Mick9abf
Well-Known Member
Put this here as it may interest some regarding the whole ‘hare control‘ debate which was brought about by Packham/Onekind/enter anti group of choice as another way to attack grouse moors.
A few last minute amendments to the Animal and Wildlife Bill have been forwarded by Alison Johnstone (Green MSP) whereby she seeks to afford full legal protection to Mountain Hares (due to be debated in Holyrood on 17th June 2020) which may interest some.
The reported reason is due to hares being put to unfavourable status in a report to that bastion of expertise the EU following a biast report produced by a now deceased doctor who used the least accurate way of counting hares to produce his report prior to the Werrity review.
For a bit of background to those not aware, the Mountain Hare is present in high numbers (unchanged densities in decades), on managed grouse moors which represent 80% of their range and are controlled as they eat everything, carry high tick burden and worms which affect not just grouse but other red listed ground nested species which strangely seem to thrive on managed areas as opposed to various ‘reserves’ and ‘rewilded’ areas.
They have a season where they can be culled under licences granted by the SNH in areas where landowners wish to prevent damage to trees (forestry don’t tolerate them at all) and habitat (SSSI’s), as well as reducing tick burden which in turn will reduce the likelihood of people accessing the outdoors from Lyme’s Disease.
The wish to plant large swathes of Scottish uplands by various political and conservation groups is well known with Ms Johnstone being quite vocal in her views for fencing large areas to protect said trees.
This of course would be to the detriment of Red Deer who, out with sporting estates, are treated as a pest species as the Scottish Government would appear ‘prima facia’ to see them reduced to negligible numbers.
Perhaps more importantly the red listed Capercaillie who’s numbers are critical point would all be affected as they have a nasty habit of flying into fences causing instant death or injury leading to death. That said there’s a big grant on offer for conservation groups (the usual suspects) to help save the Caper from its second local extinction but then as we’ve seen before, nothing brings in money like something on the Red Listed Species list, while ignoring the obvious pine Martin/badger/fox/stoat etc problem.
An unfortunate truth is that the habitat where mountain hare numbers (and about everything else people want to see) flourish is most likely to be managed for ‘sporting purposes’, in fact this is also the case for several red listed species of waders and raptors, which begs the question of what the real answer is and whether unmanaged areas, or ‘nature reserves’ who do not manage the land in the same way perhaps need to change their practices to support healthy hare numbers as the reality is these are the areas devoid of the mammals.
A new counting scheme has been developed but it would appear that those most vocal about the protection of mountain hare are the least likely to embrace it which begs another question.
The SGA chairman highlighted in an open letter that
“On Langholm Moor, when the gamekeepers were removed because grouse shooting became unviable, the mountain hare population crashed and never recovered. At Langholm the mountain hare is today locally extinct through lack of management.
When hares are not managed upland moors, numbers build for a period then the hares die off. Mountain hares are incredibly susceptible to gut worms. When the ground becomes saturated with hares, the worm larva in the heather is ingested and disease spreads through the population with fatal consequences.
Unlike taking a proportion of the hares when they are in good health, disease related die-off means the population can take up to 15 years to reach the same level. In some cases, it doesn’t.
So, by protecting the mountain hare- as per this amendment- and foregoing any population management, there is a real danger that this rushed decision will actually worsen the conservation status of the mountain hare within a relatively short period of time rather than improve it.”
What is clear is that hare control and the increased parasite and disease they carry will effect the viability of a grouse moor which both suits the Anti agenda and, what better way to get cheap ground under the Land Reform Act than to reduce the sporting value do you can plant trees.
Apparently, in a typical keep going till you get the answer you want method, they are also proposing to try and overturn the amendment to allow the docking of certain species of working dogs....... and so we go round in circles again.
I’ve written to various MSP’s and what is clear is that Labour and the Greens will vote unilaterally in favour of the amendment. SNP I suspect will follow suit en mass as they will expect the Greens support on issues more important to them.
