Grouse Moor Management
Review Group

Report to the Scottish Government

November 2019

Contents
PREFACE ............................................................................................................... 2
1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .................................................................................. 5
2. BACKGROUND, TERMS OF REFERENCE AND CONTEXT ...................... 10
3. OPTIONS FOR REGULATION....................................................................... 22
4. SUMMARIES OF SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE ON RAPTOR PERSECUTION
AND PREDATION, MUIRBURN, MOUNTAIN HARES, AND USE OF
MEDICATED GRIT.......................................................................................... 29
5. RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................................................... 44
6. INCREASED CONTROL OF SPECIFIC ACTIVITIES AND ASSOCIATED
RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................................................... 50
7. RECOMMENDATIONS: CONSOLIDATED LIST .......................................... 58
ANNEX 1: LIST OF PUBLISHED SOURCES ...................................................... 68
ANNEX 2: ACCOUNT OF HOW THE REVIEW WAS CONDUCTED ................. 90
ANNEX 3: LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ................................................................ 92
ANNEX 4: GLOSSARY ......................................................................................... 93

2

 Chair’s Preface
When I accepted the invitation from the Scottish
Government to lead an expert review on grouse shooting,
I had not fully appreciated the complexity of the issues
involved, the passion with which contrasting views were
held nor the length of time the review would require. In
responding to that invitation two years later I owe a
significant debt to the other five members of the Grouse
Moor Management Group (Alison Hester, Alex Jameson,
Ian Newton, Mark Oddy and Colin Reid), the four
Specialist Advisers (Susan Davies, Calum MacDonald,
Adam Smith and Des Thompson) and the Secretary to the
Group (Karen Rentoul). All these individuals contributed
to lively and robust discussions that informed my thinking
and helped draft much of this report. I thank each of these individuals for their
energy and commitment to this challenging task.
Grappling with the evidence in terms of raptor and upland ecology, environmental
law, wildlife law and related police and judicial procedures, veterinary science, the
socio-economics of Scotland’s moorland, and much more besides, has proved a
major challenge. But the opportunity to assemble a robust evidence-base on the
key issues via written and oral evidence from many of the leading authorities and
individuals working in this area has exposed me to a whole new literature which I
have found both stimulating and thought-provoking. As a geographer and field
scientist, I especially enjoyed and valued the opportunity to visit a variety of estates
where grouse shooting occurs and, in one case, where re-wilding is under way.
In retrospect, although we have attempted throughout to be evidence-led, it is
striking how many significant evidence gaps remain and how much of the
fundamental science is contested. Especially problematic has been the tension
between the ‘expert’ knowledge of scientists reported in peer-reviewed sources
and ‘local’ knowledge held by practitioners based in the field. Even projects
designed to clarify the position, such as those at Langholm, have left a contested
legacy. Our remit invited us to make recommendations to reduce the illegal killing
of raptors but at the same time to give due regard to the socio-economic
contribution that grouse shooting makes to Scotland’s rural economy. Both topics
have proved complex and problematic. Confirming the scale of the illegal killing of
raptors is challenging and such criminal activity admits to no easy resolution. The
socio-economic contribution to the rural economy of grouse shooting in isolation is
very poorly understood, as are the consequences of any potential changes in land
use.
In terms of proposing more sustainable land management practices that underpin
the shooting of grouse (muirburn, managing Mountain Hares and using medicated
grit) evidence-based recommendations are both more readily available and more
robust. For each of these land management practices, we are agreed on
3

 enhanced or new regulation which we see as transparent, accountable, consistent,
proportionate and targeted only where needed. These properties underpin other
recommendations in the report.
But our main recommendation on the licensing of grouse shooting proved more
contentious. Because the evidence-base is so heavily contested, reaching a
unanimous recommendation was fraught – personal opinions and values
intervened. But we did agree that any decision on licensing is ultimately a political
one in which wider societal views also need to be taken into account.
The Group was evenly split on whether or not to license grouse shooting. When,
as Chair, I sought to exercise a casting vote in favour of the immediate introduction
of licensing, this was contested by two members of the Group. In order to have a
unanimous recommendation on this key issue with the authority that implies, the
Group proposes a five year probationary period for specified raptors on or near
grouse shooting estates to recover to a ‘favourable’ conservation status. Should
this target fail to be achieved, then licensing should immediately be introduced. In
that situation we all agree that licensing is the only way forward – a significant
advance in terms of the debate given the wide spectrum of views within the Group
and beyond. Ultimately, whether and when to licence grouse shooting are political
decisions that rest with the Scottish Government. I hope this report will contribute
to and inform that decision.

Alan Werritty
Chair: Grouse Moor Management Group

4

 1.

Executive summary

In May 2017 the Scottish Government’s Cabinet Secretary for Environment,
Climate Change and Land Reform, Roseanna Cunningham, announced the setting
up of an expert group to look at managing grouse moors sustainably and within the
law. This had been triggered by the publication of Analyses of the fates of satellite
tracked Golden Eagles in Scotland (Whitfield & Fielding, 2017) a report by Scottish
Natural Heritage (SNH), which recorded that 40 out of 131 young Golden Eagles
had disappeared in suspicious circumstances over the period 2004-16, mostly in
locations on or adjacent to grouse moors.
Our report represents the findings of that expert group on grouse moor
management. It is divided into seven sections with one appendix and four
annexes. Following an Executive Summary (Section 1), the main body of the
report comprises background and context (Section 2), options for regulation
(Section 3), summaries of scientific evidence (Section 4), recommendations
(Section 5), proposals for the increased control of specified activities and
associated recommendations (Section 6), and ends with an itemised list of all the
recommendations (Section 7). An Appendix lists the arguments in favour and
against licensing the shooting of grouse and four Annexes provide a list of
published sources used in compiling the report, an account of how the review was
conducted, a list of abbreviations used throughout the report, and a glossary.
The Review Group comprised six experts reflecting a broad and relevant set of
interests – grouse shooting and estate management and academic research. This
core membership was augmented by four Specialist Advisers chosen to widen the
Group’s overall competence. The Group met on eighteen occasions between
January 2018 and July 2019, mainly at the Royal Society of Edinburgh, but also
took evidence in the field from a variety of grouse shooting estates and one estate
managed by a conservation charity. Evidence was gathered from specialist
knowledge provided within the Group and its Specialist Advisers and augmented
by contributions (both written and oral) from outside specialists. This was designed
to gather as wide-ranging and balanced a view as possible on the key issues.
Responses to a questionnaire circulated to key stakeholders provided further
evidence, as did oral hearings with nine experts who collectively represented a
wide spectrum of views on grouse shooting. In compiling the report we became
very aware of significant gaps in key data: most notably the relationship between
the recorded and actual number of incidents of illegal killing of raptors, current
numbers and population trends of Mountain Hares and the socio-economic impacts
of grouse shooting. The last issue is the subject of a separate Scottish
Government study whose phase 1 findings we have noted.
Key findings from the review
1.
Range of available regulatory systems
A wide range of regulatory mechanisms is available for improving the management
of grouse moors. These range from self-regulation, financial measures and
prohibition, through to licensing or permitting systems often involving Codes of
Practice. Such measures are not mutually exclusive and can be adopted in a
variety of combinations depending on the level of intervention sought and the
5

 practicalities of their implementation. Ideally any newly introduced regulation
should accord with the principles of Better Regulation and be transparent,
accountable, consistent, proportionate, accessible, effective and targeted only
where needed. In addition to regulation, better management can be promoted by
accreditation schemes in which, rather than punishing bad behaviour, good
behaviour is rewarded. Codes of Practice are already used in the management of
grouse moors as a guide to best practice but with few legal sanctions for noncompliance. If such Codes are to ‘have teeth’, they need to be better integrated
with one another and incorporate legal controls to the limits of acceptable
behaviour beyond which sanctions can be applied.
2.
Scientific evidence underpinning greater regulation
Raptor predation and persecution
Raptor numbers across Britain were greatly reduced in the 19th-early 20th
centuries with five species eliminated altogether. Over recent decades numbers
have substantially increased but most species still do not fully occupy their
potential range. This is locally attributed to illegal killing, especially in some grouse
moor areas. The major predators on grouse (Fox, Stoat, Weasel and
Carrion/Hooded Crow) are routinely and legally killed on grouse moors leaving
birds of prey as the principal remaining predators. The Joint Raptor Study on
Langholm Moor showed that, in sufficient numbers, Hen Harriers can reduce the
densities of grouse to such low levels that driven grouse shooting is impracticable.
This may also to be true for Peregrines in some areas. During the subsequent
Langholm Moor Demonstration Project, with mammalian predators and diseases
controlled, 82% of the grouse kills found were attributed to raptor predation or
scavenging. After nine years, the project was terminated as the grouse did not
achieve sufficient numbers to be shot on a commercial driven basis. In an attempt
to reduce grouse predation by raptors we are not convinced that, applied on a wide
scale, diversionary feeding is a cost-effective management tool as the known and
potential disadvantages out-weigh the advantages, although others disagree.
Muirburn
A favoured management tool for centuries, muirburn comprises the controlled
burning of vegetation to provide young, more nutritious shoots for grouse and other
species, and to destroy regenerating trees, thereby maintaining open moorland.
Muirburn is currently regulated by the Scottish Government’s Muirburn Code
designed to promote best practice and minimise the likelihood of detrimental
impacts. Given the absence of a robust system of monitoring compliance, it is not
currently possible to assess the effectiveness of the Code which has few statutory
provisions. In addition to the above impacts, muirburn affects biodiversity, soil
stability and hydrology. Both positive and negative effects on all these
components of the system have been recorded – in general terms most positive
effects of muirburn have been recorded in dry heathlands and most detrimental
effects in wet heaths and peatlands. Fires of greater intensity appear more likely to
have detrimental effects, but there is much disagreement in the literature and many
knowledge-gaps. The relationships between muirburn and wildfires are also poorly
understood and the subject of current scrutiny. Given the increased risk of intense,
damaging wildfires under climate change, it is critically important to introduce
6

 comprehensive muirburn monitoring and ensure compliance with best practice,
underpinned by robust scientific evidence, to minimise risk of damaging effects and
address potential benefits such as the reduction of fuel loads.
Mountain Hares
Mountain Hares are fairly widespread in Scotland and strongly associated with
heather moorland, including areas managed for driven grouse shooting where their
populations are sometimes harvested and controlled. The number of hares shot
during the open season is not regulated, but land managers are expected to
exercise restraint, in view of obligations under the EC Habitats Directive. The
Mountain Hare is on the Scottish Biodiversity List with the UK Joint Nature
Conservation Committee (JNCC) report to the EU for 2013-18 reporting Mountain
Hares as being in an “unfavourable-inadequate” conservation status. The current
lack of a standardised method for counting Mountain Hares, coupled with no
mandatory formal monitoring of populations, makes determining the conservation
status of Mountain Hares problematic. All published estimates of Mountain Hare
numbers in Scotland to date are at least partially based on ancillary data and
primarily non-hare-specific surveys. In terms of the impact of sport shooting on
hare populations, it is widely assumed that the numbers of hares killed for sport
shooting probably have a limited effect on Mountain Hare conservation status – an
assumption that cannot currently be tested on the very limited evidence available.
There is no substantive evidence to support the population control of Mountain
Hares as part of tick and/or Louping Ill virus control to benefit Red Grouse.
Medicated grit
Cyclical fluctuations in grouse numbers with peaks every 6-9 years caused by the
presence of the strongyle worm in the gut can be suppressed by the use of quartz
grit coated with the wormer flubendazole. Introduced in 2007, this medication
enables grouse numbers to be maintained at a consistently higher level than
hitherto. The use of medicated grit is controlled by the Veterinary Medicines
Regulations 2013 with Guidance Note 13 on the use of Cascade and the Wildlife &
Countryside Act 1981. When used correctly, flubendazole has proved highly
effective in reducing endemic strongyle worm levels in grouse guts with residues in
food for human consumption presenting a very low risk. The dosage supplied to
birds must be determined by a veterinary prescription reflecting the current worm
burden in the grouse in terms of health and breeding success. Not all estates
routinely determine worm burdens: some use medicated grit as an insurance and
others continue to treat worms against perceived wider risks to the grouse
population from weather, predators and tick-borne disease. Land managers must
also ensure that no drug is ingested 28 days before the grouse are harvested.
There is some evidence that prescription levels are too high, that gritting holidays
are not always observed, and that grit may not always be withdrawn from grouse at
least 28 days before Red Grouse enter the food chain. At present there is little
evidence of a resistance problem with the use of medicated grit, but there is some
evidence that flubendazole is toxic to aquatic organisms.

7

 3.
Option of licensing grouse shooting
Licensing is widely seen as an option for regulating grouse shooting and is
specifically included in the remit for the review. The lack of an agreed definition of
the term ‘grouse shooting businesses’ as referenced in our remit means that,
should licensing be introduced, a clear target must be identified. Licensing can be
used to control specific activities such as muirburn to control their potential adverse
impacts, or to provide wider oversight of the activity of grouse shooting, which is a
driver for these specific management activities and for illegal killing of raptors. In
promoting the more sustainable management of grouse moors, licensing schemes
represent one possible approach for stronger regulation of muirburn, the
management of Mountain Hares and the use of medicated grit. If licensing were to
be introduced, SNH should be the licensing authority using procedures allowing for
both individual and general licences (as currently used for the control of corvids)
and with scope for any initial licensing scheme to be amended as required in
response to changing conditions, behaviour, knowledge and understanding of risk.
In terms of enforcement options, SNH should have powers comparable to those
available to the Scottish Environment Protection Agency (SEPA) which provide
fixed or variable monetary penalties to be imposed as an initial response, but with
the potential to escalate to criminal prosecution in the event of serious, deliberate
or persistent breaches of the law.
4.
Recommendations
All recommendations on licensing are based on scientific evidence and with due
regard to the contribution that grouse shooting makes to the rural economy in
sparsely populated areas. On whether or not to introduce licensing for the activity
of shooting grouse, the Group was evenly split (with arguments for and against
detailed in Appendix 1). In light of this, and with the Chair choosing not to exercise
a casting vote, we unanimously recommend that a licensing scheme be
introduced for the shooting of grouse if, within five years from the Scottish
Government publishing this report, there is no marked improvement in the
ecological sustainability of grouse moor management, as evidenced by the
populations of breeding Golden Eagles, Hen Harriers and Peregrines on or
within the vicinity of grouse moors being in favourable condition. This
recommendation, whilst science-based, also reflects values and opinions that differ
across members of the Group. Ultimately, whether or not to license the shooting of
grouse is a political decision. We further recommend additional regulation for the
land management practices of muirburn, managing Mountain Hares and the use of
medicated grit. For muirburn we propose licensing; for the management of
Mountain Hares we propose increased legal regulation; and for the use of
medicated grit we propose a voluntary Code of Practice. Should the proposals on
Mountain Hares and medicated grit prove ineffective, we further recommend that
all three land management practices be licensed. Should the above
recommendations on licensing be accepted by the Scottish Government, the
resulting SNH register of grouse shooting activity would fill a major evidence gap.
In addition to the specific recommendations on licensing and increased regulation,
we make a wide range of other recommendations arising directly from the
8

 summaries of scientific evidence (Section 4) and other information gathered during
the review. Issues covered in these recommendations include new and enhanced
Codes of Practice, training for land managers on relevant land management
activities and the promotion of best practice via an accreditation scheme. In terms
of incentives, we recommend that a wider range of moorland management
activities become eligible for Rural Payments and Inspections Division (RPID)
support. The illegal killing of raptors is targeted via a series of recommendations
which include: more thorough regulation of the fitting and use of satellite tags
coupled with more expeditious sharing of information; and enactment of proposals
in the 2015 Wildlife Penalties Review Group on levels of fines and custodial
sentences, alternative penalties and sentencing guidelines. To support our
specific recommendations on the use of muirburn, management of Mountain Hares
and the use of medicated grit, in Section 6 we also explore in detail how these
recommendations might be made operational.
A consolidated list of our recommendations is provided in Section 7.

9

 2.

Background, terms of reference and context

The Red Grouse flying fast and low over open moorland is the ultimate test of a
hunter’s skills and reactions. From the mid-19th century onwards it became the
most prized quarry for those who shoot game and, for the season opening on 12th
August (the Glorious 12th), continues to attract many visitors each year to Scotland
from other parts of the UK and abroad. Red Grouse are not ‘produced’ under the
rear-and-release system used for lowland game birds. Accordingly, grouse moors
are managed to raise grouse densities to a level that will yield a ‘sustainable
surplus’ for shooting. This involves heather burning, predator control, disease
management using medicated grit, and tracks for improved access; in the past, it
also involved land drainage. In recent years, the sport of grouse shooting has
attracted an increasingly polarised debate. Some claim that grouse moors provide
a significant contribution to the rural economy, providing both employment and
income in areas where alternatives are scarce. Others identify a link between
raptor persecution and grouse moors and claim that the associated land
management practices are environmentally damaging. Less contentious are the
various benefits that arise from protecting open heather moorland including the
associated biodiversity, evidenced by some moorland birds and other mammals.
Why the need for a review?
For many years conservation groups have reported the number of raptors over
grouse moors to be lower than expected. It was inferred that in at least some
estates predator control included the illegal killing of raptors. This inference is
supported by the frequent finding of poisoned baits and poisoned birds, traps and
other signs of illegal activity. Some of the land management practices necessary
to sustain a viable grouse shoot – in particular muirburn and the use of medicated
grit – have also been challenged as being potentially damaging to the environment
and in the latter case, possibly affecting the food chain. Shooting of large numbers
of hares on some estates has also received much attention in the media. The
actual definition of a ‘viable’ grouse shoot has also been debated, and there is
widespread acknowledgment of substantial investment of private income in ‘driven’
grouse shooting.
In May 2017, following the publication of SNH’s report Analyses of the fates of
satellite tracked Golden Eagles in Scotland, (Whitfield & Fielding, 2017) which
recorded that 40 out of 131 young Golden Eagles had disappeared in suspicious
circumstances between 2004 and 2016, mostly in areas of grouse moors, the
Cabinet Secretary for Environment, Climate Change and Land Reform, Roseanna
Cunningham, announced the setting up of an expert group to look at managing
grouse moors sustainably and within the law. She confirmed that, in response to a
request from the Environment, Climate Change and Land Reform Committee, the
group would also advise on the option of licensing grouse shooting businesses. In
the same ministerial statement the Cabinet Secretary announced that she would
commission research into the costs and benefits of large shooting estates to
Scotland’s economy and biodiversity. This research has since been reported in the
Scottish Government’s Socio-economic and biodiversity impacts of driven grouse
10

 moors in Scotland (Thomson, McMorran & Glass, 2018). The Review Group much
regrets the delay in commissioning phase 2 of this research anticipated to produce
more authoritative and precise estimates of the socio-economic benefits of driven
grouse moors. As a result, the task of balancing the issue of tackling wildlife crime
with the contribution that grouse moor management makes to the rural economy
has proved very difficult.
In January 2018 an expert group was set up comprising:
•
•
•
•
•
•

Professor Alan Werritty, University of Dundee (Chair)
Professor Alison Hester, James Hutton Institute
Mr Alexander Jameson, independent consultant
Professor Ian Newton, formerly Centre for Hydrology and Ecology
Mr Mark Oddy, independent consultant, Chair of the Langholm Moor
Demonstration Project
Professor Colin Reid, University of Dundee

The expert group, subsequently referred to as the Review Group, was assisted by
the following Specialist Advisers:
•
•
•
•

Ms Susan Davies
Mr Calum MacDonald
Dr Adam Smith
Professor Des Thompson

The Specialist Advisers were appointed on the basis of their knowledge and
expertise on issues arising from the Review Group’s remit. In undertaking this
task, they should not be seen as reflecting the views of their present or past
employers.
Secretarial and administrative support for the work of the Group was provided by
Ms Karen Rentoul (SNH).
Terms of reference
The terms of reference for the Review Group were:
To examine the environmental impact of grouse moor management
practices such as muirburn, the use of medicated grit and mountain
hare culls and advise on the option of licensing grouse shooting
businesses. In doing so it will look at what can be done to balance the
Government's commitment to tackling wildlife crime with grouse moor
management practices, so that this form of management continues to
contribute to our rural economy, while being sustainable and compliant
with the law.
The Group was also invited to consider other topics relevant to grouse moor
management, referred to it by Government, or raised by the Chair. At its first
meeting the Group reviewed its terms of reference and explored whether or not to
expand them to include the draining of grouse moors and the expansion of tracks
across grouse moors. It was agreed that the original terms of reference were

11

 appropriate and that extending them further ran the risk of diluting the primary
focus of the review.
During its deliberations, the Group took evidence from key stakeholders from
various organisations and conducted a questionnaire survey to canvass the
opinions and experience of a wide range of interested parties. The Group also
visited a number of grouse moors to see their management at first hand. A more
detailed account of these activities, and of how the Group undertook the review, is
given in Annex 2.

