diversity Bronwen Daniel September 2010 A Thesis submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science and the Diploma of Imperial College London 1 Contents 1. Introduction ................................................................................................................................. 3 2. Background................................................................................................................................. 11 2.1 Birds as indicators ................................................................................................................ 11 2.1.1 Upland birds ...................................................................................................................... 11 2.2 Management Practices......................................................................................................... 13 2.2.1 Grouse Moor Management........................................................................................... 15 2.2.2 Predator control ............................................................................................................ 16 2.2.3 Burning .......................................................................................................................... 17 2.2.4 Grazing Pressure............................................................................................................ 17 2.2.5 Implications of upland management for bird populations ..........................................
    [Show full text]
  • RED GROUSE and Birds of Prey
    RED GROUSE and birds of prey This leaflet is supported ● by 17 voluntary bodies and addresses Illegal killing of birds of prey is limiting the concerns about the impact of predation population and distribution of several of red grouse by birds of prey (raptors). It species. explains how serious habitat loss and degradation have caused ● Management for grouse has helped to long-term declines in grouse bags, and how a high density of birds protect heather moors from forestry of prey can affect bags when grouse densities are low. It details plantations and livestock production, but why killing of birds of prey, illegally or under licence, and setting heavy grazing by sheep and deer is the quotas for birds of prey are not acceptable. It identifies measures main cause of declines in grouse bags. that can be taken to reduce the impact of predation on grouse and ● enhance heather moors for wildlife. ‘It is extremely unlikely that raptors were responsible for either the long-term decline or the fluctuations in grouse bags.’ Joint The concerns Raptor Study, Langholm.11 Conservation groups and the Government are ● ‘The raptor issue should be put on one side concerned because widespread killing of birds of because it is a diversion that has too often prey, especially on upland moorlands managed for resulted in managers taking their eyes off driven grouse-shooting, limits the population and the ball.’ The Heather Trust.25 distribution of several species. Killing birds of prey is ● Habitat management is fundamental to a a criminal activity involving hundreds of birds every long-term recovery of upland wildlife and year; for example: grouse shooting.
    [Show full text]
  • Your Essential Guide to Grouse Shooting and Moorland Management
    Your essential guide to grouse shooting and moorland management Who we are The Game & Wildlife Conservation Trust (GWCT) is a research and education charity conducting conservation science to enhance the British countryside for public benefit. For over 80 years we have been researching and developing game and wildlife management techniques and have had 135 scientific papers published in peer-reviewed journals on issues relating to upland ecology over the past 46 years. On the basis of our scientific expertise and credibility, we regularly provide advice to such statutory bodies as Defra, Scottish Natural Heritage and Natural England. We also provide practical advice to farmers and landowners on how to manage their land with a view to improving biodiversity. Much of our research is undertaken in collaboration with other institutions and organisations, including the following: Exeter, Imperial College London, Newcastle and Aberdeen Universities, the British Trust for Ornithology, the Centre for Ecology and Hydrology and the RSPB. To help disseminate this knowledge, representatives of the GWCT sat on over 100 external committees in 2015, including the following: Defra’s Upland Stakeholder Forum, Natural England’s main board and the UK Birds of Conservation Concern Panel. Why we support grouse moor management After spending 46 years researching and advising in the uplands we support grouse moor management for three primary reasons: 1. The habitat management undertaken on grouse moors preserves and enhances heather dominated habitats1. 2. The package of management, notably habitat enhancement along with predator control contributes to the conservation of a suite of upland bird species including upland waders2–4.
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter on Grouse Shooting
    The Moorland Balance 1. Grouse Shooting Grouse shooting in the UK occurs in two main forms: driven shooting and walked-up, often over dogs. Driven shooting typically requires higher grouse densities, and this needs more eective management. The scale and impact of this management is the issue which provokes much of the debate around grouse shooting. This chapter describes grouse shooting and introduces the management techniques used. Left: © Tarquin Millington-Drake; Above: © Matt Limb Above: Millington-Drake; Tarquin © Left: 1 Grouse Shooting What are grouse and where are they found? There are four species of grouse in Britain: red grouse, black grouse, capercaillie and ptarmigan. The red grouse population is estimated to be 230,000 pairs1, and it is one of this country’s few endemic sub-species, meaning that they are only found in the British Isles. They inhabit heather moorland including areas of both blanket bog and upland heath. The black grouse population is estimated to be 5,100 males UK- wide1. They are found on the moorland fringe and use hill-edge woodlands of both conifer and deciduous species. There are fewer than 2,000 capercaillie in a handful of pine-dominated Scottish woodlands1. Ptarmigan live above 800m and like capercaillie are also only found in Scotland. Grouse populations tend to fluctuate in size over the years and in relation to management, so these figures are an estimate. Species Population Population UK conservation estimate status trend Red grouse 230,000 pairs Fluctuating Amber listed Black grouse 5,100 males Severe decline Red listed Capercaillie 1,300 individuals Severe decline Red listed (800-1,900) Ptarmigan 2,000-15,000 pairs Unknown Green listed (range stable) The number and trends of grouse species in the UK, based on figures from Birds of Conservation Concern 42, Population estimates of birds in Great Britain and the UK¦ and Birdlife International’s Datazone.
