|
I
find constant reference by SNH and the RSPB to the loss of heather
at Langholm since 1940 very tedious - it is obvious that they are
diverting attention from the main problem, which is raptor predation
of the grouse. The loss of heather: no matter how far back in time
we go, is of great concern: but we are talking at present of a moor
with 12,000 acres of good heather. Which since 1974 averaged grouse
bags of just under 1000 brace per year.
A
report commissioned by SNH in 1997 (Averis & Averis) found that
the heather on the Langholm grouse moors was in an improving or
stable state, and that in the last ten years the rate of improvement
had increased. It seems very strange that no one seemed to know that
this report existed: but obviously to keep it quiet would benefit
the people who were trying to blame habitat and poor management for
the decline of our grouse. Professor Des Thompson now says, “The
best way forward for Langholm is maximum impact management which
would include buffer feeding, better management of heather and
bracken. Maximum vermin control and a ‘trap and transfer programme.’
What on earth does Professor Thompson think that we have been doing
at Langholm over the past years! We had one of the best teams of
keepers possible and:
Heather
was burned every day during the season when weather allowed.
400
acres of bracken was sprayed with Asulox.
Sheep
numbers were reduced
An
average cull of 300 Carrion Crows and 207 adult foxes per year, plus
mink, stoat, weasel, magpies and jays was achieved.
A
number of experiments were carried out, including cutting heather
using a 4-wheel drive tractor with double wheels and swipe (400
acres were cut in 1992), and spraying two sections of the hill to
kill 70 acres for mollinia grass to allow for heather regeneration.
Over
many years medicated grit was distributed on a rotational basis,
resulting in low worm counts e.g. young birds from 0 -150 worms, and
old birds from 25 - 350 worms.
Is
this not “maximum impact management”?
With
regard to buffer feeding of harriers in 1998 and 1999, which was
hailed as a great success by SNH after only one year, saving the
lives of 640 grouse chicks (I think that was the figure quoted),
this was estimated by monitoring ‘prey’ items brought back to
harrier nest. Surely these people realise that with our grouse stock
being so low, the number of grouse chicks available as ‘prey’
items were almost non-existent. Meadow Pipits and Skylarks have been
reduced by 80% of their 1993 numbers, so the white rats would have
to account for a large percentage of food brought back to the
harrier chicks.
A
‘trap and transfer’ of grouse programme would have been worth
consideration had there been no grouse or keepers on the Langholm
moors for 50 years or so, but under the circumstances it would only
serve to provide a further food supply for the harriers.
Despite
SNH and the RSPB constantly laying the blame for the demise of our
grouse on habitat and poor management (or subtly inferring poor
management) the raptor predation experienced at Langholm has never
been known on any moor in the past as Hen Harrier numbers have only
soared in the past decade. We must remember that the Joint Raptor
Study stated that “30% of the breeding stock of grouse was killed
by raptors between October and March each year and 37% of grouse
chicks after hatching each year, reducing post-breeding grouse by
50% per year.” The huge increase in Hen Harrier numbers peaked in
1997 with 28 nest; 7 outside the main driving moor, but, after
hatching resulted in 154 Hen Harriers working the area.
The
reason for the upsurge of raptor numbers countrywide was the
cessation of the use of Organochlorine pesticides in 1986. One only
has to look at the Buzzard population to see how well raptors are
thriving.
It
would appear that the raptor surveys in this country are almost all
undertaken by the RSPB and associated raptor groups whose main
interest is the protection and the continued proliferation of the
species rather than the actual counts of the numbers of these large
hawks. I realise that there would be problems in changing this
system. But I feel that the keepering profession, stalkers and
shepherds, who spend so much of their working lives on the ground
being surveyed, should be involved with the Groups in order to
provide a more realistic finding of raptor numbers on our moorlands.
I
did not have to be clairvoyant to know what was going to happen to
the Langholm moors at the beginning of the Study. At our second
annual meeting, I asked what the members’ attitude would be when
the number of harrier nests reached 20 - even Simon Thirgood smiled
in disbelief! However, regardless, I thought that if feelings of the
scientists were conclusive, as they were, then we would at least be
able to control harrier numbers under license. This would, I think,
have been possible if all interested parties had presented a united
appeal to the European courts, but of course SNH would not support
this line, let alone the RSPB. The fact remains that no matter how
many articles or words are written on the subject, there will never
be grouse at Langholm until there is realistic control of the
harrier numbers. |