12

 Organisation of review and structure of the report
The report is organised into seven sections with one appendix and four annexes:
1. Executive Summary
2. Background, context and terms of reference
3. Options for regulation
4. Summaries of scientific evidence on raptor persecution and predation, muirburn,
Mountain Hares, and use of medicated grit
5. Recommendations
6. Increased control of specified activities and associated recommendations
7. Recommendations: consolidated list
Appendix –
1. Licensing grouse shooting: arguments in favour and against
Annexes –
1. List of published sources
2. Account of how the review was conducted
3. List of abbreviations
4. Glossary
Having explored the context for the review, the remainder of this introductory
section examines a number of key issues explored in more detail during the review
process:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

Definition of a grouse moor
Extent of illegal practices
Impact of wider changes in land use and habitat
A ‘natural’ landscape?
Complexity
Conflict
Inconsistency
Need for clarity and focus
Fragmentation

The succeeding sections (3 to 6) are ordered in a sequence that moves from
examining options for regulation, through the science needed to underpin
regulation, to specific recommendations on new forms of regulation and ways in
which these recommendations might be enacted.
Section 3 explores a wide range of regulatory approaches for grouse shooting
businesses ranging from education and persuasion through to licensing and
permitting systems. Options considered later in the report are then outlined: no
change to existing legal regulation; improving the effectiveness of existing law;
direct prohibition; Codes of Practice; financial incentives and licensing. Section 4
then summarises four areas of science specifically related to our remit: raptors and
predation, muirburn, the management of Mountain Hares and the use of medicated
grit. The summaries of the scientific evidence in these areas, coupled with our
evaluation of a wide range of regulatory options, underpin the main
recommendations of the Group itemised in Section 5. Selected recommendations
13

 in the report relating to muirburn, the management of Mountain Hares and the use
of medicated grit are then examined in greater detail in Section 6. This section
concludes with recommendations on the use of traps and training for estate
managers and their staff. Section 7 provides a summary itemising all the
recommendations.
As noted in Section 4, the Group relied on a wide range of materials in compiling
its evidence-base including written sources. For stylistic reasons and to ease
reading the report, it was decided generally not to quote references in the text but
to list them, itemised under appropriate headings, in Annex 1. In accordance with
normal practice, legal sources (both national and international) are not referenced
as these are readily accessible via the internet. Throughout the report we have
adopted the convention to capitalise the names of individual species (e.g. Red
Grouse), but to use lower case when the reference is generic (e.g. grouse
populations).
Context for the review
History
From the 1750s onwards the sport of ‘walked-up shooting’ emerged. Grouse were
flushed, often by dogs, and shot using muzzle-loading guns providing both food for
the table and outdoor exercise – a form of grouse shooting that with modern guns
continues to this day. In 1831 the Game Act confirmed the landowner’s exclusive
right to take grouse and other game on their land, thereby incentivising
management with the aim of enhancing habitat, reducing disease and predation
pressure and thus producing sustainable and more consistent bags. From the
1850s onwards, with the invention of the breech-loading double-barrelled shotgun,
the manner in which Red Grouse could be shot changed radically. Now the
shooters could fire at more frequent intervals as the birds were driven towards the
stationary shooters in a line of butts, thereby giving rise to ‘driven grouse shooting’.
This is now the dominant mode of grouse shooting and, with appropriate
management, yields more consistent and sustainable bags than had previously
been possible.
The popularity of grouse shooting and associated bags has varied markedly since
the 1850s reflecting changing demand and the profitability of alternative land uses,
notably sheep-grazing or plantation forestry. Bag sizes per unit area peaked in the
late 19th and early 20th centuries, declining during the First and Second World Wars
when gamekeepers were away on war service. Recovery to 1974 was followed by
a decline from which some moors have more recently returned to bag sizes at late
19th century levels. But in general, since the late 19 th century, the area of moorland
managed for shooting grouse has declined. Where this has occurred, heather has
tended to give way to grass under more intensive sheep-grazing and to new tree
plantations. An example of the significant decline in the number of grouse moors is
in South West Scotland where the more than 100 properties that shot grouse
before 1914 were reduced to a handful by 2019. Similar pressures resulted in the
complete disappearance of driven grouse shooting in Wales. By contrast, the
Northern Pennines grouse moors have long reported much larger bags than in

14

 Scotland. Where there is still open land, heather restoration is possible if grazing
is restricted, but as the Langholm Moor experiment has demonstrated, this can be
an expensive and lengthy operation, especially if the aim is to re-establish a
functioning grouse moor. The range contraction of 11% for Red Grouse in
Scotland reported by the British Trust for Ornithology (BTO) between 1970 and
1990 is attributed to increased grazing pressure, tree-planting, reduction in the
numbers of gamekeepers and an increase in the numbers of predators. As a
consequence of these pressures, for estates that continue to provide driven grouse
shooting, a pre-shooting target of at least 150 to 200 grouse per km2 is considered
desirable. This can only be achieved by actively managing grouse and their
habitat as a sustainable wild bird ecosystem.
Ecology
Uplands cover around two thirds of Scotland’s land area, with almost 15% of the
land area being heather-dominated moorland – the ideal habitat for grouse and a
EU priority habitat of which 75% is found in the UK. The Scottish Moorland Group
estimates that less than 7% of Scotland’s land area has some component of
grouse moor management. Grouse moors are typically found on hills on which
heather grows well on the drier flanks but less well on the blanket peat and wetter
summits. The dominant easterly distribution of grouse moors in Scotland reflects
the optimal combination of hills with a climate and geology that favour both heather
and grouse. Effective predator control is an integral part of grouse management.
This practice can also benefit some other species – most notably waders such as
Curlew, Golden Plover and Lapwing which can be locally abundant; and Mountain
Hares, for which the combination of predator control, good food source (young
heather shoots) and cover (older heather) is considered highly beneficial. Black
Grouse and ground-nesting raptors (Hen Harriers and Merlins) can also benefit.
Predator control can have agricultural benefits where lamb losses are reduced; but
predator control on isolated grouse moors can be more difficult on account of the
continuing influx of predators from surrounding areas where the predators are
largely left undisturbed. Other management activities associated with grouse
moors also impact on the ecology of these and neighbouring areas, as detailed
later in the report.
Socio-economic impacts and alternative land uses
Obtaining robust and reliable estimates of the contribution made by grouse
shooting to the rural economy has proved difficult. The most recent and detailed
summary of past research to date is the Scottish Government’s report Socioeconomic and biodiversity impacts of driven grouse moors in Scotland (Thomson,
McMorran, & Glass, 2018). However, the authors urge caution in interpreting their
key findings as they are derived from a narrow evidence-base in which data
collection was inconsistent. In addition, the lack of a definitive data set based on a
representative sample of estates engaged in grouse moor management makes it
impossible to extrapolate the findings to the whole sector. Despite these
qualifications, the report states that, on the basis of the existing database, in 2009
the grouse moor sector supported around 2,640 FTE jobs (both direct and indirect)
with £14.5 million spent on wages, grouse moor management and support

15

 services. This yields a total Gross Value Added £23 million contribution to the
Scottish economy annually, concentrated in rural areas where there are considered
to be few other economic opportunities. More recent data collected by the Scottish
Moorland Group suggests that more intensively managed estates have an average
annual wage bill of £210,000 and support suppliers (often rurally located) with
around £515,000 of annual expenditure. Income from grouse shooting varies
greatly reflecting the mix of private versus commercial shooting and whether the
shooting is walked-up or driven. Active moorland management practices can
increase the annual grouse bag enhancing the capital value of the estate (£5,000
per brace in capital terms). In assessing the socio-economic contribution of grouse
shooting to the rural economy it must be recognised that grouse moor
management and shooting are often only one part of a much more diversified and
closely integrated business enterprise. Differing land management activities may
be undertaken on the same piece of ground and staff also partially deployed
elsewhere for activities unrelated to grouse shooting.
As part of our evidence gathering activities, the Group undertook its own survey of
the economic impact of grouse shooting based on 16 estates, 13 driven and 3
walked-up. We had access to very detailed account information for which we
thank the participants. The key findings were:
• Only one grouse enterprise made a small profit; all the rest were loss-making
and reliant on substantial private investment;
• The average investment (revenue and capital) was £183 per ha across the
estates. This compares with a typical sheep farming business of £50 per ha, but
which includes approximately £25 per ha of public subsidy;
• On the 16 grouse moor estates that provided information, the average labour
unit was 1 FTE gamekeeper per 704 ha, compared one FTE shepherd per
4,046 ha;
• Capital expenditure, often high in the first 5-10 years, can make significant
contributions to the local economy;
• On driven grouse moors, the employment of casual labour to help with the
shooting activities can be significant to the local economy, often employing up to
100 casual staff over the whole season with approximately 30 employed on
each day of shooting throughout an average season.
Finally, analysis shows that post-breeding grouse density on driven grouse moors
is less than half on Scottish moors compared with those in England. The last fiveyear averages were 143.4 grouse/per 100 ha Scotland, 316.4 grouse /per 100 ha
England (2014-18).
Several recent attempts have been made to quantify the socio-economic impacts
of alternative land uses on moorland areas. On some estates, these focus on rewilding and conservation measures largely underwritten by funds provided by the
landowner or by the members of environmental NGOs. In order to be economically
viable, other alternatives, such as farming, forestry and renewables often rely
heavily on public payments in the form of grants or subsidies. For these alternative
land uses other factors such as biophysical constraints (e.g. for farming, forestry
and woodland management, wind energy and housing) and regulatory controls
16

 (e.g. for wind farms, forestry and woodland management) mean they can only be
developed where they are either permitted (planning and related controls) or viable
(biophysical constraints). Extrapolation of the value of these alternative land uses
across Scotland’s moorland requires careful regard to be given to these various
constraints. At present, as a result of grants or subsidies, the afforestation of
moorland, where feasible, is more profitable for the owner than retaining the
moorland for Red Grouse. The majority of grouse moor enterprises are not
profitable but still contribute significantly to the local economy even in a season
when there is no shooting. Grouse shooting is seasonally inconsistent and
generally loss making and as a result is more vulnerable than other more profitable
land uses to any negative changes in the natural or regulatory environment.
As a result of the delayed Phase 2 Report on alternative land use options, the
Group cannot definitively compare alternative land uses to grouse moor
management. However, the economic contribution from grouse moors
undoubtedly makes a valuable contribution to some remote local communities.
The long-term private investment attracted by grouse moors, and willingness to
bear financial losses, is unlikely to be repeated for other activities. Unlike other
upland land uses, neither grouse shooting nor deer stalking are subsidised from
the public purse. According to some members of the Group, if grouse shooting
were subject to a licensing scheme, it may become fragile and face an uncertain
long-term future. Re-wilding can make a useful contribution, but in terms of
geographic coverage or national economic contribution this is not currently
considered to be a realistic alternative, at least in the short-term. But this could
change based on the current growth in this type of activity in Scotland.
Key issues underpinning the review
Definition of a grouse moor
A major challenge in undertaking this review was the lack of definition of a ‘grouse
moor’ and the absence of official information on the number of estates on which
grouse shooting occurs. We estimate that the current number of grouse shooting
estates in Scotland is around 120 but note that this includes great diversity in both
the size and level of investment in individual grouse shooting businesses. We
welcome the publication of grouse butts density maps in the Socio-economic and
biodiversity impacts of driven grouse moors in Scotland part 3 report (Matthews,
Miller, Mell & Aalders, 2018). These maps derived by a GIS analysis of the
presence of shooting butts provide the first spatially referenced record of intensity
(but not area) of driven grouse shooting across Scotland. We note that the strip
muirburn maps produced by the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB)
also provide an important indicator of the extensive presence of grouse moors
(driven and to a lesser degree, walked-up). The lack of accessible records of
grouse shooting enterprises continues to hinder the collection of key statistics on
both their environmental footprint and their contribution to local and national
economies.
Extent of illegal practice
In undertaking our review a key issue was whether or not criminal practices are
widespread across grouse shooting estates. Against the general background of
17

 regulation that applies more widely, including the killing, injuring and disturbance of
raptors, specific activities which are illegal are undertaking muirburn outwith the
designated season or without giving due notice to neighbouring estates, and using
medicated grit contrary to the Veterinary Medicines Regulations 2013. At present
few convictions arise from these actions prohibited by law on account of difficulties
in obtaining the necessary evidence to support a prosecution. This is especially
true for the illegal killing of raptors. Although the number of convictions has
declined since the turn of the century, there are strong grounds for inferring higher
levels of persecution than is apparent from the current number of convictions. The
number of detected poisoning incidents has declined, but it is alleged that
offenders are resorting to shooting, especially at night (aided by improved and
readily available night-vision equipment) and being more thorough in the disposal
of carcasses and other evidence.
Impact of wider changes in land use and habitat
The Red Grouse is one of many key species on Scotland’s moorlands whose
population level is subject to wider changes in land use and habitat. Major drivers
for such change include government policy and the impacts of climate change. In
terms of the former, Scotland’s forest area is projected to increase to 21% by 2032
(by planting an additional 15,000 ha per year) and it is planned to restore 250,000
ha of degraded peatland by 2030. Both targets are likely to generate significant
changes in moorland use and habitat with effects on the numbers and coverage of
grouse moors. Other policies potentially impacting to a lesser extent on grouse
populations are the Scottish Government’s land reform agenda, progress towards
biodiversity Aichi targets and encouragement of more outdoor recreation. Climate
change (higher temperatures in summer and winter, increased winter rainfall but
decreased summer rainfall, and more frequent and more extreme rainfall events) is
already impacting on Scotland’s moorlands and wildlife. Likely effects specifically
on grouse populations include:
• Direct impacts of severe wet weather on grouse clutches and broods and
indirect effects resulting from reduced foraging time;
• Loss of plant and invertebrate food if blanket bog and other habitats dry out in
the drier summers;
• Increased risk of wildfires adversely affecting vegetation and peat soils;
• Loss of some moorland edge areas as changing climate conditions permit their
more intensive agricultural use;
• Greater risks of some wildlife diseases notably helminths and vector-borne
diseases transmitted by increasing populations of ticks.
A ‘natural’ landscape?
Heather moorland – admired by tourists in high summer when the hills appear to
be covered in a purple haze – is not the natural vegetation on much of Scotland’s
hill country. Within the climatic ‘forest zone’, much of Scotland’s heather moorland
is the product of centuries of burning and other management, initially through
deforestation and fire (some of it natural), and then for the grazing of livestock
(sheep, cattle and goats) and, since the mid-19th century, also for the shooting of

18

 grouse. Relaxation of this active management, allowing the vegetation to revert to
natural forest would likely yield a different landscape over much of Scotland from
that of today’s open moorland. In some locations natural regeneration of the native
woodland up to the former tree line is already well under way with consequent
gains and losses for species diversity dependent on different habitats. The
moorland landscape associated with grouse shooting is thus largely a ‘cultural’
landscape in which muirburn alongside other management activities are essential
for its perpetuation.
Complexity
Against this complex background, the increased public awareness of certain
management practices – predator control, culling of Mountain Hares, building or
upgrading tracks to improve access and the introduction of medicated grit – and
especially the associations made between raptor persecution and grouse moor
areas, combine to result in the debates over the benefits or otherwise of grouse
shooting being highly contested. In terms of ecology, many species in addition to
grouse (notably waders) benefit from prevailing management practices, while
predators do not; but many smaller impacts are less well understood. The paucity
of robust, scientific evidence on the environmental and socio-economic impacts of
many of these management activities has been one of the most striking findings in
this review. Given this imperfect understanding of key factors that determine the
impacts of grouse shooting – in ecological, economic, social and cultural terms – it
comes as no surprise that this complexity makes for an often highly heated debate,
in common with debates over the impacts of many land management practices or
extractive uses of natural resources (e.g. fishing). Overlaying this is the issue of
‘values’ – what is deemed environmentally unacceptable to some is viewed as
beneficial to others. Values set the tone and fabric of much of the debate around
the evidence-base, and we are mindful of this. What is environmentally
sustainable can depend on the values attached to ‘nature’ and biological science
and the elements within economic and socio-cultural appraisals.
Conflict
Taking evidence from the published literature, plus answers to our stakeholder
questionnaire and oral responses from invited experts, exposed us to the passion
and conflicting views held by protagonists on both sides of the debate. This was
vividly apparent in the rhetoric used by those who would ban grouse shooting
outright and by those for whom the status quo with minor adjustments is
considered to be all that is needed. Such language coupled with the use of social
media has exacerbated commitment to entrenched positions on both sides of the
debate. It has also inhibited the realisation that alternative views can be both
credible and evidence-based. This stand-off also needs to be placed within the
context of the perception of a lack of sympathy for the sector by successive
governments post devolution.
As already noted, gaps in the scientific evidence and the contested nature of much
that has been published – most notably the tension between the expert knowledge
of scientists versus the local knowledge of gamekeepers and other land managers
– further intensifies the debate. Another key issue is the apparent conflict between
19

 findings reported at a local/regional scale and those at the national scale. Thus,
Golden Eagles, whilst recovering well at the national scale, are under-represented
in those parts of their range containing grouse moors. Whilst we have sought to be
as thorough as possible in our review of the available evidence (see Annex 1),
significant gaps remain, as the science summaries below demonstrate.
Throughout we have sought to make our recommendations evidence-led, but in
places we have had to exercise collective ‘expert judgment’.
Inconsistency
In taking evidence, we have also been aware of many inconsistencies, both at an
individual and corporate level, that conflate key aspects of the debate. Thus, the
impression is that the public’s view of different species may, for example, favour
Hen Harriers on open moors, but have qualms about Sparrowhawks feeding at
bird-tables. Within wildlife law there is internal inconsistency in the range and level
of penalties that can be imposed and in relation to the need for corroboration, and
further inconsistency when comparisons are made with the regulatory and
enforcement structures available in other areas of environmental law, e.g. to
SEPA. Under current EU support for farming, state financial aid for agriculture and
forestry is both extensive and well established. By contrast, moorland estates
have recently had only limited support for their farming activities via agricultural
subsidies and Agri-Environment schemes. Regulation of the shooting of game
birds should also be more sensitive to the contrasts between lowland shooting and
grouse moor shooting. The former mainly involves the use of birds that have been
reared in captivity, in some ways treated as an agricultural product. The latter
involves managing land to produce a shooting surplus of wild birds each year,
albeit with medication administered to these wild birds. Within conservation law,
there can also be difficulties in responding when management of a species in need
of protection poses a threat to other species in a more precarious position (e.g.
Pine Martens predating on Capercaillie) or the increasing abundance of a formerly
rare species gives rise to conflicts with other priorities.
Need for clarity and focus
As noted in SNH’s Review on Sustainable Moorland Management (Werritty,
Pakeman, Shedden, Smith & Wilson, 2015, p. 4) “there is no shared vision or
strategy for Scotland’s moorland, beyond that enshrined in legislation and
Government policies, and there is a sense of stasis in thinking and ambition over
how to develop a programme to sustain Scotland’s moorlands”. There is clearly a
need to develop a shared vision collectively across key stakeholders, linking with
other initiatives both general (e.g. land reform policy, forestry strategy) and specific
(e.g. the forthcoming report of the Deer Working Group).
Fragmentation
Fragmented provision of regulation bedevils the better management of grouse
moors. Guidance in terms of Codes of Practice and Best Practice exist:
specifically the Scottish Government’s Muirburn Code; Scotland’s Moorland
Forum’s Moorland Management Best Practice which contains advice on Mountain
Hare management and worm control; and a range of guides from the Game &
Wildlife Conservation Trust (GWCT) and the British Association for Shooting and
20

 Conservation. Much of this guidance is voluntary and includes very few actions
prohibited by law. Because these codes are largely voluntary there are also no
duties placed on a public body to monitor compliance. Co-ordinated Codes of
Practice with clearly defined responsibilities on grouse shooting estates and a
designated public body to monitor compliance is urgently needed. Where legal
controls apply, they are again fragmented, with EU measures playing an important
part in relation to wildlife and the legislation subject to many amendments over the
years making it difficult to keep track of the current provisions.

21

 3.