    [Show full text]
  • Socioeconomic and Biodiversity Impacts of Driven Grouse Moors in Scotland
    Socioeconomic and biodiversity impacts of driven grouse moors in Scotland. Summary Report Acknowledgements This research was commissioned by the Scottish Government via the Scottish Government’s Strategic Research Programme 2016-2021. The work has been undertaken by The James Hutton Institute (through the Policy Advice with Supporting Analysis (PAWSA) component of the Underpinning Capacity funding) and Scotland’s Rural College - SRUC (via Underpinning Policy Support funding). The views expressed in this report are those of the researchers and do not necessarily represent those of the Scottish Government or Scottish Ministers. We would like to acknowledge the advice and support of the project Steering Group: • Gita Anand: Scottish Government • Charles Warren: University of St Andrews • Claudia Rowse: Scottish Natural Heritage • Colin Shedden: British Association for Shooting and Conservation • Helen Duncan: Scottish Government • Hugh Dignon: Scottish Government • Ian Thomson: RSPB Scotland • Tim Baynes: Scottish Land & Estates (Moorland Group) Cover Photo © Mark Ewart (Lammermuirs Moorland Group) Citation Rob Brooker, Steven Thomson, Keith Matthews, Alison Hester, Scott Newey, Robin Pakeman, Dave Miller, Volker Mell, Inge Aalders, Rob McMorran and Jayne Glass (2018). Socioeconomic and biodiversity impacts of driven grouse moors in Scotland: Summary Report. Contents Acknowledgements ...................................................................................................................... 1 1 Background..........................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Turn Your Back on Grouse
    1 Turn your back on grouse A popular campaign against greed and intensification on England's grouse shooting estates. back ur on o y G n R r O u U T S Ethical Consumer Research Association (ECRA) May 2014 E Turn your back on grouse Ethical Consumer Research Association (ECRA) May 2014 2 “The hen harrier is a UK flagship species and extinction of any species of wildlife in the UK, through criminal activity, is unacceptable in the 21st century.” Richard Brunstrom, Chief Constable of North Wales “It is time for this industry to prove to the rest of the country that they can leave archaic activities behind. They must show their activities are sustainable and don’t rely on the illegal killing of birds of prey to promote ever increasing grouse-bags.” Martin Harper, RSPB Conservation Director “Upland estates feel they can divorce themselves from the collective wishes of the electorate, the requirements of the law and a recognition that they have a responsibility to nurture some of the most iconic members of our natural heritage.” John Armitage – Former RSPB conservationist Turn your back on grouse Ethical Consumer Research Association (ECRA) May 2014 3 Contents 1 Introduction and summary 4 2 The Hen Harrier 7 3 Grouse shooting estates 9 4 Consequences of intensification 11 5 Initiatives aimed at improving the fate of the hen harrier 14 6 The view from the grouse shooting industry 17 7 The political situation 20 8 A public campaign 24 9 Who to avoid? 26 Available as Appendix 1 Individuals and businesses connected to driven grouse a separate shooting in the UK document Appendix 2 Information sources 29 Appendix 3 Academic papers 32 Glossary 34 Cover image: Hen harrier Circus cyaneus, female in flight.
    [Show full text]
  • Sustainable Driven Grouse Shooting?
