Exactly. Not only that but that it is not a very rare bird, and nor is moorland its usual habitat.
Quite so, and what draws them to moorland is (a) high populations of the species they prey on (b) very low numbers of competing (controllable) mammalian and avian predators (c) closely managed human activity that minimises disturbance outside of the short shooting season. All 3 factors are entirely due to management for grouse shooting.
I've shot driven and walked-up grouse, and it has been a great experience, but what has mattered most about the experience has been the pleasure of seeing a form of land management that is all about creating a rich and sustainable ecosystem.
As has been noted, you can't run a grouse moor at a profit: they depend on the passion of relatively few very wealthy people, but -as the debate pointed out- the large sums that owners and guns spend on this passion provides the employment and income that supports some remote and economically-vulnerable rural communities.
I honestly don't care about the characters, attitudes, wealth, politics or shoe-size of these people, or that they get to enjoy something almost everyone else in the country can't afford; just as I don't care who goes trophy hunting in Africa so long as the money they spend protects wild-ish environments there against human encroachment and favours a diverse and sustainable ecosystem. No one else is doing this.
If we want to set aside the elites who have for many decades sustained these environmental and social welfare projects - because that is fundamentally what shotoing estates are - so as to make grouse shooting and trophy hunting widely accessible, then let's trial a lottery system - everyone who pays in has the satisfaction of contributing to a good cause, and one with much more measurable outcomes than any the RSPB could deliver, and the lucky few get to enjoy an exceptional sporting and cultural experience.
What mustn't happen - as the debate rightly pointed out - is the suppression of a widely-beneficial ecological, economic and social system without any comparably-beneficial alternative to replace it, out of the kind of spite and hatred stirred up by WJ. Don't be deceived: they aren't the least bit concerned about conserving hen harriers or any other elements of the moorland habitat: all they want is to get the shooters, keepers and beaters off the land, pin a great big self-righteous medal on each other's chests, and pocket whatever cash they can in the process. And once they're done with that, they'll find something else to ruin.
As for driven shooting that's based on reared birds, there are good and less-good ways to do this, just as there are good and less-good ways to farm, from an environmental and welfare perspective. The GWCT has taken an admirable and practical lead on this, promoting good practice whilst recognising that the economic realities. Iit's important here, too, to think in terms of land use, since game shooting is uniquely good at making use of -and thus extracting value from and consequently conserving- marginal spaces and pockets of woodland within agricultural land, thereby increasing habitats and food sources for many wild-bird and animal species; whilst keepering reduces pressure on these species from (contollable) generalist predators. Ban or restrict shooting whilst offering no sound alternative, and all this goes - forever.
Lastly, "fun" is not contemptible - it is life-affirming and we should enrich our existence by finding fun wherever we can whilst being mindful of its impacts. More than anything, the antis' compulsion to denigrate people who shoot and hunt for enjoying themselves reveals the poison in their hearts.
