Shooting, science and subterfuge

A report into predator control on grouse shooting estates produced by the League Against Cruel Sports has been dismissed by field sports organisations as animal rights propaganda, timed to coincide with the Glorious 12th. An investigator visited seven Scottish grouse shooting estates, one of which has already said such practices will now end.

The article titled Calculating Cruelty concludes that some 120,000 - 260,000 animals are trapped or snared as part of the management undertaken by gamekeepers each year. The League is part of Revive, a coalition of groups seeking 'reform' of driven grouse shooting.

Refuting the findings, the Scottish Gamekeepers Association said: "The document, which is not a peer reviewed report, is riddled with fag packet estimates and wild extrapolations, major confusions over what is legal and what is not and 'facts' from discredited papers from the anti-grouse moor group, Revive, which have already been exposed."

The report is clearly designed to supply a 'scientific' basis for the Scottish government to curb or prohibit grouse shooting, but it raises more questions than answers. Why is the 'named' investigator, Bruce Thain, a pseudonym? Whatever the reason for this concealment, it conveniently avoids examination of his background, experience, previous employment on shooting estates (as stated in the report) and motive for now 'exposing' such management practices.

The other co-author, Professor Stephen Harris, is well-known to the field sports world, having been commissioned by various animal groups over the years. His links with the League caused a case against the Lamerton Hunt to collapse in 2015. Harris has been criticised in the past for manipulating science and placing non-validated work alongside peer-reviewed studies, thereby blurring conclusions. The report has not been submitted for peer-review and scrutiny by other scientists before being made public.

Any discussion on the future of grouse shooting must include a recognition that land used for such purposes retains a unique environment for rare species in upland heather moorland. Furthermore, employment cannot be measured solely in gamekeepers but also associated businesses and services. No genuine debate can be had without proposing a realistic alternative land use that protects the former and policies that sustain the latter.
This report concentrates on the use of snares and traps and undoubtedly there are some poor or reckless practitioners as there are in any profession, but in the absence of being able to properly inspect the findings in this report, it leaves too many questions unanswered.