Options for regulation

Regulatory approaches
In general, when it is considered that there should be intervention to prevent or
limit unacceptable behaviour, there are several options which can be adopted.
These are not mutually exclusive and most regulatory systems involve more than
one approach. The choice of regulatory approach depends on the level of
intervention desired and the practicalities of making use of different legal
mechanisms. Many of the activities involved in managing a grouse moor are
already regulated to some extent by one or more of these approaches. Options
include:
Education and persuasion: Efforts to change behaviour are made by raising
awareness of the negative consequences of the undesired behaviour and
explaining the sort of conduct expected by society, possibly supported by formal
and informal education and training for those most directly concerned. No
sanctions are available against those who do not comply.
Self-regulation: Again there are no sanctions for non-compliance, but there is a
more concerted effort to use peer and public pressure to secure the desired
results. Accreditation schemes and voluntary Codes of Practice can help to define
what is expected.
Financial measures: These can provide tangible incentives to behave in the way
desired and disincentives against undesired behaviour. These can take the form of
stand-alone measures, such as the provision of grants to support particular desired
activities, or be integrated into wider financial measures such as taxation or
support for a sector of industry.
Prohibition: It can be made a criminal offence to carry out particular conduct.
That conduct must be precisely defined so that it can be proved in court whether or
not an accused person has acted in the proscribed way. The definition of the
prohibited conduct may require proof of deliberate or knowing wrong-doing and
may cover an activity whenever and however undertaken or only when carried out
in specific circumstances (e.g. hunting during a specified close season). Where it
is difficult to detect or prove commission of the main crime, offences may target
related activities, e.g. simply possessing specific poisons or eggs.
Licensing or permitting systems: These build on prohibitions by providing that
an activity that is prohibited may nevertheless proceed lawfully when permission
has been granted by the relevant regulatory body. Most commonly, licensing
schemes require an individual application and express grant of a licence, but
licences can be granted automatically where prescribed criteria are met. The
licence may contain conditions (a standard set applied in all cases or bespoke
conditions for the individual case) that must be observed in order for the activity to
be lawfully authorised. In view of the costs involved in operating a licensing
system, it may also entail fees and charges, for applications, for the grant of a
licence and/or annual subsistence fees.

22

 Under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, another style of licence is used, the
‘general licence’ whereby everyone who falls within a specific class and acts within
the limits of certain conditions is automatically granted a licence (e.g. although
collecting birds’ eggs is prohibited, occupiers of land are authorised under a
general licence, without having to apply individually, to clear unhatched eggs from
nest-boxes during certain months outside the nesting season). The modification or
withdrawal of a licence can be a sanction in itself, but still requires a clear
evidential basis where this has a substantial effect on the licence holder. The
licensing scheme under the 1981 Act allows for a general licence to be withdrawn
from sites or individuals where there is reason to believe that the terms of the
licence have not been observed. The structure of general binding rules,
notifications, registrations and permits available to SEPA under the Environmental
Authorisations (Scotland) Regulations 2018 offers a further model for a permitting
system which allows activities to be regulated without an individual permit being
required in every case.
All regulatory options will entail different costs to operators, regulators and
monitoring bodies. The costs of managing and monitoring the regulatory system
can be met by the public purse, as one of the many services provided by
government, or attempts can be made to recover these in whole or part through
fees and charges on those carrying out the regulated activity, increasing the
burden on them.
Codes of Practice: In various areas of activity Codes of Practice are used or
proposed, but it is important to be clear about the status of any Code. Sometimes
Codes are part of an approach based on education, persuasion and selfregulation, providing a guide to best practice but with no legal sanctions for noncompliance. A voluntary Code of this sort can still ‘have teeth’, but only if there is
widespread confidence that breaches of the Code will be detected and some
meaningful consequences follow, e.g. loss of accreditation that is commercially
crucial since it enables premium prices and market access. Other Codes are
integrated into legal controls, helping to define the limits of acceptable behaviour,
beyond which sanctions can be applied. The existence of legal measures directly
controlling the relevant conduct is a prerequisite for a Code to ‘have teeth' in this
more formal way.
In some contexts there are references to ‘statutory Codes’, but again it is important
to be clear what is in mind. A Code can be ‘statutory’ in the sense that there is a
legal duty on a specified body to produce a Code, but without it having any direct
legal weight; or it can be given legal consequences, either guiding the discretion of
a regulatory body and/or court or helping to define what is acceptable or
unacceptable behaviour, with legal sanctions flowing from that.
Human Rights: Any regulation of the way in which the owners can use their land
is an encroachment on their right to the “peaceful enjoyment of possessions” under
the Human Rights Act 1998. The owner’s right to use their land as they wish in the
absence of existing regulation is thus protected, and this includes the right to
damage or destroy the property (except where statute has intervened or the rights

23

 of others are adversely affected). This right, however, is not absolute and can be
limited where “deem[ed] necessary to control the use of property in accordance
with the public interest”; environmental regulation has been accepted as an interest
that justifies intervention. The overwhelming majority of challenges to regulatory
controls on the basis of interference with the right to property fail, but the
intervention must be clearly set out in the law and be proportionate, which requires
that the legal measures imposed do fulfil the stated legislative objective and
encroach on the rights no further than is necessary to accomplish that objective.
Options for consideration
No change to existing legal regulatory structure
Without introducing any changes to the formal regulatory structure, a higher profile
could be given to ensuring the sustainable and lawful management of grouse
moors, through publicity, the opportunity for training for relevant staff and the
development of voluntary Codes of Practice and accreditation schemes.
There could also be a greater willingness to consider using existing legal
measures. Examples include reviewing whether changing ecological conditions
(such as the decline in nesting wader populations) mean that more grouse moors
now meet the scientific tests to qualify for a statutory conservation designation, e.g.
Sites of Special Scientific Interest, that may both impose some further regulation
and open the opportunity for financial support for management activities. The
potential to limit or grant general or specific licences might be more fully exploited
in cases where birds are causing or suffering difficulties. Where seriously harmful
acts occur, e.g. muirburn that damages a substantial area of valuable habitat,
consideration could be given to use of the offence under s.40 of the Regulatory
Reform (Scotland) Act 2014, which punishes those who act or fail to act, or permit
another person to act or not act, in a way that causes, or is likely to cause,
significant environmental harm.
Improve the effectiveness of the existing law
The primary focus of attention, the killing or control of raptors, is already unlawful,
but the law is proving ineffective because of the difficulties in detecting direct harm,
identifying the offenders and gathering sufficient admissible evidence for
prosecution. Improving the effectiveness of the existing criminal law might resolve
this. Increased priority and resources devoted to this activity might produce
results, especially when combined with scientific advances in evidence gathering,
the increasing use and sensitivity of tracking devices and the rapid availability of
the data produced for law enforcement purposes.
Legal changes might further improve the position. The use of surveillance
cameras has potential to improve detection but, as our discussions with the Crown
Office and Procurator Fiscal Service have shown, is likely to remain of limited use.
This is because of general restrictions on when and where cameras can be
installed, especially without the permission of the person on whose property they
are placed, and on the admissibility of covertly obtained evidence. Improved
access to data from remote monitoring tags attached to birds may assist the
police’s work. The law on the need for corroboration could be rationalised – there
24

 is no need for corroboration for some wildlife crimes – but may make little
difference in practice. More consistent and severe sanctions could be introduced.
This final issue has already been considered by the Wildlife Crime Penalties
Review Group (Poustie Review) that reported in 2015 and guidance on sentencing
for wildlife offences is included in the early work of the Scottish Sentencing
Council. Legislation on aspects of this issue is contained in the Animals and
Wildlife (Penalties, Protections and Powers) (Scotland) Bill introduced to the
Scottish Parliament at the end of September 2019.
Direct prohibitions
As noted above, the killing or control of raptors has been a criminal offence for
many years. Other prohibitions could, however, be introduced to support this,
targeting conduct which supports or serves as the driver for such unlawful conduct.
If prohibitions are used, the proscribed conduct must be capable of clear definition,
but the effect of a prohibition can be softened by a licensing scheme authorising
the conduct in specific circumstances. There is at present no satisfactory definition
of a ‘grouse moor’, and changing conditions mean that whether and in what way
grouse are shot on particular land may vary over time. However, the shooting of
grouse would provide a feasible target for prohibition, completely banning the
activity, and thus removing the reason for carrying out the range of (lawful and
unlawful) management measures that can harm raptors and habitat. In the
absence of a licensing scheme to allow shooting to continue in approved
circumstances, such a prohibition would end the use of land as grouse moors and
all related commercial activity.
Codes of Practice
As noted above, Codes of Practice can be of many sorts and play many different
roles, and a key issue is always their legal status and the consequences if the
Code is breached. Codes can be integrated into legal regulatory schemes in a way
that gives more flexibility than the use of the criminal law, e.g. so that breaches do
not attract a sanction immediately but are relevant to decisions on whether to grant
or revoke a licence. Even in such cases, though, there must still be some credible
(and ultimately legally defensible) basis for taking any formal action that has a
negative impact on the allegedly offending party.
More could be done to develop Codes of Practice on various issues, either wholly
new ones such as for shooting Mountain Hares and the application of medicated
grit, or enhancing existing ones such as for muirburn. Their status and interaction
with more formal regulatory controls must be clearly specified.
Accreditation schemes
Emphasis could be placed on rewarding good behaviour, rather than punishing
bad, by means of an accreditation scheme. This operates by providing formal
recognition of those who have the training, or whose practice has shown that they
can confidently be expected, to live up to high standards. This works best where
there is a market in which the accreditation will confer a clear advantage on the
holder. At present it is unclear whether market conditions are such that
accreditation would be a key factor driving crucial consumer choices in buying

25

 game or shooting opportunities. Moreover, there would be a need to identify a
body (or group of bodies working together) whose operation of an accreditation
scheme would earn widespread credibility and respect.
Financial incentives
There are various formal financial schemes which offer opportunities for
intervention, e.g. rural development and agricultural subsidies and many aspects of
the tax system. Although some grouse moors are not run on a commercial basis,
financial considerations are usually of great significance in choosing between
alternative land uses.
The changing emphasis in agricultural policy in England towards ‘public money for
public goods’ might have echoes in Scotland as the value of the varied ecosystem
services provided by grouse moors, or by alternative land uses, is increasingly
recognised and potentially rewarded. In the lowlands at present the state is paying
large sums to farmers to manage land in a way that is ‘environment-friendly’,
whereas in the uplands land management which produces (contested)
environmental goods is being provided in some areas at private expense, with
significant local socio-economic benefits as an additional side-effect. To the extent
that moorland management is accepted as enhancing some elements of
biodiversity it might be possible to include it within financial support schemes. The
availability of support for particular management activities, e.g. for habitat
enhancement, within or beyond designated sites, may also encourage desirable
practices.
Licensing
The possibility of licensing arrangements for grouse moors is mentioned in our
remit and has been much discussed. The starting point for any such scheme is the
initial prohibition of the defined activity unless a licence is obtained (as for muirburn
or shooting Mountain Hares outwith the respective permitted seasons). Where
some legal controls already exist, there is a question of whether all aspects should
be brought within the licensing system or some continue to be directly regulated.
For example, if muirburn were to require a licence, would the rules on notifying
neighbours become conditions of the licence, or remain as free-standing
requirements which would directly result in criminal liability if breached?
For any licensing system a number of key questions arise. The answers will be
affected not just by the objective being sought but also by practicality, since for any
system to work well, clear definitions and ease of administration and enforcement
are important. The issue of the cost of establishing and operating the system and
how far this is to be recovered from those seeking or obtaining licences must also
be considered.
•

What activity is to be licensed and how is its scope to be defined?
o Some activities can be clearly identified, e.g. shooting Mountain Hares.
On the other hand, there is no clear definition of ‘grouse shooting
businesses’ (as specified in our terms of reference), nor of ‘grouse
moors’ and although it is the more intensive management for driven
grouse shoots that is thought to be most problematic, annual variations
26

 can mean that in different years the same land is used for driven,
walked- up or no shooting of grouse.
•

Who is to be licensed?
o

The licence-holder could be a land-owner, land manager, individual
worker or individual hunter. The land-owner is in a position to exercise
ultimate control over what happens on the land, but complications may
arise when land is owned by corporations or trusts or overseas owners.

•

What are the criteria for determining whether a licence should be granted and
whether its terms are being met?
o Criteria could relate to the present condition of the land affected and the
record of those seeking the licence. Breaches of the law in this or
related areas might also be relevant. More positively, there could be
objectives set for the medium- to long-term management of the site (e.g.
an expectation of specified populations of certain birds) and progress
against this used as a criterion (with due regard for the disruptive
potential of unforeseen events such as disease or weather). At this
point a Code of Practice might be relevant, with breaches of the Code
not directly attracting sanctions but being a key consideration in whether
a licence is granted and retained.

•

Who is to be the licensing body?
o In this area the obvious choice is SNH.

•

What is the application process (in terms of complexity and what must be
demonstrated)?
o If a general licence is used, there is no application process at all and the
licence can be automatically used by all those who meet the set criteria.
Beyond that, a balance must be struck between the degree of individual
supervision and control, adapted to local circumstances, and the burden
(on applicant and regulator) of a heavily individualised process.

•

Is the licence to be in a standard form or wholly individualised or a mixture of
standard and bespoke conditions?
o Even where individual licences are used, all or most of the terms could
be in a standard form, reducing the regulatory burden on all concerned.

•

What provision is to be made for renewing, reviewing, revising and revoking
the licence?
o Licences could be annual, or for another fixed period, or indefinite.
Regular renewals of licences provide an opportunity to apply adaptive
management and also to bring the permission to an end where there are
sufficient grounds to believe, but not proof to the criminal standard, that
undesirable conduct has been taking place.

•

How will the licence respond to changing conditions in terms of variations
being proposed/ imposed by the licensee or regulator?
o If a licence lasts for several years, there should be provision for its
review and revision to reflect changing circumstances. Especially in

27

 areas where the scientific evidence is uncertain, the scope to adjust
exactly what is licensed is an important aspect of delivering an adaptive
management approach.
•

How is compliance to be monitored?
o Those seeking or operating under licences could be required to report
on their activities (e.g. on the number of Mountain Hares present and/or
shot). There also needs to be clear provision of powers of entry, search
and seizure to enable the regulatory body to investigate whether
granting a licence is appropriate and obtain evidence on breaches.

•

How is compliance to be enforced?
o Carrying out an activity without a licence or in breach of its terms would
be a criminal offence. As with existing offences, proving unlawful
conduct beyond reasonable doubt may be difficult, but a lesser standard
of proof may be acceptable as the basis for exercising the regulatory
body’s discretion to limit, refuse or revoke a licence.

•

How should the licence interact with other legal and financial regimes, e.g. for
financial support?
o The fact that a licence is held for an activity could be a test for
establishing entitlement to financial support, or its absence a reason for
withholding this.

•

What appeal mechanism should there be?
o In keeping with the position for other matters under the Wildlife and
Countryside Act 1981, it would seem appropriate to allow for appeals to
the Scottish Land Court.

Detailed arguments in favour of and against licensing of grouse shooting are
presented in Appendix 1. Our conclusions on whether or not to license grouse
shooting and related land management activities are presented in Sections 5
and 6.

28

 4.

Summaries of scientific evidence on raptor persecution
and predation, muirburn, Mountain Hares, and use of
medicated grit

In this section we summarise the scientific evidence on raptor persecution and
predation, the practice of muirburn, the ecology and management of Mountain
Hares and the use of medicated grit. We have gathered evidence from the
following sources: monographs, peer-reviewed journal articles, reports from
relevant public sector organisations and NGOs, responses to our questionnaire,
information supplied by Police Scotland and the Crown Office and Procurator
Fiscal Service and oral evidence from presentations and invited experts (see
Annex 2 for further details). As in previous sections in we do not generally cite
sources in the main body of the report, but list all the published sources in Annex 1.
Raptor persecution and predation
Background
This review was triggered, in part, by the SNH report Analyses of the fates of
satellite tracked Golden Eagles in Scotland which concluded that “a relatively
large number of the satellite tagged golden eagles were probably killed, mostly
on or near some grouse moors where there is recent, independent evidence of
illegal persecution” (Whitfield & Fielding, 2017, p. vii). Prior to this, extensive
research had explored the relationship between raptors and predation on
grouse – most notably the initial Joint Raptor Study (JRS) at Langholm and the
more recent Langholm Moor Demonstration Project (LMDP). Scotland’s
Moorland Forum report Understanding Predation (2016) provides a wider
review of the role that predators play in terms of overall ecosystem health. The
scientific evidence on the persecution of raptors and the relationship between
raptors and predation on grouse is summarised in this section alongside
comments on gaps and uncertainties in the evidence-base.
Effects of illegal killing on raptors
Owing to persistent but then legal killing of many raptor species, mainly in the
interests of game rearing, raptor numbers across Britain were greatly reduced
in the 19th-early 20th centuries. Five species were eliminated altogether from
Britain, and most others were much restricted in distribution. All species
became protected by law from 1954, except for the Sparrowhawk which was
protected from 1968 in Scotland. Around this time, use of organo-chlorine
pesticides caused further reductions in the numbers of several species.
Recoveries in numbers followed reductions in organo-chlorine use and
deliberate killing, and have been especially evident since the 1970s. At the
national level most species have increased substantially over recent decades,
but most still do not occupy their entire potential range in Britain. Eliminated
species either recolonised naturally or were reintroduced. Despite increasing
nationally, several raptor species have declined in grouse moor areas during
this century.

29

 Raptors vary in the extent to which they eat the eggs, chicks or adults of the
International Union for the Conservation of Nature’s (IUCN) red and amberlisted ground-nesting birds, including Red Grouse. Important grouse-predators
include the Golden Eagle, Peregrine Falcon, Goshawk and Hen Harrier. Three
of these species are green-listed, but the Hen Harrier is red-listed. Studies
have shown that illegal killing is reducing the population and breeding success
of all these species (plus Red Kite) in at least some grouse moor areas. The
evidence consists of: (1) observed population declines or reduced occupancy
of known territories; (2) reduced nest success; (3) reduced adult survival; (4)
reduced age of first breeding (implying ready availability of vacant territories);
(5) unexpectedly high disappearance of satellite-tracked raptors on grouse
moors; and (6) finding on moors of poisoned baits and traps, and shot or
poisoned carcasses of raptors. Not all types of evidence are available for
every species. As well as being targeted directly, some raptors are killed
incidentally in attempts to trap or poison other predators. Killing on driven
grouse moors can be inferred to be affecting raptor numbers over much wider
areas. In the absence of interference, all these raptors breed as well or better
on grouse moors than in other upland habitats, benefiting from various aspects
of moorland management. Discovered cases of raptor killing probably
represent only a small proportion of actual cases. Then only a small proportion
of discovered cases get to court, and an even smaller proportion lead to
successful convictions.
During this century, reports of poisoned or shot raptors have declined in
numbers. However, this cannot be taken as evidence of a decline in raptor
killing. It may be associated with a reported (but not proven) increase in the
use of night-viewing equipment to shoot raptors on their roosting sites. Nightkilling can be practised at any time of year, and carcasses removed, making
legally robust evidence of illegal killing practically impossible to obtain.
Likewise, the repeated disappearance of satellite-tracked birds on particular
moors is not sufficient to obtain a prosecution in a criminal court, because the
disappearance cannot be assigned to a particular individual, and no carcass is
normally available. These changes over the last two decades have made it
increasingly difficult to prosecute anyone for killing raptors. However, a
continued decline in reported cases has followed the introduction of vicarious
liability in Scotland: the UK-wide Birdcrime report shows five confirmed
incidents of illegal raptor killing in Scotland in 2017 compared with 27 as the
last five year average (but the figure had increased to 12 in 2018). The 2017
report also drew attention to the relatively large number of unexplained
disappearances of satellite-tracked raptors in grouse moor areas. It is also
possible (but unproven) that perpetrators have become more concerned with
hiding the evidence of their actions in recent years, following press reports of
the disappearance of satellite-tracked birds. Some moor managers may have
ceased or reduced their killing of raptors in recent years, although other
evidence suggests that the practice continues.

30

 Effects of raptors on grouse
The major predators on grouse (eggs, chicks or adults), namely Fox, Stoat,
Weasel and Carrion/Hooded Crow, are routinely and legally killed on grouse
moors. This leaves birds of prey as the principal remaining predators, so it is
not surprising that most discovered grouse remains show signs of having been
killed (or at least fed upon) by raptors. In this situation, with Foxes, Stoats,
Weasels and Crows controlled, scientifically robust evidence is available from
the first Langholm study (JRS) to show that, in sufficient numbers, Hen Harriers
can reduce the densities of grouse to such low levels that driven grouse
shooting is impracticable. The same is likely to be true for Peregrines in some
areas, but in the only relevant study, Peregrines were preying on the same
grouse population as harriers. No detailed studies have been made of the
impact of Golden Eagles and Goshawks on Red Grouse. One 6-year study at
Langholm suggests that individual Buzzards have negligible impact on grouse,
although at high densities promoted by abundant alternative food supplies,
their collective impact could become significant.
Langholm Moor Demonstration Project
The second study at Langholm (LMDP) was a ten-year project which sought to
recover a former driven grouse moor to commercial viability. The project has
now ended and its final report Managing Moorland for Birds of Prey and Red
Grouse (Langholm Moor Demonstration Project Board, 2019) has been
published together with several scientific papers. When coupled with the
Langham Moor Demonstration Project: seven year review (Langham Moor
Demonstration Project, 2014) this report provides an authoritative guide on the
challenges of reconciling commercial grouse shooting with healthy raptor
populations
The main conclusions were:
•

The grouse showed good health, body condition and large clutch size;

•

Habitat was not a limiting factor for any major aspect of grouse
performance;

•

All legal predator control was carried out to good industry standards;

•

In some years, with high vole numbers, around 70 nests of raptors, owls
and Ravens were found on or near the 115 km2 grouse moor;

•

Under the control of mammalian predators, 82% of grouse kills found were
assigned to raptor predation or scavenging, but it was not possible to
assign kills to individual species;

•

Grouse did not achieve sufficient numbers to be shot on a commercial
driven basis and the keepering team was made redundant before the end
of the project;

•

Other red and amber-listed ground-nesting species such as Lapwing,
Curlew and Golden Plover increased slightly in numbers during the study,
but did not reach the conservation targets set; Meadow Pipits and Black
Grouse increased more substantially.