To think this death by a thousand cuts won’t effect stalking eventually is naive in the extreme.
A few last minute amendments to the Animal and Wildlife Bill have been forwarded by Alison Johnstone (Green MSP) whereby she seeks to afford full legal protection to Mountain Hares (due to be debated in Holyrood on 17th June 2020) which may interest some.
The reported reason is due to hares being put to unfavourable status in a report to that bastion of expertise the EU following a biast report produced by a now deceased doctor who used the least accurate way of counting hares to produce his report prior to the Werrity review.
For a bit of background to those not aware, the Mountain Hare is present in high numbers (unchanged densities in decades), on managed grouse moors which represent 80% of their range and are controlled as they eat everything, carry high tick burden and worms which affect not just grouse but other red listed ground nested species which strangely seem to thrive on managed areas as opposed to various ‘reserves’ and ‘rewilded’ areas.
They have a season where they can be culled under licences granted by the SNH in areas where landowners wish to prevent damage to trees (forestry don’t tolerate them at all) and habitat (SSSI’s), as well as reducing tick burden which in turn will reduce the likelihood of people accessing the outdoors from Lyme’s Disease.
The wish to plant large swathes of Scottish uplands by various political and conservation groups is well known with Ms Johnstone being quite vocal in her views for fencing large areas to protect said trees.
This of course would be to the detriment of Red Deer who, out with sporting estates, are treated as a pest species as the Scottish Government would appear ‘prima facia’ to see them reduced to negligible numbers.
Perhaps more importantly the red listed Capercaillie who’s numbers are critical point would all be affected as they have a nasty habit of flying into fences causing instant death or injury leading to death. That said there’s a big grant on offer for conservation groups (the usual suspects) to help save the Caper from its second local extinction but then as we’ve seen before, nothing brings in money like something on the Red Listed Species list, while ignoring the obvious pine Martin/badger/fox/stoat etc problem.
An unfortunate truth is that the habitat where mountain hare numbers (and about everything else people want to see) flourish is most likely to be managed for ‘sporting purposes’, in fact this is also the case for several red listed species of waders and raptors, which begs the question of what the real answer is and whether unmanaged areas, or ‘nature reserves’ who do not manage the land in the same way perhaps need to change their practices to support healthy hare numbers as the reality is these are the areas devoid of the mammals.
A new counting scheme has been developed but it would appear that those most vocal about the protection of mountain hare are the least likely to embrace it which begs another question.
The SGA chairman highlighted in an open letter that
“On Langholm Moor, when the gamekeepers were removed because grouse shooting became unviable, the mountain hare population crashed and never recovered. At Langholm the mountain hare is today locally extinct through lack of management.
When hares are not managed upland moors, numbers build for a period then the hares die off. Mountain hares are incredibly susceptible to gut worms. When the ground becomes saturated with hares, the worm larva in the heather is ingested and disease spreads through the population with fatal consequences.
Unlike taking a proportion of the hares when they are in good health, disease related die-off means the population can take up to 15 years to reach the same level. In some cases, it doesn’t.
So, by protecting the mountain hare- as per this amendment- and foregoing any population management, there is a real danger that this rushed decision will actually worsen the conservation status of the mountain hare within a relatively short period of time rather than improve it.”
What is clear is that hare control and the increased parasite and disease they carry will effect the viability of a grouse moor which both suits the Anti agenda and, what better way to get cheap ground under the Land Reform Act than to reduce the sporting value do you can plant trees.
Apparently, in a typical keep going till you get the answer you want method, they are also proposing to try and overturn the amendment to allow the docking of certain species of working dogs....... and so we go round in circles again.
I’ve written to various MSP’s and what is clear is that Labour and the Greens will vote unilaterally in favour of the amendment. SNP I suspect will follow suit en mass as they will expect the Greens support on issues more important to them.
To think this death by a thousand cuts won’t effect stalking eventually is naive in the extreme.
Last edited:
