There might not seem to be an obvious connection between rotational heather burning on grouse moors and the ancient tradition of harvesting gannet chicks in the Western Isles, but in both cases politics and prejudice has skewed debate.
The current spate of wildfires in the uplands has reinforced the dangers of allowing biomass to increase unchecked in the uplands by restricting controlled burning of heather which has been practiced for generations. This alongside the current fad for ‘rewilding’ and hotter, drier weather associated with global warming have created a perfect firestorm. When more active management to decrease fire risk is needed the exact opposite is happening. The current record area of wildfires is not therefore an accident, it is an inevitable consequence of policy decisions made by successive governments.
Meanwhile, the Men of Ness who since at least 1549 have been travelling from Lewis to the remote island of Sula Sgeir to harvest young gannets, face having their licence removed by the government agency NatureScot. The young gannets, known as guga, are gutted, plucked, scorched, salted and stacked for preservation. In times past they would have been crucial in seeing the island population through the long Hebridean winters, but now the motivation is also about cultural continuity as well as sustenance.
Why is it that heather burning and guga hunting are coming under pressure? A large part of the reason is prejudice. Prejudice against those who shoot grouse and prejudice against the Men of Ness who harvest the guga. They might be very different groups, but the fact that they are harvesting wild birds, however sustainably, puts them at odds with activists and the modern world. Politicians and regulators will always claim to base decisions on science and evidence, but the reality is that a whiff of political pressure will skew their approach to any issue. Campaigners (who happen to hate grouse shooting) argue that heather burning is environmentally damaging, so it is restricted.
Online animal rights activists lobby NatureScot to remove the guga hunting licence and the agency recommends the hunt is stopped. At the heart of these decisions lies the ‘precautionary principle’ which allows the restriction or prohibition of nearly any activity on the basis that it cannot be proved that it will not have a negative impact. This reversal of natural justice is a rejection of the principle of innocence unless guilt is proved. It is an almost impossible test to meet in most circumstances and allows politicians and regulators to limit, restrict and prohibit almost anything they like.
Many of the environmental certainties of 10 years ago, including the idea that a race towards net zero was the inevitable response to climate change, are currently coming under question. The precautionary principle should come under similar scrutiny for similar reasons. Nature needs to be protected, but creating impossible hurdles for traditional activities to meet is putting the interests of wild animals and habitats above those of people.