31

 Gaps and uncertainties in the evidence-base
The first study at Langholm Moor (JRS) showed that, in the absence of killing,
Hen Harriers increased to levels at which their predation prevented grouse
from reaching numbers sufficient for driven shooting. For various reasons
Langholm moor provided ideal habitat for harriers. But it is uncertain, in the
absence of killing, how many other moors would support harriers at densities
high enough to cause similar suppression of grouse numbers. It is partly fear
over a repeat of the Langholm experience that leads other moor managers to
kill harriers and other raptors.
The years between the JRS and the LMDP, when gamekeepers were absent,
showed that the resulting lack of habitat management and predator control was
associated with reduced numbers and breeding success of ground-nesting
harriers and other species. It has not yet been quantified to what extent similar
cessation of grouse moor management elsewhere has negatively affected
ground-nesting raptors, but their downward population trends in a number of
areas which were formerly grouse moors suggests similar effects may be
operating.
The Langholm experience has done much to shape the attitudes of land
managers and, as noted above, the final report of the LMDP is an authoritative
guide on the relationships between commercial grouse shooting and healthy
raptor populations. But, as in all field experiments, the question arises as to
how far Langholm Moor is typical of Scottish grouse moors in general.
Studies have so far concentrated on the main predators of grouse. There
remains the possibility that, while no individual species would have a significant
impact on grouse, the collective impact of several or all species might together
reduce grouse to levels below those needed for driven shooting. This is a field
of study requiring enormous resources, and impinges on the question of to
what extent removal of one key predator species might lead to greater
predation by others. It is also unknown what impact the increase in the
national population of Buzzards and Ravens is having on available food
sources and if this is impacting on other raptors who may have to feed more on
grouse and other ground-nesting birds than they otherwise would.
The JRS study implied that Peregrines could also have a substantial impact on
grouse numbers, but it was impossible to separate their winter impact from that
of harriers. The individual impact of Peregrines in areas lacking harriers
therefore remains unknown. In similar vein, the impact of raptors studied in the
LMDP was made in a situation of no grouse shooting.
It has been claimed that Golden Eagles, by killing or deterring other raptors,
can limit the densities of these other species in their home range. This
situation needs more study, because if true, it provides a natural way in which
the numbers of some raptors could be controlled, and the overall predation on
grouse reduced.

32

 Diversionary feeding
This practice, adopted as part of the LMDP, involves the daily provision of
extra food (in the form of small dead animals) to raptor pairs to see whether it
would lessen their predation on grouse to an acceptable level. Diversionary
feeding of Hen Harriers while they were raising young resulted in a substantial
reduction of their predation on grouse both during an initial trial and during the
LMDP. But there are concerns from the shooting community that the practice
is time consuming and could result in additional harriers on the moor in
subsequent years. Also, the number of grouse did not increase sufficiently to
allow shooting, at least not under the stated threshold densities of grouse
considered necessary by the project managers for driven shooting. From a
land manager’s perspective, the known and potential disadvantages of
diversionary feeding out-weigh the advantages, so this is not seen as an
effective management tool, although others disagree.
Brood management
As part of the Department of Environment Food & Rural Affairs’ Hen Harrier
Recovery Plan, a 2-year trial granted under a research licence began in England in
2019 aimed at increasing the overall population of Hen Harriers. Any moor
manager who has more than a specified density of Hen Harrier nests on their land
is allowed to arrange for the surplus clutches or broods to be collected for captive
rearing in a dedicated facility, and the release of the resulting young elsewhere.
This partly removes the concern of the moor manager that, if he allows harriers to
nest on his land, in time their numbers on the moor might increase to such a level
as to make driven shooting non-viable. The removal of broods means that no
grouse are killed to feed them. In this opening year, only one brood became
available for hand rearing and, although five young fledged successfully, it is too
early to judge whether such a trial can achieve its objective of increasing the
numbers of harriers nesting on English moors. The scheme could fail if moor
managers refused to participate in the scheme, or if too many reared birds were
killed before they could breed themselves.
Muirburn
Background
Most moorland vegetation is highly flammable and ‘muirburn’ refers to the burning
of vegetation in moorland areas, usually in a controlled manner, in order to
maintain open moorland. This practice has been a favoured management tool for
many centuries. The iconic landscape in which heather is the dominant species,
much appreciated by tourists during the summer months and designated for its
international conservation importance, is partly natural (beyond the climatic limits
for tree and scrub growth) and partly a ‘cultural’ landscape kept open by active
management.
There is a particularly strong association between muirburn and habitat
management for Red Grouse, but muirburn is also used in some areas for the
management of deer and livestock grazing. On moorland areas managed for
driven grouse shooting, rotational muirburn is carried out to create small patches of
heather of different ages to produce patches of ground containing young, more

33

 nutritious heather shoots for grouse to eat and patches of taller heather for cover –
the aim being to produce a mosaic in which heather of different heights/ages
occurs within the territory of each grouse pair. Well-managed muirburn normally
achieves its desired aims of providing good habitat for grouse and other species.
But the wider impacts of muirburn are highly contested, with variable and
sometimes contradictory findings from different experiments and monitoring work.
Guidance on the management of muirburn is available in the Muirburn Code,
administered by SNH on behalf of the Scottish Government. As noted in the Code:
“Most of Scotland’s moorland is not burnt or cut and does not require burning, but
fire and cutting equipment are useful management tools, when used with skill and
understanding. The Scottish Government supports well-managed muirburn and
recognises its potential to reduce the impact of wildfire” (Scottish Government,
2017, p. 1).
Muirburn Code
The Muirburn Code (most recently updated by Scotland’s Moorland Forum in 2017)
is designed to promote best practice and minimise the likelihood of the detrimental
impacts that can arise from muirburn. The Code provides detailed guidance, with
some statutory provisions relating only to the timing and notification of a proposed
muirburn (derived from the Hill Farming Act 1946 as amended by the Wildlife and
Natural Environment (Scotland) Act 2011 and the Climate Change (Scotland) Act
2009). In addition to complying with these statutory provisions, landowners
receiving payments from the Rural Payment and Inspectorate Directorate
Payments (RPID) must also meet requirements in terms of Good Agricultural and
Environmental Condition (GAEC), some of which relate to elements of the
Muirburn Code (see below). Failure to meet these requirements can result in a
reduction being applied to support payments.
Two major issues arise in terms of compliance with the Muirburn Code. First,
under RPID cross-compliance, although breaches can be investigated and penalty
charges applied, only a small subset of muirburn-related activities in the Code are
deemed to ‘breach’ the grant conditions – specifically a fire left unattended, an
uncontrolled fire over a large area, or burning which results in damage to
woodland. Other potentially damaging activities listed in the Muirburn Code, such
as burning on steep slopes, thin soils or peatlands, are currently not included in
this penalty system. Given the effort and resources currently being put into
peatland restoration, the omission of burning on peatlands from this penalty system
is particularly concerning. Second, the ‘breach and penalty’ system only applies to
those receiving RPID muirburn-related support payments. No other penalty
systems, other than prosecution for failing to notify neighbours or undertaking
muirburn outwith the specified time periods, address non-compliance with the
Muirburn Code. Both issues represent major weaknesses in promoting the
sustainable management of muirburn.
Although the Muirburn Code is designed to minimise the likelihood of detrimental
impacts by promoting ‘good’ practice, there have been no assessments to date of
levels of adherence to the good practice detailed in the Code. In the absence of a
robust system of monitoring compliance, plus the relatively few instances under the
34

 Code of the withholding of RPID payments under cross compliance, it is not
currently possible to assess the Code’s effectiveness.
Understanding the impacts of muirburn
Reviewing the extensive literature on muirburn impacts immediately reveals the
importance of fire characteristics in determining biodiversity and wider ecosystem
effects, yet in much of the debate over contradictory findings, this is sometimes
glossed over or overlooked. Greater recording of fire characteristics alongside
their impacts is much needed. In general terms, the benefits of muirburn in
providing young, more nutritious shoots for grouse (and livestock, deer and
Mountain Hares) are well-established. There is also evidence that regular
muirburn managed in accordance with the Muirburn Code can increase aboveground biodiversity (evidence includes plants, birds, invertebrates) compared with
unburnt moorland, particularly in dry heaths, through the creation of mosaics of
different ages of heather giving a mix of habitat structures. Muirburn does of
course restrict colonisation by woodland that would represent the natural habitat
type in many of these ‘cultural’ moorland areas. There is also strong evidence that
muirburn can cause detrimental effects in some situations – on biodiversity,
hydrology, soil stability and other components of the system. Many factors can
determine the impact of a moorland fire, but possibly one of the most critical factors
is fire intensity (driven by fuel load, weather, moisture content and many other
factors). To date this has rarely been recorded, so in very few cases can direct
causal-associations be made between fire intensity and impacts. A key issue is
whether or not the fire has burned into the moss/litter layer/soil/peat – in that order
it greatly increases the likelihood of detrimental impacts.
Muirburn impacts can also differ according to the type of moorland. The strongest,
but still inconclusive evidence for a greater likelihood of long-term detrimental
impacts comes from blanket bog/wet heath areas, and it has been widely assumed
that regular muirburn is detrimental to peat-forming plant species. However, this is
not conclusive as several studies have found the opposite, including a long-term
(60 years) experimental study in the Pennines.
The effects of muirburn below-ground are the least well understood. In general
terms the intensity of a fire is thought to be a key issue: impacts on soil
structure/properties (and carbon in particular) tend to be more severe (sometimes
catastrophic) under more intense, longer duration fires igniting dry soil/peat. Fires
penetrating the moss/litter soil are likely to destroy much of the seed bank, which
could result in a very different post-fire plant species composition as well as
changes to hydrology, soil chemistry and increased likelihood of erosion. Muirburn
can have both positive and negative effects on carbon storage, both directly, by
affecting carbon contents of soil and vegetation, and indirectly, by affecting carbon
storage potential through the changes in plant community composition after fire.
There is often an assumed net loss of carbon under regular muirburn, but the
evidence is not conclusive and the longest running study (60 years) shows reduced
carbon sequestration in regularly burnt areas but no long-term reductions in soil
carbon accumulation. Data on muirburn impacts on dissolved organic carbon,
particulate organic matter, suspended sediments, aluminium, iron etc. in runoff are
35

 also inconclusive, with varying data on losses and subsequent recovery within the
system as vegetation regrows, as well as some evidence for interactive effects with
historical and current pollutant deposition and post-fire rainfall patterns. The few
studies on hydrology indicate lowering of water tables in regularly burnt areas, but
divergent effects on overland water flows according to the nature of concurrent
rainfall events. There are obvious implications here for future climate change
affecting muirburn impacts.
Given the clear, but unquantified, risks of major environmental damage from
moorland fires, it is appropriate and critically important to increase the assessment
of fire practices and their impacts (both positive and negative), particularly in
relation to predicted climate changes. We note the recent fire assessment work by
SNH and others using remote sensing and are highly supportive of this as a
powerful approach to assess location, frequency and extent of moorland fires,
combined with more detailed monitoring on the ground, particularly in relation to
the ‘best practice’ specified in the Muirburn Code.
Some key questions
Is burning necessary to retain heather-dominance?
It was traditionally thought that regular muirburn was necessary for heather to
remain dominant within the ‘cultural’ moorland zone, but this has been disproved at
least for some moorland areas where heather has remained dominant (with the
plants ‘rejuvenating’ through stem layering/rooting) for at least 40-60 years without
burning. It is not known what proportion of Scotland’s moorland has never been
burnt so this is a key evidence gap – we cannot estimate what proportion of
moorland might remain heather-dominated in the long-term in the complete
absence of fire. This information would greatly inform the debate about the ‘need’
or otherwise of regular moorland burning in terms of maintaining heather
dominance (as opposed to maintaining a supply of young, more nutritious shoots
for grazing, as mentioned above). Clearly, in areas where tree seed sources are
sufficiently abundant then moorland areas might gradually become (re)colonised
by young trees. But this process would likely be relatively limited in areal extent in
the short-to medium-term because it would depend mainly on short distance
spread from existing trees.
Burning versus cutting
There is relatively little comparative information on the impacts of heather burning
versus cutting and from the few studies found, the differences are apparently not
simple. In relation to heather regeneration (the main focus of most published
comparisons), old heather stands tend to regenerate better after fire than cutting
(strongly dependent on seed germination and seedbed), but the few data available
indicate that younger heather may regenerate better under cutting than burning.
Discussions on the relative impacts of muirburn versus cutting on other elements of
biodiversity are mostly speculative as there is so little information available. It is
important also to note that burning and cutting are not interchangeable everywhere
– for example machine-cutting is not practicable on slopes that are too steep or too
rocky for machinery to operate safely.

36

 Climate change, muirburn and wildfires
The risk of uncontrolled fire is predicted to increase in Scotland as the summers
are projected to become hotter and drier under current climate change scenarios.
Muirburns can potentially have both negative and positive effects in this respect.
They can of course be the cause of wildfires if they get out of control, but they can
also be used to reduce the risk of wildfires through reducing fuel-load build-up or
acting as fire-breaks. Data sources from both Scotland and England are relatively
few and quote varying proportions of wildfires starting from muirburns, and the
levels of risk are currently difficult to quantify. This is primarily due to the
uncertainty (stated by many including Scottish Fire and Rescue Service, SFRS)
regarding attribution of causes of wildfires, coupled with the fact that an unknown
number of out-of-control management fires are brought back under control without
reporting (a 2003 questionnaire to 42 estate owner/managers reported that less
than half the wildfires on their land involved call-outs to the fire brigade). A very
recent unpublished assessment by the Scottish Wildfire Forum of ten years of
SFRS data found that, out of 118 fires attended by SFRS, less than 10% of
reported wildfires were attributed to ‘controlled burning’ or ‘heather burning’ (on any
land, not just grouse moors), but larger numbers were reported as ‘other – not
known’ cause. The only published data we found that came directly from estate
owners/managers was the 2003 questionnaire (as above). Responding estates
reported an average of 1-2 wildfires per estate in 2003, less than 50% of which
were caused by escaped management fires. Putting this into the context of the
large numbers of management fires carried out, this represented less than 1% of
all management fires that year on these estates, but the average size of each
wildfire was 150 ha, i.e. considerably larger than a normal management fire.
Minimising risk is of course paramount and it is critically important that the
Muirburn Code and regulation updates relating to muirburn use the best available
evidence to minimise the chance of muirburn fires getting out of control. Muirburn
and grazing and cutting can all play a role in reducing fuel loads and possibly
reducing the incidence or at least severity (temperature) of wildfires, although there
is a lack of data demonstrating how these management actions can be combined
to best effect. We note the recent initiative announced by the SFRS to explore and
test the use of muirburn as a management tool to reduce wildfire risk in future, and
the current work funded by the Scottish Government to explore the possible
development of a fire danger rating system.
Mountain Hares
Background
Mountain Hares are widespread in Scotland, but they are particularly strongly
associated with heather moorland, including areas managed for driven grouse
shooting where their populations are sometimes harvested and controlled.
Mountain Hares are also considered to benefit from some aspects of grouse moor
management, particularly the reduction in predators and the creation/maintenance
of mosaics of different ages of heather.
Since the 19th century, Mountain Hares have been a legal game species for sport
shooting during the open season: 1st August - 28th February. Shooting of large

37

 numbers of hares on some estates has received much attention in the media and
this is one of the drivers for including Mountain Hares in our evidence review and
recommendations. A licence is required from SNH to kill hares during the closed
season and landowners must provide a justification and indication of numbers to
be killed. In addition to sport shooting, Mountain Hares are also killed for the
protection of young trees and other sensitive plants, and (from our questionnaire
responses) they are still killed on some estates as part of tick control measures
(see discussion below). The number of Mountain Hares that can be killed in the
open season is not regulated and does not require any statutory reporting, but land
managers are expected to exercise restraint, in regard of our obligations under the
EC Habitats Directive.
Conservation status of Mountain Hares
The Mountain Hare is on the Scottish Biodiversity List, i.e. considered by Scottish
Ministers to be of ‘principal importance’ for biodiversity conservation. The
Mountain Hare is also listed in Annex V of the EC Habitats Directive as a species
“of community interest whose taking in the wild and exploitation may be subject to
management measures”. Member States are required to ensure that the
exploitation of Annex V species “is compatible with their being maintained at a
“favourable conservation status” and to make regular reports on this to the EU.
In a recent assessment of all UK mammals carried out by the Mammal Society
according to IUCN red listing criteria, the conservation status of Mountain Hares in
Scotland was assessed as “Near Threatened” (but close to “Vulnerable” under
several of the criteria). The assessment noted that “further evidence is urgently
required since re-evaluation may move the species to the Vulnerable category.” In
the Joint Nature Conservation Committee 2019 report to the EU for the period
2013-18, Mountain Hares in the UK were categorised as being in an “unfavourableinadequate conservation status”; the term ”inadequate” referring to a lack of data
(see also Annex 4).
A major issue in determining the conservation status of Mountain Hares is a poor
evidence-base. Until recently (see below) there has been no standardised method
specifically designed for counting Mountain Hares, and there is also no mandatory
formal monitoring of Mountain Hare populations in the UK or Scotland. All
published estimates of Mountain Hare numbers to date are at least partially based
on ancillary data and primarily non-hare-specific surveys. The recent publications
on Mountain Hare numbers illustrate this problem well. The Mountain Hare data
recorded as part of BTO’s Breeding Bird Survey is based on daylight counts by
observers on foot; the recent papers by Watson & Wilson and Hesford et al. both
used data from daylight counts made by observers with dogs. Given that the study
locations selected for these papers were non-random, we cannot extrapolate the
findings beyond those particular areas and sites. As detailed by Newey et al.
(2018) in the SNH report Developing a counting methodology for mountain hares
(Lepus timidus) in Scotland, these methods are not particularly well suited to
surveying Mountain Hares and have no known calibrations with actual population
sizes, nor any information on repeatability-accuracy. Given the problems with
methodology used to date, the lack of whole-Scotland count data, and the highly
38

 contrasting findings presented by different papers, it is currently not possible to
estimate with any certainty what the population of Mountain Hares in Scotland
actually is, nor how it has changed over time. This is a critical issue for this Annex
V species.
There is also no mandatory formal recording of Mountain Hare numbers shot inseason. The National Gamebag Census administered by the Game & Wildlife
Conservation Trust (GWCT) is voluntary and records numbers reported as shot by
participating estates but does not record numbers present. Since 1961, we
understand that an average of 30% of the total number of estates that have
reported shooting hares return Mountain Hare ‘bag’ information in any one year but
it is not known what proportion of the others are ‘non-returns’ and what proportion
are ‘non-shoot’ years. We have been informed by GWCT that analyses of data
from a questionnaire on hare presence / absence and numbers shot that was sent
to estates across Scotland in 2016-17 is currently in preparation.
Uncertainties over population size, trends over time and the number of Mountain
Hares being killed undermine any attempt at a robust and reliable assessment of
the conservation status of Mountain Hares. Accordingly, we support the roll out of
a standardised national counting method (coupled with mandatory reporting of
numbers killed – see below) and welcome SNH’s new standardised counting
method (Newey et al. 2018), currently being rolled out to moors by GWCT, as a
first step in resolving the debate on trends in Mountain Hare numbers. At present
the understanding of population responses to numbers killed is too poor to impose
direct controls on shooting of Mountain Hares with any degree of certainty.
Management of Mountain Hare populations
The sporting sector manages Mountain Hare populations by shooting during the
open season for sporting purposes, as well as to reduce numbers when considered
by the estate to be necessary. There is controversy around Mountain Hare
population management. Below we list the main reasons given for managing
Mountain Hare populations (collated from verbal and/or written evidence presented
to the Review Group, as well as published literature) and we consider each in turn:
• Sport shooting and game food;
• Reducing competition with grouse for food (heather shoots);
• Reducing browsing impacts on young trees and other sensitive plant species;
• Reducing the tick burden on red grouse and, associated with this, reducing the
incidence of Louping Ill virus within the local grouse population;
• Reducing parasite burdens on Mountain Hares and risk of wildlife diseases; both
potentially causing population decline.
Impact of sport shooting on hare populations
Having reviewed the literature and taken evidence from key stakeholders, it is
widely assumed that the number of hares killed for sport shooting probably has a
limited effect on Mountain Hare conservation status overall, although this could
differ locally. This finding is based on the assumption that traditional sport shooting
cull levels are designed to be proportional to what local populations are believed to
39

 be able to sustain, with the intention of sustaining the sporting interest into the
future. But we note that this assumption cannot be tested on account of the very
limited evidence available.
Assessing the impact of sport shooting is further complicated by Mountain Hares
having the potential for high population growth, although this can vary significantly
between years. A modelling-based study, parametrised with data from a Scottish
grouse moor managed for driven grouse shooting, suggests that Mountain Hare
populations may be robust to a maximum of 40% of individuals removed annually
by whatever means including natural predation. Against this estimate many other
factors need to sit (e.g. population size, age of hares shot, other concurrent causes
of mortality, etc.) which, when combined with limited dispersal capacity, means that
local extinctions could happen as a result of sport shooting culls.
Reducing food-competition with grouse; browsing impacts on young trees and
other sensitive plant species
There is no substantive evidence that Mountain Hare grazing of heather will
detrimentally affect grouse through food-competition. Calculations of potential
offtake of heather shoots by hares also confirm that this would be extremely
unlikely even at maximum hare population densities found in Scotland.
There is evidence that Mountain Hare browsing activity can locally reduce or
suppress tree and shrub growth, i.e. preventing natural succession and
contributing towards maintaining open heather moorland. SNH reported that they
have issued out-of-season licenses to cull Mountain Hares to protect young trees,
but never yet to protect any open-ground plant species.
Hare population control as part of tick control measures
There is no substantive evidence to support the population control of Mountain
Hares as part of tick and/or Louping Ill virus control to benefit grouse, except under
unusual circumstances. The published study that was used to support this
assertion was carried out on an estate with no deer present (Lochindorb) and the
research was criticised for potentially confounding treatments, lack of replication
and no meaningful experimental control. A recent study found no effects of
Mountain Hare abundance on grouse tick burdens and actually found better grouse
chick survival in areas with greater numbers of Mountain Hares, although tick biting
rates were low on both species. There is a joint SNH-GWCT-SLE statement on
voluntary restraint that acknowledges the lack of evidence to support population
control of Mountain Hares to benefit Red Grouse. Despite all of this, the reporting
of disease transmission as a primary ‘reason for shooting Mountain Hares’ was still
more widely stated than any other reason in the questionnaire responses to the
Review Group, and the advice that Mountain Hare culling should be part of tick
disease control strategies is still present on some key land management websites
(e.g. https://www.gwct.org.uk/policy/position-statements/mountain-haremanagement/).