    Sustainable Driven Grouse Shooting? A summary of the evidence Authors Professor Simon Denny, BA, MA, PhD Dr Tracey Latham-Green, BA, MBA, PhD Professor Richard Hazenberg BA, MA, PhD Independent chair Professor James Crabbe, Wolfson College, University of Oxford July 2021 1 Date Version Updates 18.07.2021 1.0 First edition 2 CONTENTS FOREWORD BY THE INDEPENDENT CHAIR 7 1 INTRODUCTION 9 1.1 AIM OF THE REPORT 9 1.2 RELEVANCE AND AUDIENCE 9 1.3 THE LOGIC OF OPPOSITION TO DRIVEN GROUSE SHOOTING 10 1.4 ABOUT THE AUTHORS 12 1.5 INDEPENDENT REVIEW 13 2 SYNOPSIS 14 2.1 ECONOMICS 14 2.1.1 ECONOMIC IMPACT 1 14 2.1.2 ECONOMIC IMPACT 2 15 2.1.3 ECONOMIC IMPACT 3 16 2.1.4 ECONOMIC IMPACT 4 16 2.1.5 ECONOMIC IMPACT 5 17 2.1.6 ECONOMIC IMPACT 6 17 2.2 BIODIVERSITY 18 2.2.1 INTRODUCTION 18 2.2.2 IMPACT OF POLICY DECISIONS 19 2.2.3 RENEWABLE ENERGY 19 2.2.4 TOURISM 20 2.2.5 INTEGRATED MOORLAND MANAGEMENT 20 2.2.6 PREDATOR CONTROL 20 2.2.7 MOUNTAIN HARES 21 2.2.8 BIRDS 21 2.2.9 INVERTEBRATES 22 2.2.10 TICKS 22 2.2.11 MEDICATED GRIT 22 2.2.12 HEATHER BEETLE 23 2.2.13 STAKEHOLDERS 23 2.3 NATURAL CAPITAL AND ECOSYSTEMS 24 2.3.1 INTRODUCTION 24 2.3.2 DEFINITIONAL ISSUES 25 2.3.3 FIRE 25 2.3.4 BURNING VS. MOWING 28 2.3.5 WATER 28 2.4 SOCIAL IMPACTS 29 2.5 ALTERNATIVE USES 32 2.6 OPPOSITION TO DGS: MOTIVATIONS AND METHODS 36 3 METHODOLOGY 40 4 OVERVIEW OF DRIVEN GROUSE SHOOTING 41 4.1 THE RED GROUSE: AN INTRODUCTION 41 4.1.1 INTRODUCTION 41 4.1.2 DIFFERENT SPECIES OF GROUSE 41 4.1.3 THE RED GROUSE 42 3 4.1.4 HABITAT AND DISTRIBUTION 43 4.1.5 DISEASES 44 4.1.6
    [Show full text]
  • The Facts of Rural Life
    THE FACTS OF RURAL LIFE Why we need better wildlife management CHARLIE PYE-SMITH The Facts of Rural Life Copyright: © 2015 Charlie Pye-Smith THE AUTHOR © All rights reserved Born in Yorkshire, Charlie Pye- No part of this publication may be reproduced, in any form or by Smith studied botany and any means, without prior written permission from Brian Fanshawe Old School House, Ashley, Tetbury zoology at Newcastle-upon-Tyne Gloucestershire GL8 8XS University and conservation at University College London. His books include The Other Writer: Charlie Pye-Smith Nile (Penguin), Rebels and Design: Elodie A. Sampere, Wild Communications, [email protected] Outcasts (Penguin), The Subsidy Scandal (Earthscan), In Search Printing and publishing advised by BPG Media of Wild India (Channel 4), Rural Rites: Hunting and the Photo credits: Politics of Prejudice (All Party Parliamentary Middle Way David White: iii, iv, v, 5, 7, 8, 9, 12, 14, 20, 32, 35, 38, 55, 58, 62, 67, 71, 73, 74 and 80. Group) and Trees for Life (World Agroforestry Centre). He has Laurie Campbell: 4, 11, 16, 24, 28, 29, 33, 60, 63, 66. written scores of feature articles for the Financial Times, the Charlie Pye Smith: 2, 3, 6, 10, 13, 15, 17, 18, 21, 23, 25, 26, 30, 31, Daily Telegraph, New Scientist and other newspapers and 34, 39, 40, 41, 43, 44, 45, 48, 50, 51, 53, 54, 59, 61, 65, 68, 69. journals, presented radio programmes for BBC World Service, iStock/Getty Images: 46, 49. and written and researched television documentaries for Readers may notice that I have used both imperial and metric Channel 4 and the Discovery Channel.
    [Show full text]
  • Manuscript Details
    Manuscript Details Manuscript number RURAL_2016_218 Title Hunting cultures and the ‘northern periphery’: exploring their relationship in Scotland and Finland Article type Research Paper Abstract Hunting is a rural activity and attempts to influence it are often framed, in northern Europe, in terms of ‘urban elites’ seeking to impose their will on ‘rural’ cultures. Hunting cultures are the subject of this paper, but instead of focusing on their relationship with conservation, as most previous work has done, it explores their interaction with proposals to expand commercial hunting tourism to generate endogenous economic development in remote rural areas of Scotland and Finland. It does so by examining stakeholders’ attitudes towards the potential for increased commercial hunting tourism in peripheral areas in Scotland and Finland. The paper identifies a neoliberal policy perspective that recasts such areas as ‘resource peripheries’ and outlines their dominant hunting cultures. Using qualitative, semi-structured interviews with key stakeholders, it explores the motives and means for dominant hunting cultures to exert ‘frictional’ resistance on attempts to ‘re-map’ peripheral areas in ways which were perceived to work against their interests. The paper highlights the importance of taking account of the influence of dominant hunting cultures on attempts to introduce neoliberal economic development policies in resource peripheries, especially where they may have an impact on game resources. By demonstrating the frictional resistance that they can exert on such policies, it sheds light on a neglected aspect of hunting cultures. The paper suggests that, rather than demonstrating the limits of neoliberalism, these northern peripheries are increasingly its deliberately constructed ‘other’. This is because Scotland’s and, to lesser but growing extent, Finland’s dominant hunting cultures are maintained by people who lives are led for the most part outside the ‘northern periphery’.
    [Show full text]