Opponents of grouse shooting often ignore the economic and environmental realities of this activity.
So, when I was asked to open a debate on this issue, as a member of the Petitions Committee, I jumped at the chance to set the record straight.
This debate occurred as a result of a petition which claimed that grouse shooting should be banned because it is supposedly “bad for people, the environment and wildlife…and economically insignificant.”
In my speech, I presented a fuller picture of what grouse shooting brings to the British countryside.
Proponents of a ban do not seem to have a clear understanding of the benefits it brings to communities up and down Scotland and indeed the whole United Kingdom.
On the economics, the British Association for Shooting and Conservation has conducted research showing that grouse shooting alone contributes a total ‘Gross Value Added’ contribution of £23 million to the Scottish economy. Across the UK, the wider shooting sector is worth £3.3 billion to the UK economy every year.
Activists in favour of this ban wish to claim that this industry has a small economic value, but they should tell that to everyone managing the land who has a job because of it, to the hotels and B&Bs who are sustained by it, to the small shops and stores who get by because of it, to the tourist industry that’s supported by it, to the extended network of restaurants and bars who survive because of it, and to the UK Treasury, who receive the tax revenue that is generated by the workers paying income tax and the businesses paying a myriad of taxes, all because of this industry.
The economic reality of grouse shooting is clear: it provides jobs, supports small business and sustains the rural economy.
However, some activists argue that the economic benefits should be ignored entirely because of the supposed cost to the environment of grouse shooting. That position is also fundamentally flawed. This sector does not harm the environment, it protects it. It does not damage the countryside, it maintains it. It does not risk biodiversity, it enhances it.
The Country Land and Business Association have shown that grouse moor owners in England alone spend £52.5m every year on moorland management. Grouse moors manage up to 1.8 million hectares of the uplands. All of that land is only preserved by the hard work of land managers. They do so not only for their benefit, but for the country’s benefit, for our environment’s benefit and for our countryside’s benefit.
Grouse shooting happens on UK uplands which are home to 75 per cent of the world’s remaining heather moorland, which have been described as ‘Britain’s rainforest’. Those lands are not maintained by some stroke of luck, they are protected by the efforts of land managers and the practice of grouse shooting. The Country Land and Business Association say the managing of moors for grouse maintains heather dominated habitat better than other uses of this land. As they rightly pointed out, if gamekeepers were not present to preserve the land, the protection of it would have to be met at significant cost to taxpayers.
And grouse shooting is not only important for the maintenance of the land itself, but for the wildlife that inhabits it. The Country Land and Business Association say that two-thirds of shooting providers control pests and predators to protect wildlife. They have also demonstrated that in areas where grouse moor management has ceased, such as Dartmoor, populations of ground nesting birds have reduced. A further study of upland breeding birds in the UK found that densities of golden plover and lapwing were up to five-times greater on managed grouse moors compared to unmanaged moorland.
So, our countryside wouldn’t just be a less beautiful place without grouse shooting, it would be a much quieter place too, without the idyllic sounds that bring enjoyment to everyone who spends time in the British countryside.
The consequences of a ban on grouse shooting would put wildlife at risk, reduce biodiversity, harm the environment, damage the countryside, lower revenue for public services, increase the costs of managing the land for all taxpayers, and put jobs and businesses at risk.
It’s not a proposition that can be considered with any credibility.
Banning grouse shooting would put wildlife at risk, reduce biodiversity and harm the environment