40

 Reducing parasite burden on Mountain Hares and risk of wildlife diseases
The little information available reveals no evidence that parasite burdens on
Mountain Hares are affected by their population density. Very little is also known
about the risks of wildlife diseases (such as RDHV2) that could affect Mountain
Hare populations in Scotland, but as yet do not appear to be doing so.
In addition to the above, it has been variously stated that reducing Mountain Hare
numbers could increase predator pressure on other prey species (including Red
Grouse), but there is no substantive evidence to support or refute this.
Medicated grit
Background
The presence of the strongyle worm (Trichostrongylus tenuis) in the gut of Red
Grouse can cause cyclical fluctuations in grouse numbers every 6-9 years in
Scotland. The use of 3-8 mm medicated grit in the form of quartz grit coated with a
worming agent (currently flubendazole) has substantially suppressed these grouse
cycles. The medicated grit is delivered to individual birds via grit stations deployed
across the moor and the dosage should be based on pre-determined worm levels
in the grouse. The delivery of flubendazole-coated grit to individual birds is
overseen by local veterinary surgeons who can prescribe medicated grit and, when
appropriate, advise on gritting holidays when the medicated grit is replaced in the
tray by uncoated quartz grit.
Success following the introduction of flubendazole-coated grit can be judged by
strongyle worm burdens now registering all-time lows, and by an almost doubling
of grouse densities on driven grouse moors since its introduction in 2007. Given
that previous efforts at controlling the strongyle worm without medicated grit were
unsuccessful, and ever-increasing pressure on grouse by protected predators (as
evidenced from the Langholm Moor projects), its use is now deemed essential if
grouse levels are to be kept high enough to yield a harvestable surplus. Even with
low worm burdens, managers may treat grouse as a precautionary measure,
feeling it is the only mortality factor they can control, against the many other
uncontrollable risks that grouse face. Consistent grouse numbers, year on year,
help maintain viable levels of shooting, underpin investment decisions and
contribute to the economic viability of grouse moors. Flubendazole is also
commonly used to treat worm burdens in sheep and cattle.
The principal legislation influencing the use of medicated grit includes the
Veterinary Medicines Regulations 2013 with Guidance Note 13 on the use of
Cascade in terms of prescription (need and use) and the Wildlife & Countryside Act
1981 (as amended) with regards to operations requiring consent on designated
sites. The amendments to the 1981 Act introduced by the Wildlife & Natural
Environment Act (Scotland) Act 2011 also relate to direct dosing of grouse, which
we do not consider here, rather than the use of medicated grit. Guidance on the
use of medicated grit is provided in the Moorland Management Best Practice Worm
Control in Red Grouse Guidance (Scotland’s Moorland Forum) and Best practice
use of medicated grit (GWCT). Not all estates determine worm burdens and some
use medicated grit as an insurance. Even for estates that do determine worm

41

 burdens, the evidence is not always given sufficient weight and moors continue to
treat worms against the perceived wider risks to the grouse population from
weather, predators and tick-borne disease.
Review of evidence
Having reviewed the written and verbal evidence presented to the Group we find
that, when used correctly, flubendazole is a widespread treatment that has proved
highly effective in reducing endemic strongyle worm levels in grouse guts. Also
when used correctly, its residues in grouse for human consumption currently
appear to present a very low risk. As past efforts of controlling strongyle worm
burdens have not worked, the use of medicated grit is a key factor in maintaining
consistent grouse numbers year on year.
The dosage of medicated grit supplied to birds must be determined by a veterinary
prescription but this should reflect the current worm burden in the grouse in terms
of health and breeding success. Whilst veterinary surgeons control the overall
dosage, land managers determine the actual delivery of medicated grit to individual
birds on the hill via grit trays, acknowledging that under the Cascade system, the
prescribing veterinary surgeon must be satisfied that the individual using the
medicated grit does so correctly. The prescribing veterinary surgeon has
responsibility for the health of the grouse and should have seen the grouse before
prescribing. Good practice includes testing a selection of birds to determine their
worm burden. Low burdens indicate that gritting holidays could be taken,
balancing this against the known risk of slightly lower grouse breeding success.
Land managers are also required by law to ensure that no drug is ingested 28 days
before the grouse are harvested. Medicated grit is commonly delivered in a grit
tray with a lid to prevent access during that period. At present, there is little
evidence for resistance to flubendazole developing in the strongyle worm
population, but the main purpose of ‘gritting holidays’ is to reduce the chance of
such resistance developing.
In terms of contested evidence, there are concerns that prescription levels when
measured against the worm burden are too high, that gritting holidays reflecting
low worm burdens are not always observed, and that grit may not always be
withdrawn from grouse at least 28 days before Red Grouse enter the food chain.
Although attempts have been made to address these issues in terms of Scotland’s
Moorland Form’s Worm Control in Red Grouse Guidance and GWCT’s Best
practice use of medicated grit, plus recent workshops provided by the Moredun
Research Institute, there is no system in place for monitoring the use of medicated
grit. Although there are estates following sustainable practices in the use of
medicated grit, many are not. There is a need for estates to address this and bring
the standards up to best practice usage as described in the Scotland’s Moorland
Forum and GWCT best practice guidance.
We also identify a number of significant evidence gaps. There is anecdotal
evidence of grit piles on open mounds instead of in bespoke grit trays, and similar
claims of grit piles being found too near to water courses. Both these situations
could lead to greater environmental contamination. Although there is as yet little

42

 evidence of a resistance problem with the use of medicated grit, more research is
required on the potential development of such resistance and its implications.
Better calibrated dosage reflecting worm risk based on weather and worm burden
(determined by autumn worm counts and spring worm egg counts) would help allay
the risk of resistance developing. There is some evidence that flubendazole is
toxic to aquatic organisms; accordingly GWCT guidance recommends that grit
trays be located no closer than 5m to running or standing waters. At present SEPA
does not test for the presence of flubendazole contamination in water bodies.
Current testing for flubendazole residues in the food chain is based on a small
number of grouse samples each year and it is unclear what level of contamination
would constitute a threat to human health. Although Cryptosporidium has only
been detected once on grouse moors in Scotland, its presence in Northern
England and connection to increased densities of grouse, with higher numbers
visiting each grit tray, raises concerns for the future.

43

 5.

Recommendations

In this section we examine the role of licensing in regulating grouse shooting. We
then itemise our main recommendations that arise directly from an examination of
options for regulation (Section 3) and also from summaries of the scientific
evidence relating to raptors and predation, muirburn, Mountain Hares and the use
of medicated grit (Section 4). Additional more specific recommendations on the
use of muirburn, culling of Mountain Hares and the use of medicated grit are added
in the next section (Increased control on specific activities Section 6), again based
on evidence reported in our earlier science summaries.
Options for using licensing to regulate grouse shooting
Licensing is only one of many regulatory approaches that can be used to address
our remit. But it is explicitly referred to in our remit and so warrants particular
attention. The remit for this review invites the Group “to advise on the option of
licensing grouse shooting businesses” and to do so in a way that balances “the
Government's commitment to tackling wildlife crime with grouse moor management
practice, ….. so that this form of management continues to contribute to our rural
economy, while being sustainable and compliant with the law”. As documented in
an extended discussion on how licensing might operate (Section 3: Options for
Regulation) and the itemisation of the advantages and disadvantages of licensing
(Appendix 1), we have explored the option of licensing in great detail. In order to
promote further debate on this issue, arguments in favour of and against licensing
have been provided by individual members of the Group and brought together in
Appendix 1. Not all Group members are in agreement with all points made, so any
one individual point cannot be assumed to represent the views of the whole Group.
As noted in Appendix 1, licensing grouse shooting businesses is problematic not
least because there is no agreed definition of the term ‘grouse shooting business’.
This does not mean that licensing cannot be introduced to better manage grouse
shooting – rather it points to the need for such licensing to be appropriately
targeted, as recommended in the discussion on licensing in Section 3. This is
clearly evident in our recommendations itemised below, which are designed to
make the use of muirburn and medicated grit and the management of Mountain
Hares more sustainable. For each of these practices, we variously propose
licensing, increased legal regulation and a voluntary Code of Practice respectively,
with licensing for the management of Mountain Hares and use of medicated grit
being introduced should less onerous regulation fail. Such targeted and
proportionate regulation for these land management practices accords with
relevant scientific evidence and meets the criteria for Better Regulation.
Licensing can also be used to shape the wider context of specific activities. For
some Group members the association between some areas of grouse moor
management and the evidence for activities adversely affecting raptor populations
provides grounds for the licensing of grouse shooting. But for other Group
members this evidence is strongly contested and the case for licensing on these
grounds is deemed to be flawed (see Annex 1). However, we are agreed that if the
effect of our more specific recommendations and the sector’s response to scrutiny

44

 do not result in an improvement, and evidence of unlawful activity continues,
measures must be taken. There is then justification for taking action which
controls, and might ultimately prevent, the use of land which malefactors think is
being served by illegal persecution.
It is this anticipated deterrent effect which provides the strongest grounds for
considering the introduction of licensing, especially since this review was triggered
by the Cabinet Secretary’s concern over the suspicious disappearance of 31% of
satellite-tracked Golden Eagles over the period 2004 to 2016. Appendix 1
demonstrates, however, that it is not the only reason for considering the
introduction of licensing.
In order to manage the proliferation of licensing schemes, with their attendant
costs, should a licensing scheme to shoot grouse be introduced, its implementation
should build on the experience of using general and specific licences (as for the
control of corvids) and allow for integration with other regulatory schemes. A
framework Code of Practice on grouse shooting could be introduced providing
advice on best management practices and on regulatory requirements, including
licences on muirburn, the management of Mountain Hares and use of medicated
grit if and when these are introduced.
Recommendation concerning licensing grouse shooting
In contrast to our other recommendations that are strongly evidence-based, any
proposal to license grouse shooting is problematic, its underlying rationale being
contested. In our summary of the science on raptors and predation, we state there
is evidence of illegal killing. But we also recognise that the scale and impact of this
is contested by land managers on the grounds of recent reductions in officially
recorded illegal killing (especially involving the use of poison) and recovering
populations at a national level despite local declines in the numbers of Golden
Eagles, Hen Harriers and Peregrines on or near grouse moors. The claim that
licensing will provide an effective deterrent in terms of future illegal killing is also
contested (see Appendix 1). Furthermore, our remit requires a balance to be
struck between introducing new regulation and it adversely impacting on the
contribution that grouse shooting makes to the rural economy. This inevitably
takes the debate into a question of values.
This means that any recommendation to license grouse shooting although sciencebased inevitably involves expert judgment in which values and opinions also come
into play. In making a recommendation in this area we are very aware of these
challenges and note that at a societal level the final decision is ultimately a political
one.
The Review Group was evenly divided on the relative merits for and against the
licensing of grouse shooting. In light of this and noting the contested nature of
some of the evidence, we make the following recommendation:
1. We unanimously recommend that a licensing scheme be introduced for
the shooting of grouse if, within five years from the Scottish Government
publishing this report, there is no marked improvement in the ecological
sustainability of grouse moor management, as evidenced by the

45

 populations of breeding Golden Eagles, Hen Harriers and Peregrines on
or within the vicinity of grouse moors being in favourable condition.1
The primary goal of such a recommendation is a decrease in the illegal killing of
raptors on or within the vicinity of grouse moors, and a significant improvement in
their conservation status in these areas. We would not expect all three specified
raptors to increase on every moor because conditions may not be locally suitable
for them, but what is needed is a measurable increase over grouse moors as a
whole.
Statement from the Chair: My option to use the Chair’s casting vote in favour of
the immediate introduction of licensing was contested by two members of the
Group. In the interests of seeking to produce a unanimous recommendation I
chose not to exercise my casting vote.
Recommendations arising from the science reviews
In light of the evidence reported in the reviews of scientific evidence, we
recommend:
2. That a framework Code of Practice on grouse shooting be produced
reflecting regulation specific to the sector and advising on best
management practices. If statutory provisions are included, the Code
would need approval by Scottish Ministers with SNH having oversight
and ownership.
Within this framework and in light of the science summaries covering raptor
persecution and predation, muirburn, the management of Mountain Hares and the
use of medicated grit, we make the following recommendations:
Raptor persecution and predation
3. That there should be no change in the legal status of any bird-of-prey
species in Scotland.
4. That where particular species are perceived to be limiting the
populations of red and or amber-listed ground-nesting birds, including
Red Grouse, greater use should be made of the Wildlife & Countryside
Act 1981 s16. This existing licensing legislation allows SNH to permit
under licence a range of lethal and non-lethal management options.
5. That the brood management programme for Hen Harriers in England
should be monitored, and if it is deemed successful in producing an
increase in the breeding numbers and distribution of Hen Harriers, then
consideration should be given to introducing a similar programme in
Scotland.
6. That as much as possible should be done to change the culture of
grouse moor management to accept more loss of grouse to avian
predators and to allow these predators to nest locally.
7. That SNH, possibly through their licensing agent the BTO, or directly,
ensure that the licences issued for the satellite-based tracking of tagged
1

‘favourable condition’ defined in Annex 4: Glossary

46

 raptors includes a condition that commits the data holder (i.e. the owner
of the tag) to: (a) being listed on a register of data holders which SNH,
BTO and Police Scotland have access to; and (b) cooperate
expeditiously with Police Scotland and SNH in sharing data and
associated information regarding tagged birds found dead or missing in
suspicious circumstances. That on receipt of shared data and
associated information, Police Scotland expeditiously processes the
shared data and associated information to determine whether or not it
warrants referral to the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service. The
current priority raptors for data sharing would be Golden Eagle, Hen
Harrier, Red Kite, Peregrine, White-tailed Eagle and Goshawk.
Muirburn
8. That muirburn should be subject to increased legal regulation. This
should apply to all muirburn, not only on grouse moors.
• That the Scottish Government should increase regulatory control
relating to the Muirburn Code;
• That SNH and Rural Payments and Inspections Directorate (RPID)
should be given power and resources to monitor adherence to the
Muirburn Code by any land manager2 carrying out muirburn, whether
or not they are in receipt of muirburn-related support payments;
• That increased training should be required for any land manager
directly involved in setting and managing fires;
• That the Muirburn Code should be subject to regular updates to
represent best available knowledge and consideration of predicted
changes in climate that might require additional changes to parts of
the Code. That this process be subject to expert peer-review;
• That a fire danger rating system for Scotland should be introduced to
better support decision-making about where and when to burn;
• That the Scottish Government explore changes to the current RPID
support payments that would discourage malpractice more effectively
than the current very limited breach and penalty powers;
• That the Muirburn Code published in 2017 should be updated to
include the Supplement to the Code: A guide to Best Practice.
Mountain Hares
9. That the shooting of Mountain Hares should be subject to increased
legal regulation.
• That, where the shooting of Mountain Hares is to be undertaken, land
managers should be required to report annually to SNH the number
of Mountain Hares present (using a standard counting method) and
numbers shot on an area of land;

2 Definition

of ‘land manager’: the person who should be legally responsible for any activity covered by this

report.

47

 • That shooting of Mountain Hares should only be undertaken at the
times licensed and in compliance with a Code of Practice on the
management of Mountain Hares;
• That, to address concerns about the reliability of estimates of
Mountain Hare numbers, SNH should generate a more robust
evidence-base on the distribution, numbers and management
influences on Mountain Hares to better inform management as well
as Article 17 reporting to the Scottish Government and the EU;
• That adaptive management research should be used to determine
relationships between local populations and numbers killed, to help
inform and improve management recommendations over time to
promote favourable conservation status for Mountain Hares in
Scotland.
Medicated grit
10. That the use of medicated grit should be subject to increased regulation.

• That SNH, following consultation with other appropriate bodies,
should publish a Code of Practice on the use of medicated grit;
• That all land managers using medicated grit to reduce the worm
burden in Red
Grouse populations should adhere to the Code of Practice on the use
of medicated grit;
• That SNH should have powers to check compliance with the Code on
the use of medicated grit;
• That if, after five years or less, following introduction of the Code,
non-compliance is widespread, the option of introducing licensing
should be considered.
Further recommendations on implementing the above with respect to muirburn,
managing Mountain Hares and the use of medicated grit are itemised in section 6.
Recommendations arising from options for regulation
In light of our examination of regulatory options (Section 3), we make the following
recommendations:
11. That in accordance with our remit to “ensure that grouse moor
management continues to contribute to the rural economy” we do not
recommend that grouse shooting be banned.
12. That, while noting the progress of the Animals and Wildlife (Penalties,
Protections and Powers) (Scotland) Bill , the following recommendations
of the Wildlife Crime Penalties Review Group (Poustie Review) should
be enacted:
Levels of fines and custodial sentences
• That maximum penalties available on summary conviction at least for
the more serious offences, are raised to at least a £40,000 fine and
up to 12 months imprisonment.

48

 • That conviction on indictment is more commonly made available
across the range of wildlife offences with a maximum term of
imprisonment of up to 5 years.
Alternative penalties
• That forfeiture provisions are extended and these and other
alternative penalties are made consistent across the range of wildlife
legislation as appropriate.
• That where a firearm or shotgun is involved in the commission of a
wildlife crime, the court should have the power to cancel the relevant
certificate, as is already the case in the Deer (Scotland) Act 1996.
• That consideration should be given to amending firearms legislation
which is reserved to the UK Parliament to allow the Chief Constable
to withdraw a shotgun certificate where such a weapon has been
involved in the commission of a wildlife crime not just on grounds of
public safety but also on the grounds of a threat to the safety of
wildlife.
Sentencing Guidelines
• That with the establishment of the Scottish Sentencing Council in
October 2015, sentencing guidelines are developed for wildlife
offences in order to enhance the consistency and transparency of
sentencing.
13. That a wider range of moorland management activities should become
eligible for RPID support.
14. That land managers should undertake training on relevant land
management activities (muirburn, use of medicated grit, managing
Mountain Hares, corvid control and setting of traps) and refresher
courses when required, to ensure compliance with relevant Codes of
Practice.
15. That an accreditation scheme on grouse moor management should be
developed following widespread consultation across the grouse shooting
sector.
16. Given the fragmented nature of current wildlife legislation, we
recommend consolidation of this area of law (as recommended by
Poustie).

49

 6.

Increased control of specific activities and associated
recommendations

The recommendations in favour of increased regulation of certain activities given in
section 5 do not specify the precise form of that regulation. The decision on what
is appropriate in each case requires careful consideration of both the preferred
approach for and the detailed design of any regulatory scheme. This consideration
should be based on the Better Regulation principles: regulation should be
transparent, accountable, consistent, proportionate, accessible, effective and
targeted only where needed. It should also consider how far the wider range of
regulatory mechanisms available in other environmental contexts, such as SEPA’s
powers in relation to general binding rules, registrations and civil penalties, should
be extended to SNH’s existing and potential new functions.
An issue that affects several regulatory options is the person who should carry
legal responsibility for activities. Land may be owned by an individual, company or
trust, may be occupied by the owner or by another person under a variety of long
or short-term arrangements (including leases) and the control of activities on the
land may be delegated to a separate land manager (employed or contracted). In
our discussions we refer to the ‘land manager’ as the person who should be legally
responsible for any activity covered by this report. Reflecting their underlying
control of the situation, this may in most circumstances be “the owner or occupier”
as is commonly the case in other relevant legislation. Nevertheless, to reflect
practice, it may be appropriate to consider ways in which the owner can expressly
delegate responsibility to a manager who will share responsibility, matching their
effective control of activities on the ground. This is not to enable the owner to
escape responsibility but to ensure that the consequences of any wrong-doing are
felt by the person who has really been in charge. The implications for the
contractual arrangements between owners and staff or contractors may require
consideration as detailed rules are formulated.
Where legal obligations and controls are proposed, we consider that in many cases
it would be appropriate for the regulatory body (chiefly SNH) to have available to it
a range of enforcement options. The powers available to SEPA under the
Regulatory Reform (Scotland) Act 2014 provide a useful model, with the scope for
fixed or variable monetary penalties to be imposed as an initial response, but with
the potential to escalate to criminal prosecution in the event of serious, deliberate
or persistent breaches of the law.
Muirburn
Muirburn is currently regulated by a number of specific statutory provisions making
it an offence to undertake this operation at certain times of the year (unless a
licence has been obtained) and without giving due notice. These statutory
provisions are supported by the Muirburn Code which provides guidance on many
aspects of muirburn, including areas where it should be carried out, but which
carries no legal sanction for non-compliance. It is recommended that there should
be increased regulation for all muirburn, not just that undertaken in relation to

50

 grouse moor management. One element of this will be revision of the Muirburn
Code to operate appropriately in the reformed regulatory context.
Increased regulation could take the form of: a) adding further requirements to the
existing legislation which specify when muirburn can lawfully be carried out; b)
adding a general condition that the operation is carried out in accordance with the
Muirburn Code; or: c) requiring a licence for all muirburn.
Option a) would require additional conditions to be clearly specified and
enforcement would rely on the use of the police and the standard criminal justice
system. Possible conditions include requirements that the person responsible for
the operation has completed certain certified training and that a record is kept of
the date of the operation and area affected.
Option b) would appear to offer a more holistic approach to controlling muirburn
operations, but has the severe drawback that the Code is not, and probably cannot
be, written in a way that sets the clear and rigid boundaries of what is acceptable
or not as required for the criminal law, and it would be difficult to obtain admissible
evidence in many circumstances to establish in court whether the terms of the
Code have been overstepped.
Option c) offers more overall control with a range of sanctions being incorporated
into the licensing scheme, allowing greater flexibility in enforcement rather than the
all-or-nothing approach of criminal law. Licences could be granted by SNH to the
land-owner or other designated land manager, with conditions including:
• Substantial compliance with the Muirburn Code (and any subsequent updates);
• Mandatory training for the staff directly involved in setting and managing fires;
• Keeping a record (ideally a map showing the location and date) of each
operation.
The potential should be explored for an automatically available ‘general licence’ to
authorise certain forms of muirburn without an individual application for and grant
of a licence, and for licences that cover multiple sites and seasons where the risks
of inappropriate activity are low. A similar outcome could be achieved by using a
scheme for general binding rules, notification and registration such as provided for
SEPA under the Environmental Authorisations (Scotland) Regulations 2018. The
existing legal rules on timing and notice could be incorporated within the licensing
scheme.
Muirburn plans for each land management unit, or jointly for two or more
neighbouring land management units, might also be required or provide a basis for
a longer-term licence covering a number of individual operations. A licensing
system should also include SNH having powers to check compliance, including
inspection of muirburn records. SNH should have the power to respond flexibly
and proportionately to breaches by imposing tighter conditions, imposing financial
penalties, suspending or revoking the licence or referring the matter for prosecution
for unlicensed muirburn.
In reviewing options a), b) and c), we favour option c) i.e. that muirburn
should be unlawful unless carried out under a licence. There should be
51

 provision for a general licence (or equivalent) to allow muirburn to take place
without seeking individual permission provided that the requirements noted
above are complied with. Most instances will fall within the general licence
without the need for tighter controls, but this option offers to SNH the
opportunity to revise the conditions for what is acceptable in response to
changing needs and to non-compliance in a flexible and proportionate way.
Mountain Hares
The Mountain Hare is a species of Community interest under the EC Habitats
Directive and as such must be protected against being killed or taken by certain
specified methods or by any other means which is indiscriminate and capable of
causing the local disappearance of, or serious disturbance to, a population
(Conservation (Natural Habitats, etc) Regulations 1994, reg.41). Moreover, the
government is obliged to “take measures to ensure that the taking in the wild of
specimens of [the] species as well as their exploitation is compatible with their
being maintained at a favourable conservation status” 3 (Directive, art.14(1)).
Doing so requires remedying the present lack of knowledge of the numbers
present and being shot. We therefore recommend that SNH embark on achieving
a proper count of Mountain Hare numbers across Scotland, not just on grouse
moors nor just where they are being shot.
Beyond the need to ensure that a proper population count is achieved across all
land where Mountain Hares occur, three possible options to respond to the present
situation may be considered:
a) Code of Practice with a commitment to adaptive management;
b) Legal obligation to report numbers where shooting takes place, and;
c) Introduction of a licensing system for the shooting of Mountain Hares.
Central to all three of these is the undertaking of counts to determine the numbers
of Mountain Hares present and (where relevant) the numbers shot.
Option a) would involve the current legislation in relation to the closed season (with
the potential for licences to permit shooting at other times) being supported by a
Code of Practice. The Code would build on the Mountain Hare Management
Guidance within the Moorland Management Best Practice produced by Scotland’s
Moorland Forum. It would take account of adaptive management requirements,
with the vital addition of guidance on the standardised counting method and
reporting to SNH, the basis for determining whether and how many hares may be
shot in a given year and training for staff. This Code would not itself be legally
enforceable.
Option b) imposes a reporting requirement to address the current lack of data on
the number of Mountain Hares present and shot. This is the biggest obstacle in
ascertaining whether the legal obligations under the EC Habitats Directive are
being met. It would introduce alongside the voluntary Code (as in option a) a
specific legal obligation to notify SNH of the intention to shoot hares and report the
3

‘favourable condition’ defined in Annex 4: Glossary

52

 number of Mountain Hares present and shot (cf. the power to require returns in
relation to deer under ss.40 and 40A of the Deer (Scotland) Act 1996). There
would also be a requirement on those shooting hares to report on the number of
hares present using a standard counting method. Failure to report would be a
criminal offence. Options other than prosecution should be provided as an initial
response, with only serious or persistent offending leading to prosecution. Such a
provision would not limit the right to shoot Mountain Hares in season. This
reporting requirement would not provide data on land where no shooting is taking
place. Accordingly, as proposed above, a robust system of regular counting of
Mountain Hares across Scotland should be put in place by SNH.
Option c) is that the shooting of Mountain Hares should be undertaken only under
a licence granted by SNH. The licensing scheme would include the following
elements:
• An annual licence would be required for the shooting of Mountain Hares,
specifying the period and location where shooting is permitted;
• Landowners wishing to shoot Mountain Hares should record the number of
Mountain Hares present (using a standardised reporting procedure) and
numbers shot and report these numbers annually to SNH;
• Adaptive management should be used to determine the initial and subsequent
numbers of Mountain Hares permitted to be shot over successive years;
• Shooting should be carried out in accordance with the Code of Practice;
• Mandatory training should be required for staff directly involved in overseeing
the counting and shooting of Mountain Hares;
• SNH would have the power to impose an escalating range of penalties via Fixed
and Variable penalty notices for non-compliance with the Code of Practice.
The potential should be explored for an automatically available ‘general licence’ or
‘registration’ to authorise certain forms of shooting provided that basic information
is supplied, without an individual application for and grant of a licence. Similarly,
the potential should be considered for licences that cover multiple sites and
seasons where the risks of inappropriate activity are low. As before, SNH would
have the authority to impose an escalating range of penalties for non-compliance
with the Code of Practice on the management of Mountain Hares, the ultimate
sanction being suspension or revocation of the licence to shoot Mountain Hares.
We propose that Option b) is adopted and followed for sufficient time to
enable robust data to be gathered, from this and other sources, on the
population status of Mountain Hares across Scotland (taking into account
hare population cycles). If it is found that the population status of hares is
‘unfavourable’, our view is that option c) should then be considered as one
of the responses that might be required to ensure remedial action. Any
action in response to a declining population needs to be directed to the
reasons why and places where the decline is taking place; these might not
necessarily be related to grouse moors.

53

 Medicated grit
The use of medicated grit is already partly controlled by the laws concerning
prescription-only medicines, but some further regulation is recommended. This is
an area where a voluntary Code of Practice seems appropriate at present, but
tighter controls are desirable. If after five years or less of introduction of the Code,
non-compliance is widespread or if at any time improved understanding of the
position suggests that the risks are substantial, the option of introducing a licensing
system should be considered.
Our recommendation of a voluntary Code of Practice on the use of medicated grit,
overseen by SNH and prepared in consultation with stakeholders, is deemed to be
an appropriate response to the currently perceived level of risk, subject to further
understanding of the levels of compliance and environmental and health risks of
the use of medication. Items to be included in the Code of Practice on the use of
medicated grit:
• Veterinary surgeons and grouse managers to collaborate on developing and
delivering “Grouse Health Plans” which include evidence in support of use of
medicated grit at appropriate scales across the estate;
• Gritting withdrawal period to be strictly observed and medicated grit always
removed at least 28 days before Red Grouse are shot;
• All land managers using medicated grit to undertake training appropriate to their
role. This to include whether treatment is required, option of gritting holidays
and withdrawal 28 days before shooting, GPS mapping of grit trays/stations, and
clear identification on the hill where medicated grit is used.
In addition to adherence to a Code of Practice, we recommend the following
actions:
• Food Standards Scotland should undertake work to identify the levels of
flubendazole residues in grouse in the food chain that are judged inimical
to human health and establish appropriate monitoring;
• There should be wider CPD training for veterinary surgeons on the use of
medicated grit;
• SEPA should initiate a desk-based study to determine the appropriate
nature and extent of a monitoring programme to ascertain whether
flubendazole residues exist in water bodies on or downstream from where
it is being used, including in association with grouse moors, to conduct
such a monitoring programme and to report on its findings;
• Future monitoring of Cryptosporidium in connection with use of
medicated grit should be undertaken should the associated risk prove
necessary.
If it is considered that the proven risks arising from current practice are such that
stronger measures are required immediately, or if in future these are required
because of either the level of non-compliance with the proposed Code or our
changing understanding of the risks, then the current prescription system could be
supplemented by a separate licensing system relating to the actual application of
54

 the grit. This would require the land-owner or designated land-manager to obtain a
licence before putting out medicated grit, with conditions reflecting some or all of
the elements noted in the recommendation on the use of medicated grit (e.g.
training, preparation of grouse health plans and withdrawal periods).
Predator control
The control of avian predators is unlawful, although where problems arise
intervention is possible under a specific or general licence. Licences under s.16 of
the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 permit action to be taken against protected
birds for various purposes including “for the purpose of conserving wild birds” and
“for the purpose of conserving flora or fauna”. Licences cannot be granted “unless
[SNH] is satisfied that, as regards that purpose, there is no other satisfactory
solution”. Where particular species are perceived to be limiting the populations of
Red Grouse and/ or other red or amber-listed ground-nesting birds, then greater
use should be made of this power to authorise intervention, predominantly through
non-lethal means but potentially extending to include lethal control where the
predator species is widespread and has a strong population status.
The control of mammal predators is regulated by the laws on animal cruelty and
controls on the sort of traps and snares that can be used, with new regulations on
certain forms of traps in course of being implemented in accordance with the
Agreement on International Humane Trapping Standards (affecting traps for
stoats). The protected status of some predatory species (e.g. badgers) must also
be taken into account. Increased regulation on the use of snares was introduced a
few years ago and provides a model for other activities. For both cage traps and
spring traps, in addition to the existing rules on the nature of the trap that can be
used, further measures are recommended.
The lawful use of traps to catch corvids can result in the capture of, and on
occasion injury to, raptors and other traps can also cause unintended harm to
wildlife. The existing regulation on traps should be supported by a training
requirement on those who set them. In keeping with the requirements for snares,
new legislation should be introduced to make it a legal requirement for training so
that it becomes an offence to set or operate a trap without an operator having
successfully completed a course run by an approved and accredited body and
dealing with the relevant category of trap (cage and/or spring). Any operator
should undergo refresher training at least once every ten years. A trap operator
who has successfully completed a relevant trap training course should apply to
their local police station for a unique identification number which must be attached
to all traps that are set.
Monitoring and enforcement
As noted in the more general discussion on regulation, in all cases any legislative
scheme will have to identify the regulatory body – in these cases SNH is the
obvious choice – and ensure that it has the appropriate powers, including powers
of entry to land, in order to monitor compliance and gather evidence for
enforcement activity. In keeping with regulatory practice in other areas there
should be scope for flexibility in the response when non-compliance is discovered,
including adjustments to the terms of a licence, stricter scrutiny of any licence
55

 application (and loss of the ability to rely on any automatic ‘general licence’ if this is
available) and ultimately suspension or revocation of the licence for serious or
persistent non-compliance. Activity which does not fall within the terms of the
licence would be unlawful and thus a criminal offence, although prosecution is
unlikely to be the first resort in enforcement. Given the significance of the
regulatory powers involved, an appeal mechanism should be provided, probably to
the Scottish Land Court (as is already the route for certain matters under the
Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981).
Training
In several places we recommend approved and accredited training for those
responsible for certain activities. We recognise that the practical management of
land involves many people, with varying degrees of control over what is to happen
and some of whom are involved only on specific occasions when an increased
workforce is required for a particular task, e.g. in looking after muirburn. The
training requirement should not be applied to all those involved in any capacity but
to those in a position to control the activity. This may require default responsibility
falling on the owner or occupier, but their responsibility would not necessarily to be
trained themselves, but to have formally identified the person who has de facto
control of the activity and ensured that s/he has the requisite training. The aim is to
ensure that the training requirement is satisfied at the most appropriate level, and
some further work will be required with employers and training providers on
specifying the content of training and what level of training provided by whom will
be appropriate (e.g. anyone who applies pesticides as part of their professional
activities should hold a recognised specified training certificate). The implications
for the contractual arrangements between owners and staff or contractors may
require consideration as detailed rules are formulated.
Recommendations in section 6 – summary list
17. That muirburn should be unlawful unless carried out under a licence.
18. That SNH embark on achieving a count of Mountain Hare numbers across
Scotland, not just on grouse moors nor just where they are being shot.
19. That a Code of Practice on the management of Mountain Hares, including
legally enforceable reporting requirements, should be developed.
20. That should the conservation status of Mountain Hares prove to be
‘unfavourable’ then a licensing system for the shooting of Mountain Hares
should be introduced.
21. That Food Standards Scotland should undertake work to identify the levels of
flubendazole
residues in grouse in the food chain that are judged inimical
to human health and establish appropriate monitoring.
22. That there should be wider CPD training for veterinary surgeons on the use of
medicated grit.
23. That SEPA should initiate a desk-based study to determine the appropriate
nature and extent of a monitoring programme to ascertain whether
flubendazole residues exist in water bodies on or downstream from where it is

56

 being used, including in association with grouse moors, to conduct such a
monitoring programme and to report on its findings.
24. That future monitoring of Cryptosporidium in connection with use of
medicated grit should be undertaken should the associated risk prove
necessary.
25. That new legislation should be introduced to make it a legal requirement that
it becomes an offence to set or operate a trap without an operator having
successfully completed a course run by an approved and accredited body
and dealing with the relevant category of trap (cage and/or spring). A trap
operator who has successfully completed a relevant trap training course
should apply to their local police station for a unique identification number
which must be attached to all traps that are set.
26. That any operator dealing with the relevant category of trap (cage and/or
spring) should undergo refresher training at least once every ten years.

57

 7.

Recommendations: consolidated list

This section brings together recommendations in sections 5 and 6 into a
consolidated list.
General
1.
We unanimously recommend that a licensing scheme be introduced for the
shooting of grouse if, within five years from the Scottish Government
publishing this report, there is no marked improvement in the ecological
sustainability of grouse moor management, as evidenced by the populations
of breeding Golden Eagles, Hen Harriers and Peregrines on or within the
vicinity of grouse moors being in favourable condition.4
2.
That a framework Code of Practice on grouse shooting be produced reflecting
regulation specific to the sector and advising on best management practices.
If statutory provisions are included, the Code would need approval by
Scottish Ministers with SNH having oversight and ownership.
Raptors and predation
3.
That there should be no change in the legal status of any bird-of-prey species
in Scotland.
4.
That where particular species are perceived to be limiting the populations of
red and or amber-listed ground-nesting birds, including Red Grouse, greater
use should be made of the Wildlife & Countryside Act 1981 s16. This
existing licensing legislation allows SNH to permit under licence a range of
lethal and non-lethal management options.
5.
That the brood management programme for Hen Harriers in England should
be monitored, and if it is deemed successful in producing an increase in the
breeding numbers and distribution of Hen Harriers, then consideration should
be given to introducing a similar programme in Scotland.
6.
That as much as possible should be done to change the culture of grouse
moor management to accept more loss of grouse to avian predators and to
allow these predators to nest locally.
7.
That SNH, possibly through their licensing agent the BTO, or directly, ensure
that the licences issued for the satellite-based tracking of tagged raptors
includes a condition that commits the data holder (i.e. the owner of the tag)
to: (a) being listed on a register of data holders which SNH, BTO and Police
Scotland have access to; and (b) cooperate expeditiously with Police
Scotland and SNH in sharing data and associated information regarding
tagged birds found dead or missing in suspicious circumstances. That on
receipt of shared data and associated information, Police Scotland
expeditiously processes the shared data and associated information to
determine whether or not it warrants referral to the Crown Office and
Procurator Fiscal Service. The current priority raptors for data sharing would
be Golden Eagle, Hen Harrier, Red Kite, Peregrine, White-tailed Eagle and
Goshawk.

4

‘favourable condition’ defined in Annex 4: Glossary.

58

 Muirburn
8.
That muirburn should be subject to increased legal regulation. This should
apply to all muirburn, not only on grouse moors.
• That the Scottish Government should increase regulatory control relating to
the Muirburn Code;
• That SNH and Rural Payments and Inspections Directorate (RPID) should
be given power and resources to monitor adherence to the Muirburn Code
by any land manager5 carrying out muirburn, whether or not they are in
receipt of muirburn-related support payments;
• That increased training should be required for any land manager directly
involved in setting and managing fires;
• That the Muirburn Code should be subject to regular updates to represent
best available knowledge and consideration of predicted changes in climate
that might require additional changes to parts of the Code. That this
process be subject to expert peer-review;
• That a fire danger rating system for Scotland should be introduced to better
support decision-making about where and when to burn;
• That the Scottish Government explore changes to the current RPID support
payments that would discourage malpractice more effectively than the
current very limited breach and penalty powers;
• That the Muirburn Code published in 2017 should be updated to include the
Supplement to the Code: A guide to Best Practice.
Mountain hares
9.

That the shooting of Mountain Hares should be subject to increased legal
regulation.
• That, where the shooting of Mountain Hares is to be undertaken, land
managers should be required to report annually to SNH the number of
Mountain Hares present (using a standard counting method) and numbers
shot on an area of land;
• That shooting of Mountain Hares should only be undertaken at the times
licensed and in compliance with a Code of Practice on the management of
Mountain Hares;
• That, to address concerns about the reliability of Mountain Hare numbers,
SNH should generate a more robust evidence-base on the distribution,
numbers and management influences on Mountain Hares to better inform
management as well as Article 17 reporting to the Scottish Government
and the EU;
• That adaptive management research should be used to determine
relationships between local populations and numbers killed, to help inform

5

Definition of ‘land manager’: the person who should be legally responsible for any activity covered by this
report.

59

 and improve management recommendations over time to promote
favourable conservation status for Mountain Hares in Scotland.
Medicated grit
10.

That the use of medicated grit should be subject to increased regulation.
• That SNH, following consultation with other appropriate bodies, should
publish a Code of Practice on the use of medicated grit;
• That all land managers using medicated grit to reduce the worm burden in
Red
Grouse populations should adhere to the Code of Practice on the use of
medicated grit;
• That SNH should have powers to check compliance with the Code on the
use of medicated grit;
• That if, after five years or less, following introduction of the Code, noncompliance is widespread, the option of introducing increased legal control
should be considered.

Regulation
11. That in accordance with the remit to “ensure that grouse moor management
continues to contribute to the rural economy” we do not recommend that
grouse shooting be banned.
12. That, in light of announced consultations, the following recommendations of
the Wildlife Crime Penalties Review Group (Poustie Review) should be
enacted:
Levels of fines and custodial sentences
• That maximum penalties available on summary conviction at least for the
more serious offences, are raised to at least a £40,000 fine and up to 12
months imprisonment.
• That conviction on indictment is more commonly made available across
the range of wildlife offences with a maximum term of imprisonment of up
to 5 years. This would not necessarily require a stand-alone Act but
could be achieved as part of the next Criminal Justice or Criminal
Proceedings Act.
Alternative penalties
• That forfeiture provisions are extended and these and other alternative
penalties are made consistent across the range of wildlife legislation as
appropriate.
• That where a firearm or shotgun is involved in the commission of a
wildlife crime, the court should have the power to cancel the relevant
certificate, as is already the case in the Deer (Scotland) Act 1996.
• That consideration should be given to amending firearms legislation
which is reserved to the UK Parliament to allow the Chief Constable to
withdraw a shotgun certificate where such a weapon has been involved in
the commission of a wildlife crime not just on grounds of public safety but
also on the grounds of a threat to the safety of wildlife.
60

 13.
14.

15.

16.

Sentencing Guidelines
• That with the establishment of the Scottish Sentencing Council in October
2015, sentencing guidelines are developed for wildlife offences in order to
enhance the consistency and transparency of sentencing.
That a wider range of moorland management activities should become
eligible for RPID support.
That land managers should undertake training on relevant land management
activities (muirburn, use of medicated grit, managing Mountain Hares, corvid
control and setting of traps) and refresher courses when required, to ensure
compliance with relevant Codes of Practice.
That an accreditation scheme on grouse moor management should be
developed following widespread consultation across the grouse shooting
sector.
Given the fragmented nature of current wildlife legislation, we recommend
consolidation of this area of law (as recommended by Poustie).

Recommendations on land management practices
17. That muirburn should be unlawful unless carried out under a licence.
18. That SNH embark on achieving a count of Mountain Hare numbers across
Scotland, not just on grouse moors nor just where they are being shot.
19. That a Code of Practice on the management of Mountain Hares, including
legally enforceable reporting requirements, should be developed.
20. That should the conservation status of Mountain Hares prove to be
‘unfavourable’ then a licensing system for the shooting of Mountain Hares
should be introduced.
21. That Food Standards Scotland should undertake work to identify the levels of
flubendazole residues in grouse in the food chain that are judged inimical to
human health and establish appropriate monitoring.
22. That there should be wider CPD training for veterinary surgeons on the use of
medicated grit.
23. That SEPA should initiate a desk-based study to determine the appropriate
nature and extent of a monitoring programme to ascertain whether
flubendazole residues exist in water bodies on or downstream from where it is
being used, including in association with grouse moors, to conduct such a
monitoring programme and to report on its findings.
24. That future monitoring of Cryptosporidium in connection with use of
medicated grit should be undertaken should the associated risk prove
necessary.
25. That new legislation should be introduced to make it a legal requirement that
it becomes an offence to set or operate a trap without an operator having
successfully completed a course run by an approved and accredited body
and dealing with the relevant category of trap (cage and/or spring). A trap
operator who has successfully completed a relevant trap training course
should apply to their local police station for a unique identification number
which must be attached to all traps that are set.

61

 26.

That any operator dealing with the relevant category of trap (cage and/or
spring) should undergo refresher training at least once every ten years.

62

 Appendix 1: Licensing grouse shooting: arguments in favour
and against
The remit for this review invited us “to advise on the option of licensing grouse
shooting businesses” and this is an issue to which we have given particular
attention. Any assessment of the position is deeply affected by the lack of clear
evidence on many aspects of the background – ecological, social and economic –
and on how changes in the regulatory framework will alter the behaviour of key
parties. An important point to appreciate is that this issue should not be viewed in
isolation but is affected by action taken in relation to other aspects of this review,
and to other reviews (e.g. Poustie, Deer Working Group), as well as by the wider
choices that affect the policy and finances for various uses of land and the
consequences of their implementation. Nevertheless, the discussion below
endeavours to maintain a narrower focus, summarising the main arguments for
and against introducing a licensing system for grouse shooting.
A preliminary issue to note is that there is no clear definition of ‘grouse shooting
businesses’, since shooting on any land may be intermittent, depending on local
conditions, and may be undertaken on a non-commercial basis. Consideration of a
licensing scheme has therefore proceeded on the basis that the activity requiring a
licence would be the killing of grouse. This avoids difficult questions in defining
and identifying a ‘grouse shooting business’, a ‘grouse moor’, or in distinguishing
between where land is managed for driven shoots (which tends to encourage the
more intensive styles of management) as opposed to walked-up shooting.
A radical alternative, adopting an approach taken in many other countries, would
be to shift the focus of controls on hunting away from the land where the hunting
takes place and its owner and onto the hunter individually, see the SNH report A
Review of Game Bird Law and Licensing in Selected European Countries (Pillai &
Turner, 2017). Across the UK, hunting laws derive from the property rights of
landowners, including the entitlement to hunt on their land, and the right to control
who is allowed to take game on their land, with the landowner’s control over
access being the major constraint on hunting activity; the same applies to much of
the law on fishing. A different perspective is to focus on the individual hunters and
place controls and responsibilities on them, e.g. training and reporting
requirements and limits on bag-size, with issues relating to access to land fulfilling
a secondary role. Introducing such a change for grouse shooting alone would only
increase the undesirable fragmentation of the law, with a clash between two
underlying approaches to regulation, and accordingly is not further considered
here. Reflection on the fundamental structure of the controls on hunting would be
appropriate for a much deeper and more far-reaching review of the law and policy
affecting that activity and related land use.
Arguments in favour of and against licensing have been provided by individual
members of the Group. Viewed together, they should not be seen as representing
the views of the whole Group. For the sake of a clear statement of the range of
views reflected, rather than adding careful qualifications to almost every point, the
arguments are phrased in terms of what ‘will’ and ‘would’ occur in certain
63

 circumstances even though they are often matters of speculation and the likely
outcomes are legitimately contested. Accordingly, what follows is stated in more
definite and absolute terms than is strictly justified, on both sides of the argument,
and does not represent the conclusions of the Group as a whole on any individual
matter.
Arguments in favour
1. Grouse shooting and grouse moor management are activities that have a
major impact on landscapes, habitats and the populations of wild creatures, but
operate under fragmented legal regulation. Some aspects are controlled, e.g.
close seasons for shooting and muirburn, but there are no limits on the
intensity or forms of management, on the side-effects on other creatures, or on
bag sizes. An activity that has such a major impact on our environment should
be subject to a degree of control and central record keeping.
2. Although several forms of unacceptable conduct (e.g. killing raptors) have
been criminal offences for years, the law is regarded as not being effective.
Enforcement is difficult, requiring admissible evidence of specific wrong-doing
against particular individuals. Although some improvements in detection and
enforcement might be made, these may be matched by the adoption of new
methods of offending and the inherent difficulty will remain. Enabling grouse
shooting to take place at a fairly intensive level is perceived as a driver behind
unacceptable practices, and by threatening the continuation of this activity, an
effective deterrent would be provided. Land-owners/managers would be led to
do their utmost to see that unacceptable conduct does not occur (even more
so than the current vicarious liability which can only take effect when the
evidential burden for a successful prosecution has been satisfied).
3. Under a licensing scheme there can be a graduated scale of consequences
when inappropriate conduct is detected (e.g. additional reporting requirements,
tighter conditions and ultimately revocation of the licence). These can be
imposed on the basis of the civil burden of proof and a cumulative record of
misbehaviour (as with the current rules for revoking a general licence under the
Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981), avoiding the almost overwhelming difficulty
of proving specific wrong-doing beyond reasonable doubt.
4. A licensing scheme need not impose substantial additional burdens for most
operators, and in any event most substantial land uses, e.g. agriculture,
already require some administrative burden, although often related to receipt of
financial support. More onerous controls might be imposed only where
required in view of particular problems that have been identified.
5. Media attention has been drawn to the activities of some grouse moor
managers, mainly over the suspected killing of protected birds of prey, but also
over the large-scale killing of hares and other animals, and over other aspects
of moor management, such as muirburn, peat destruction and use of
medicated grit. Some of these activities have repercussions well beyond the
boundaries of grouse moors. The introduction of a centralised licensing
scheme would help to reassure the public that government is taking these
concerns seriously.
64

 6. In a complex area, a licensing scheme offers greater flexibility rather than the
blunt instrument of using the criminal law to prohibit particular unacceptable
practices, especially when these may be hard to define and prove in a way that
allows the criminal justice process to operate. The flexibility is also beneficial
in terms of adopting an adaptive management approach, responding to our
changing understanding of the position and the factors that influence it, and of
incorporating a number of important public objectives (e.g. climate concerns as
well as biodiversity).
7. A transparent licensing scheme would assist those in the industry who already
observe high standards. Obtaining and keeping a licence would be a visible
sign that the activity is being sustainably managed in an acceptable way and
that land is being managed appropriately, directing any public criticism onto
those who are not doing so. The potential for meaningful consequences if
standards slip would also offer public reassurance. This would help to take the
heat out of current polarised discussions where all grouse moors are treated
alike.
8. Existing controls are not proving effective in guaranteeing appropriate and
sustainable management (although what is ‘appropriate and sustainable’ can
be contested). Codes of Practice can capture what constitutes good practice
but do not ‘have teeth’. Given the very varied financial positions and ambitions
of grouse moor owners, financial incentives and penalties such as are widely
used in agriculture and forestry will not always be effective. A licence allows
for sanctions to be imposed for non-compliance, without every minor
transgression necessarily amounting to a criminal offence.
9. A licensing scheme would allow for information to be gathered at national level,
filling the information gaps which this review has shown, including the number,
area and locations of grouse moors, the management activities undertaken
and the number of animals present and killed. This would provide the basis for
sound science to be used in future decision-making at a local and national
level and enable an adaptive management approach to be taken, responding
to changing circumstances.
Arguments against
1. The main forms of unacceptable behaviour are already unlawful and the
emphasis should be on detecting and punishing the wrong-doers, not
additional controls on others. The difficulties of effective enforcement are
recognised, but there are improvements that can be made and these should be
tried before more regulation is placed on all grouse moor owners, regardless of
their behaviour.
2. The activities which are already criminal are being carried out by those who are
consciously and deliberately breaking the law. Those willing to break the law
today would not be deterred by a further layer of regulation, especially when it
does not target them directly. Vicarious liability already places landowners/managers at risk if they do not take steps to prevent offending by those
under their control.

65

 3. The other problems that have been identified in relation to grouse moors are
related to aspects of specific land management practices (muirburn, medicated
grit, etc.) and there are other more precisely targeted and arguably less
burdensome measures to tighten existing controls on these practices which
should be tried first. Many aspects of grouse moor management are already
affected by legislation. Similarly, there could be more robust use of existing
powers (e.g. revocation of general licences under the Wildlife and Countryside
Act 1981) to address local problems.
4. Any increased costs or operational constraints arising from a licensing system
will fall on all operators, including the reputable and conscientious ones, whilst
those individuals willing to break the rules are likely still to escape sanctions in
the absence of an unfeasibly high level of effort in detection and enforcement.
5. To meet legal standards, the imposition of any meaningful sanctions still
requires a substantial evidential basis, so that although there may be no need
to meet the full criminal threshold, there will remain a substantial challenge in
establishing the case for stronger intervention. The introduction of a licensing
system will not solve the problem of detecting and attributing wrong-doing.
6. A workable licensing system could be devised, but there would be difficult
design issues and administrative costs and burdens on the licensing body and
those licensed. It would be a disproportionate imposition in policy terms.
There are other more precisely targeted and less burdensome measures which
should be tried first. Moreover, as a restriction on the freedom of land-owners
to enjoy their property as they wish, any licensing scheme may be subject to
challenge under the Human Rights Act 1998. Like most forms of
environmental regulation, a well-designed scheme should be legally
acceptable, but there is a risk of legal challenge that would be a distraction.
Dealing with these issues would divert time and resources from making a
difference on the ground (c.f. the prolonged litigation over minimum pricing of
alcohol).
7. Licensing for grouse shooting would single it out from many other forms of land
use that can also have substantial environmental impacts (arable farming,
forestry), but are not subject to a regulatory scheme that would not just control
particular operations but could bring the underlying land use to an end.
Similarly, other forms of shooting (e.g. for pheasants and partridges) are not
currently subject to any regulation of the activity as a whole (as opposed to
specific aspects of how it is carried out). Licensing can be seen in two very
different ways: as a useful regulatory device, or, since the starting point is the
outlawing of the activity (unless a specific exception is made), some people
may perceive licensing as identifying grouse shooting as an inherently
unwelcome activity to be tolerated only under strict conditions. For those
people, such a development will not promote a cooperative atmosphere nor the
search for mutually accepted solutions. The industry already feels itself under
attack and even vulnerable to malicious interference as evidenced by damage
to and tampering with snares, traps and cages which are often reported to the
Police. Should a licensing scheme be introduced, the grouse sector fears that
the incentive for malicious interference could well increase.
66

 8. Although there are still some problems, much of the industry is alert to
changing attitudes and conservation needs, and is responding with various
measures already in train, e.g. the increased training for gamekeepers that
highlights legal and conservation responsibilities, and initiatives such as the
East Cairngorms Moorland Partnership.
9. Any increased demands in terms of regulation and implementation costs (e.g.
time devoted to a licence application and record-keeping) would have an
adverse effect on investment and viability, unless the benefits are greater than
the costs. While some estates have wealthy backers, for others grouse
shooting is one of several elements in an integrated management and financial
system, and any additional costs may threaten the enterprise as a whole
unless they bring greater direct benefits.
10. A licensing system that has the ultimate sanction of removing the right to shoot
grouse (even if only in extreme circumstances) makes any investment in a
grouse moor more precarious than in the absence of a licensing requirement
and therefore might make it less likely to happen. The grouse industry is a
major reason for investment in some rural areas, sustaining many jobs and
services in those areas. This investment comes from the private sector with
virtually no state support, whereas alternatives such as forestry and farming
can in most cases attract substantial public funding.
11. Recent decades have seen a decline in the area of land managed as grouse
moors and therefore of the habitat they provide, which is beneficial for some
species other than grouse. Any measure that risks a decline in active
management is likely to affect the state of the land in question and have an
effect on neighbouring land as well (e.g. in relation to predator numbers) and
will be very likely to lead to a further decrease in the area of managed
moorland.
12. It is not clear that there are other land uses available for land currently used as
grouse moor which can provide the same environmental, economic and social
benefits at such low cost to the public purse.
13. With less investment in grouse moors generally and the risk of fewer grouse
moors in total, there would be a significant effect on biodiversity (e.g. nesting
waders). No other upland activity is likely to carry out significant predator
control.

67

 Annex 1: List of published sources
Background, Terms of Reference and Context
Brooker, R., Thomson, S., Matthews, K., Hester, A., Newey, S., Pakeman, R.,
Miller, D., Mell, V., Aalders, I., McMorran, R. & Glass, J. (2018).
Socioeconomic and biodiversity impacts of driven grouse moors in Scotland:
Summary Report. Scottish Government.
Elliot, A., Watt, J., Cooke, I. & Tabor, P. (2014). The land of Scotland and the
common good. Report of the Land Reform Review Group presented to
Scottish Ministers.
Fraser of Allander Institute (2010). An economic study of grouse moors. A report
to the Game & Wildlife Conservation Trust, Scotland.
Higgins, P., MacMillan, D. & Whitman, A. (2002). Sporting estates and recreational
land use in the highlands and islands of Scotland. Economic and Social
Science Research Council, Swindon.
Joint Nature Conservation Committee (2006). Common standards monitoring
guidelines for upland habitats, Peterborough.
Matthews, K., Miller, D., Mell, V. & Aalders, I. (2018). Socio-economic and
biodiversity impacts of driven grouse moors in Scotland: Part 3. Use of
GIS/remote sensing to identify areas of grouse moors, and to assess potential
for alternative land uses. Scottish Government.
McMorran, R. (2009). Red grouse and the Tomintoul and Strathdon communities –
The benefits and impacts of the grouse shooting industry from the rural
community perspective; a case study of Strathdon and Tomintoul communities
in the Cairngorm National Park. The Scottish Countryside Alliance Educational
Trust, Commissioned report.
Mustin, K., Newey, S. & Slee, B. (2017). Towards the construction of a typology of
management models of shooting opportunities in Scotland. Scottish
Geographical Journal, 133(3-4), 214-232.
Scotland’s Moorland Forum (2011). The upland solution project final report.
Scotland’s Moorland Forum, Locherbie.
Thomson, S., McMorran, R. & Glass, J. (2018). Socioeconomic and biodiversity
impacts of driven grouse moors in Scotland: Part 1 Socio-economic impacts of
driven grouse moors in Scotland. Scottish Government.
Tingay, R. & Wightman, A. (2018). A case for reforming Scotland’s driven grouse
moors. Revive coalition.
Wightman, A. & Tingay, R.E. (2015). The intensification of grouse moor
management in Scotland. League Against Cruel Sports.

68

 Options for regulation
Austin, L. (2019) Grouse moor licensing in Scotland: Where next? Report for RSPB
Scotland, Edinburgh.
McCarthy, D. & Morling, P. (2015). Using regulation as a last resort: Assessing the
performance of voluntary approaches. Royal Society for the Protection of
Birds: Sandy, Bedfordshire.
Pillai, A. & Turner, A. (2017). A Review of Game Bird Law and Licensing in
Selected European Countries. Scottish Natural Heritage Commissioned
Report No. 942. Scottish Natural Heritage.
Reid, C.T. (2009). Nature Conservation Law (3rd edn). W Green, Edinburgh.
Scottish Government (2015). Report of Wildlife Crime Penalties (Poustie) Review
Group.
Raptor persecution and predation
Amar, A., Court, I., Davison, M., Downing, S., Grimshaw, T., Pickford, T. & Raw, D.
(2012). Linking life histories, remotely sensed land use data and wildlife crime
records to explore the impact of grouse moor management on Peregrine
Falcon populations. Biological Conservation, 145, 86-94.
Baines, D. & Richardson, M. (2013). Hen Harriers on a Scottish grouse moor:
multiple factors predict breeding density and productivity. Journal of Applied
Ecology, 50, 1397-1405.
Balmer, D.L., Gillings, S., Caffrey, B.J., Swann, B., Downie, I.S. & Fuller, R.J.
(2013). Bird Atlas 2007-11: The Breeding and Wintering Birds of Britain and
Ireland. BTO Books, Thetford.
Banks, A.N., Crick, H.Q.P., Coombes. R., Benn, S, Ratcliffe, D.A. & Humphreys,
E.M. (2010). The breeding status of Peregrine Falcons Falco peregrinus in the
UK and Isle of Man in 2002. Bird Study 57: 421-36.
Barker, A.W., Poxton, I.R. & Heavisides, A. (2017). Where have all the Merlins
gone? A lament for the Lammermuirs. Scottish Birds, 37, 244-50.
Bibby, C. (1986). Merlins in Wales: site occupancy and breeding in relation to
vegetation. Journal of Applied Ecology, 23, 1-12.
Bibby, C.J. & Etheridge, B. (1993). Status of the Hen Harrier Circus cyaneus in
Scotland in 1988-89. Bird Study, 40, 1-11.
Bunnefeld, N., Redpath, S. & Irvine, J. (2015). A review of approaches to adaptive
management. Scottish Natural Heritage Commissioned Report No. 795.
Scottish Natural Heritage.
Etheridge, B. & Summers, R.W. (2006). Movements of British Hen Harriers Circus
cyaneus outside the breeding season. Bird Study, 23, 6-14.
Etheridge, B., Summers, R.W. & Green, R.E. (1997). The effects of illegal killing
and destruction of nests by humans on the population dynamics of the Hen
Harrier Circus cyaneus in Scotland. Journal of Applied Ecology, 34 10811105.
Evans, R.J., O’Toole, L. & Whitfield, D.P. (2012). The history of eagles in Britain
and Ireland: an ecological review of place name and documentary evidence
from the last 1500 years. Bird Study, 59, 335-49.

69

 Ewing, S.R., Rebecca, G.W., Heavisides, A., Court, I.R., Lindley, P. Rudduck, M.,
Cohen, S. & Eaton, M.A. (2011). Breeding status of Merlins Falco columbarius
in the UK in 2008. Bird Study, 58, 379-89.
Fielding, A., Haworth, P., Whitfield, P., McLeod, D. & Riley, H. (2011). A
Conservation Framework for Hen Harriers in the United Kingdom. JNCC
Report 441. Joint Nature Conservation Committee, Peterborough.
Fletcher, K., Aebischer, N., Baines, D., Foster, R. & Hoodless, A. (2010). Changes
in breeding success and abundance of ground nesting moorland birds in
relation to the experimental deployment of legal predator control. Journal of
Applied Ecology, 47, 263-273.
Francksen, R.M., Whittingham, M.J., Ludwig, S.C., Roos, S. & Baines, D. (2017).
Numerical and functional responses of Common Buzzard Buteo buteo on a
Scottish grouse moor. Ibis, 159, 541-553
Francksen, R.M., Whittingham, M.J. & Baines, D. (2016a). Assessing prey
provisioned to Common Buzzard Buteo buteo chicks: a comparison of
methods. Bird Study, 63, 303-10.
Francksen, R.M., Whittingham, M.J., Ludwig, S. & Baines, D. (2016b). Winter diet
of Common Buzzards on a Scottish grouse moor. Bird Study, 63, 525-32.
Hardey, J., Rollie, C.J. & Stirling-Aird, P.K. (2003). Variation in breeding success
of inland Peregrine Falcon (Falco peregrinus) in three regions of Scotland,
1991-2000. In Thompson, D.B.A., Redpath, S.M., Fielding, A.H., Marquiss, M.
& Galbraith, C.A. (eds). Birds of Prey in a Changing Environment. pp. 99-109.
The Stationery Office, Edinburgh.
Hayhow, D.B., Benn, S., Stevenson, A., Stirling-Aird, P.K. & Eaton, M.A. (2017).
Status of Golden Eagle Aquila chrysaetos in Britain in 2015. Bird Study, 64,
281-94.
Hayhow, D.B., Eaton, M.A., Bladwell, S., Etheridge, B., Ewing, S., Ruddock, M.,
Saunders, R., Sharpe, C., Sim, I.M.W. & Stevenson, A. (2013). The status of
the Hen Harrier, Circus cyaneus, in the UK and Isle of Man in 2010. Bird
Study, 60, 446-458.
Hodgson, I.D., Redpath, S.M., Fischer, A. & Young, J. (2018). Fighting talk:
Organisational discourses of the conflict over raptors and grouse moor
management in Scotland. Land Use Policy, 77, 332-343.
Kenward, R. (2006). The Goshawk. T. & A. D. Poyser, London.
Langholm Moor Demonstration Project, Langholm (2014). The Langholm Moor
Demonstration Project: seven year review, Published by Langholm Moor
Demonstration Project Ltd.
Langholm Moor Demonstration Project Board (2019) Managing Moorland for Birds
of Prey and Red Grouse: The Final Report of the Project Langholm Moor
Demonstration Project Partners 2008-2017. ISBN: 978-1-901369-35-9.
Lovegrove, R. (2007). Silent fields: The long decline of a nation’s wildlife. Oxford
University Press, Oxford.
Ludwig, S., Roos, S., Bubb, D. & Baines, D. (2017). Long-term trends in
abundance and breeding success of Red Grouse and Hen Harriers in relation
to changing management of a Scottish grouse moor. Wildlife Biology doi:
10.2981/wlb. 00246.

70

 Ludwig, S. & Baines, D. (2013). Langholm Moor Demonstration Project: year five.
Game & Wildlife Conservation Trust.
Ludwig, S.C., Aebischer, N.J., Bubb, D., Richardson, M., Roos, S., Wilson, J.D. &
Baines, D. (2018). Population responses of red grouse Lagopus scotica to
expansion of heather Calluna vulgaris on a Scottish grouse moor. Avian
conservation and Ecology, 13(2), 14.
Ludwig, S.C., Aebischer, N.J., Bubb, D., Roos, S. & Baines, D. (2018). Survival of
chicks and adults explains variation in population growth in a recovering red
grouse Lagopus lagopus scotica population. Wildlife Biology
doi:10.2981/wlb.00430.
Ludwig, S.C., McCluskie, A., Keane, P., Barlow, C., Francksen, R.M., Bubb, D.,
Roos, S., Aebischer, N.J., & Baines, D. (2018). Diversionary feeding and
nestling diet of Hen Harriers Circus cyaneus. Bird Study, 65, 431-443.
Marquiss, M. (1980). Habitat and diet of male and female Hen Harriers in
Scotland in winter. British Birds, 73, 555-560.
Marquiss, M. (1981). The Goshawk in Britain – its provenance and current status.
in Kenward, R. E. & Lindsay, I. M. (eds.) Understanding the Goshawk. pp. 4357, International Association for Falconry and Conservation of Birds of Prey.
Oxford.
Marquiss, M. & Newton, I. (1982). The Goshawk in Britain. British Birds, 75, 243260.
Marquiss, M., Petty, S.J., Anderson, D.I.K. & Legge, G. (2003). Contrasting
population trends of the Northern Goshawk (Accipiter gentilis) in the Scottish
/English Borders and north-east Scotland. in Thompson, D.B.A., Redpath,
S.M., Fielding, A.H., Marquiss, M. & Galbraith, C.A. (eds.) Birds of Prey in a
changing environment, pp. 143-148. Scottish Natural Heritage/The Stationary
Office, Edinburgh.
Mearns, R. & Newton, I. (1984). Turnover and dispersal in a Peregrine Falco
peregrinus population. Ibis, 126, 347-355.
Melling, T., Thomas, M., Price, M. & Roos, S. (2018). Raptor persecution in the
Peak District National Park. British Birds, 1112, 275-90.
Milner, J.M. & Redpath, S.M. (2013). Building an evidence base for managing
species conflict in Scotland. Scottish Natural Heritage Commissioned Report
No. 611. Scottish Natural Heritage.
Molenaar, F.M., Jaffe, J.E., Carter, I., Barnett, E.A., Shore, R.F., Rowcliffe, J.M. &
Sainsbury, A.W. (2017). Poisoning of reintroduced Red Kites (Milvus milvus)
in England. European Journal of Wildlife Research, 63(6), 94. DOI:
10.1007/s10344-017-1152-z.
Murgatroyd, M., Redpath, S.M., Murphy, S.G., Douglas, D.J.T., Saunders, R. &
Amar, A. (2019). Revealing patterns of wildlife crime using satellite tags: a
case study of hen harriers Circus cyaneus in the UK. Nature Communications,
10, 1094. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-019-09044-w.
Musgrove, A., Aebischer, N., Eaton, M., Hearn, R., Newson, S., Noble, D.,
Parsons, M., Risely, K. & Stroud, D. (2013). Population estimates of birds in
Great Britain and the United Kingdom. British Birds, 106, 64-100.
Newton, I. (1979). Population Ecology of Raptors. T. & A. D. Poyser,
Berkhamsted.
71

 Newton, I. (1998). Population limitation in birds. Academic Press, London:
Newton, I., Meek, E. & Little, B. (1986). Population and breeding of Northumbrian
Merlins. British Birds, 79, 155-170.
Ratcliffe, D.A. (1993). The Peregrine. T. & A. D. Poyser, Calton.
Redpath, S.M. & Thirgood, S.J. (1997). Birds of prey and Red Grouse. Stationery
Office, London.
Redpath, S.M & Thirgood, S.J. (1999). Numerical and functional responses in
generalist predators: Hen Harriers and Peregrines on Scottish grouse moors.
Journal of Animal Ecology, 68, 879-892.
Redpath, S.M., Thirgood, S.J. & Leckie, F.M. (2001). Does supplementary feeding
reduce predation of Red Grouse by Hen Harriers? Journal of Applied Ecology,
38, 1157-68.
Redpath, S.M., Thirgood, S.J., Rothery, P. & Aebischer, N.J. (2000). Raptor
predation and population limitation in Red Grouse. Journal of Animal Ecology,
69, 504-516.
Redpath, S., Amar, A., Madders, M., Leckie, F. & Thirgood, S. (2002). Hen harrier
foraging success in relation to land use in Scotland. Animal Conservation, 5,
113-118.
Roos, S., Dobson, A., Noble, D., Haworth, P., Fielding, A., Carrington-Cotton, A.,
Etheridge, B. & Wernham, C. (2015). Raptors in Scotland – a methodology for
developing trends and indicators. Scottish Natural Heritage Commissioned
Report No. 542. Scottish Natural Heritage.
The Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (2018). The illegal killing of birds of
prey in Scotland 2015- 2017. Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, Sandy.
The Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (2017) Birdcrime report, Royal
Society for the Protection of Birds, Sandy.
The Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (2018) Birdcrime report, Royal
Society for the Protection of Birds, Sandy.
Sansom, A., Etheridge, B., Smart, J. & Roos, S. (2016). Population modelling of
North Scotland Red Kites in relation to the cumulative impacts of wildlife crime
and wind farm mortality. Scottish Natural Heritage Commissioned Report No.
904. Scottish Natural Heritage.
Scotland’s Moorland Forum (2016) Understanding predation, summary report,
Scotland’s Moorland Forum, http://www.moorlandforum.org.uk/.
Sim, I.M.W., Gibbons, D.W., Bainbridge, I.P. & Mattingley, W.A. (2001). Status of
the Hen Harrier Circus Cyaneus in the UK and the Isle of Man in 1998. Bird
Study, 48, 341-53.
Sim, I.M.W., Dillon, I.A., Eaton, M.A., Etheridge, B., Lindley, P., Riley, H.,
Saunders, R., Sharpe, C. & Tickner, M. (2007). Status of the Hen Harrier
Circus cyaneus in the UK and Isle of Man in 2004, and a comparison with the
1988/89 and 1998 surveys. Bird Study, 54, 256-267.
Smart, J., Amar, A., Sim, I.M.W., Etheridge, B., Cameron, D., Christie, G. & Wilson,
J.D. (2010). Illegal killing slows population recovery of a re-introduced raptor
of high conservation concern – The Red Kite Milvus milvus. Biology
Conservation, 143, 1278-1286.

72

 Smith, G.D., Murillo-Garcia, O.E., Hostetler, J.A., Mearns, R., Newton, I., McGrady,
M.J. & Oli, M.K. (2015). Demography of population recovery: survival and
fidelity of Peregrine Falcons at various stages of population recovery.
Oecologia, 178, 391-401.
Thompson, D.B.A., Roos, S., Bubb, D. & Ludwig, S.C. (2016) Hen Harrier. In
Gaywood, M.J., Boon, P.J., Thompson D.B.A., Strachan, I.M. (eds), pp. 355365. The Species Action Framework Handbook. Scottish Natural Heritage,
Battleby, Perth.
Thirgood, S.J. & Redpath, S M. (2008). Hen harriers and red grouse: science,
politics and human wildlife conflict. Journal of Applied Ecology, 45, 1550-54.
Warren, P. & Baines, D. (2012). Changes in upland bird numbers and distribution
in the Berwyn Special Protection Area, North Wales between 1983 and 2012.
Game & Wildlife Conservation Trust.
Watson, D. (1977). The Hen Harrier. T. & A.D. Poyser, London.
Watson, J. (2010). The Golden Eagle (second edition). T. & A.D. Poyser, London.
Whitehead, S., Hesford, N. & Baines, D. (2018). Changes in the abundance of
some ground-nesting birds on moorland in South West Scotland. Game &
Wildlife Conservation Trust.
Whitfield, D.P., Fielding, A.H., McLeod, D.R.A. & Haworth, P.F. (2003). The
association of grouse moor in Scotland with the illegal use of poisons to control
predators. Biological Conservation, 114, 157-163.
Whitfield, D.P., Fielding, A.H., McLeod, D.R.A. & Haworth, P.F. (2004). The effects
of persecution on age of breeding and territory occupation in Golden Eagles in
Scotland. Biological Conservation, 118, 249-259.
Whitfield, D.P., Fielding, A.H., McLeod, D.R.A. & Haworth, P.F. (2004b). Modelling
the effects of persecution on the population dynamics of Golden Eagles in
Scotland. Biological Conservation, 119, 319-333.
Whitfield, D.P., Fielding, A.H., McLeod, D.R.A., Morton, K., Stirling-Aird, P. &
Eaton, M.A. (2007). Factors constraining the distribution of Golden Eagles
Aquila chrysaetos in Scotland. Bird Study, 54, 199-211.
Whitfield, D.P. & Fielding, A.H. (2017). Analyses of the fates of satellite-tracked
Golden Eagles in Scotland. Scottish Natural Heritage Commissioned Report
No. 982. Scottish Natural Heritage.
Wilson, M.M., Balmer, D.E., Jones, K. et al. (2018). The breeding population of
Peregrine Falcon Falco peregrinus in the United Kingdom, Isle of Man and
Channel Islands in 2014. Bird Study 65: 1-19.
Muirburn
Albertson, K., Aylen, J., Cavan, G. & McMorrow, J. (2009). Forecasting the
outbreak of moorland wildfires in the English Peak District. Journal of
Environmental Management, 90, 2642-2651.
Albertson, K., Aylen, J., Cavan, G. & McMorrow, J. (2010). Climate change and
the future occurrence of moorland wildfires in the Peak District of the UK.
Climate Research, 45, 105-118.
Alday, J.G., Santana, V.M., Lee, H., Allen, K. & Marrs, R.H. (2015). Above-ground
biomass accumulation patterns in moorlands after prescribed burning and low-

73

 intensity grazing. Perspectives in Plant Ecology Evolution and Systematics, 17,
388-396.
Allen, K.A., Denelle, P., Ruiz, F.M.S., Santana, V.M. & Marrs, R.H. (2016).
Prescribed moorland burning meets good practice guidelines: A monitoring
case study using aerial photography in the Peak District, UK. Ecological
Indicators, 62, 76-85.
Allen, K.A., Harris, M.P.K. & Marrs, R.H. (2013). Matrix modelling of prescribed
burning in Calluna vulgaris-dominated moorland: short burning rotations
minimize carbon loss at increased wildfire frequencies. Journal of Applied
Ecology, 50, 614-624.
Ashby, M.A. & Heinemeyer, A. (2019). Prescribed burning impacts on ecosystem
services in the British Uplands: A methodological critique of the EMBER
project. Journal of Applied Ecology. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2664.13476
Barker, C.G., Power, S.A., Bell, J.N.B. & Orme, C.D.L. (2004). Effects of habitat
management on heathland response to atmospheric nitrogen deposition.
Biological Conservation, 120, 41-52.
Brooker, R., Hester, A.J., Newey, S. & Pakeman, R. (2018). Socio-economic and
biodiversity impacts of driven grouse moors in Scotland: Part 2. Biodiversity
impacts of driven grouse moors in Scotland. Scottish Government.
Brown, L.E., Holden, J. & Palmer, S.M. (2014). Effects of moorland burning on the
ecohydrology of river basins. Key findings from the EMBER project, University
of Leeds.
Brown, L.E., Holden, J. & Palmer, S.M. (2016). Moorland vegetation burning
debates should avoid contextomy and anachronism: a comment on Davies et
al., Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B-Biological Sciences,
371, 20160432.
Brown, L.E., Holden, J., Palmer, S.M., Johnston, K., Ramchunder, S.J. & Grayson,
R. (2015). Effects of fire on the hydrology, biogeochemistry, and ecology of
peatland river systems. Freshwater Science, 34, 1406-1425.
Brown, L.E., Johnston K., Palmer, S.M., Aspray, K.L. & Holden, J. (2013). River
Ecosystem Response to Prescribed Vegetation Burning on Blanket peatland.
PLoS ONE, 8(11).
Brown, L.E., Palmer, S.M., Johnstone, K. & Holden, J. (2015). Vegetation
management with fire modifies peatland soil thermal regime. Journal of
Environmental Management, 154, 166-176.
Brown, L.E. & Holden, J. (2019). Contextualising UK moorland burning studies:
geographical versus potential sponsorship-bias effects on research
conclusions. bioRxiv, http://dx.doi.org/10.1101/731117.
Buchanan, G.M., Grant, M.C., Sanderson, R.A. & Pearce-Higgins, J.W. (2006).
The contribution of invertebrate taxa to moorland bird diets and the potential
implications of land-use management. Ibis, 148, 615-628.
Buchanan, G.M., Pearce-Higgins, J.W., Douglas, D.J.T. & Grant, M.C. (2017).
Quantifying the importance of multi-scale management and environmental
variables on moorland bird abundance. Ibis, 159, 744-756.
Bullock, J.M. & Webb, N.R. (1995). Responses to severe fires in heathland
mosaics in southern England. Biological Conservation, 73, 207-214.

74

 Burch, J. (2008). The relationship of bryophyte regeneration to heather canopy
height following moorland burning on the North York Moors. Journal of
Bryology, 30, 208-216.
Calladine, J., Critchley, C.N.R., Baker, D., Towers, J. & Thiel, A. (2014).
Conservation management of moorland: a case study of the effectiveness of a
combined suite of management prescriptions which aim to enhance breeding
bird populations. Bird Study, 61, 56-72.
Cawson, J.G., Sheridan, G.J., Smith, H.G. & Lane, P.N. (2012). Surface runoff
and erosion after prescribed burning and the effect of different fire regimes in
forests and shrublands: a review. International Journal of Wildland Fire, 21,
857-872.
Chambers, F., Crowle, A., Daniell, J., Mauquoy, D., McCarroll, J., Sanderson, N.,
Thom, T., Toms, P. & Webb, J. (2017). Ascertaining the nature and timing of
mire degradation: using palaeoecology to assist future conservation
management in Northern England. Aims Environmental Science, 4, 54-82.
Chapman, D.S., Termansen, M., Quinn, C.H., Jin, N., Bonn, A., Cornell, S.J.,
Fraser, E.D.G., Hubacek, K., Kunin, W. & Reed, M.S. (2009). Modelling the
coupled dynamics of moorland management and upland vegetation. Journal of
Applied Ecology, 46, 278-288.
Chapman, S., Hester, A., Irvine, J. & Pakeman, R. (2017). Muirburn, Peatland and
Peat Soils – An Evidence Assessment of Impact. James Hutton Institute,
Aberdeen.
Clay, G.D. & Worrall, F. (2011). Charcoal production in a UK moorland wildfire –
How important is it? Journal of Environmental Management, 92, 676-682.
Clay, G.D., Worrall, F. & Aebischer, N.J. (2012). Does prescribed burning on peat
soils influence DOC concentrations in soil and runoff waters? Results from a
10 year chronosequence. Journal of Hydrology, 448, 139-148.
Clay, G.D., Worrall, F. & Aebischer, N.J. (2015). Carbon stocks and carbon fluxes
from a 10-year prescribed burning chronosequence on a UK blanket peat. Soil
Use and Management, 31, 39-51.
Clay, G.D., Worral, F., Clark, E. & Fraser, E.D.G. (2009). Hydrological responses
to managed burning and grazing in an upland blanket bog. Journal of
Hydrology, 376(3-4), 486-495.
Clay, G.D., Worrall, F. & Fraser, E.D.G. (2009). Effects of managed burning upon
dissolved organic carbon (DOC) in soil water and runoff water following a
managed burn of a UK blanket bog. Journal of Hydrology, 367, 41-51.
Clay, G.D., Worrall, F. & Fraser, E.D.G. (2010). Compositional changes in soil
water and runoff water following managed burning on a UK upland blanket
bog. Journal of Hydrology, 380, 135-145.
Clay, G.D., Worrall, F. & Rose, R. (2010). Carbon budgets of an upland blanket
bog managed by prescribed fire. Journal of Geophysical ResearchBiogeosciences, 115, 04037.
Clutterbuck, B. & Yallop, A.R. (2010). Land management as a factor controlling
dissolved organic carbon release from upland peat soils: 2 Changes in DOC
productivity over four decades. Science of the Total Environment, 408, 61796191.

75

 Davies, G.M., Domènech, R., Gray, A. & Johnson, P.C.D. (2016). Vegetation
structure and fire weather influence variation in burn severity and fuel
consumption during peatland wildfires. Biogeosciences, 13, 389-398.
Davies, G.M., Gray, A., Rein, G. & Legg, C.J. (2013). Peat consumption and
carbon loss due to smouldering wildfire in a temperate peatland. Forest
Ecology and Management, 308, 169-177.
Davies, G.M., Kettridge, N., Stoof, C.R., Gray, A., Ascoli, D., Fernandes, P.M.,
Marrs, R., Allen, K.A., Doerr, S.H., Clay, G.D., McMorrow, J. & Vandvik, V.
(2016). The role of fire in UK peatland and moorland management: the need
for informed, unbiased debate. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal
Society B-Biological Sciences, 371, 1696.
Davies, G.M., Kettridge, N., Stoof, C.R., Gray, A., Marrs, R., Ascoli, D., Fernandes,
P.M., Allen, K.A., Doerr, S.H., Clay, G.D., McMorrow, J. & Vandvik, V. (2016).
Informed debate on the use of fire for peatland management means
acknowledging the complexity of socio-ecological systems. Nature
Conservation-Bulgaria, 16, 59-77.
Davies, G.M., Kettridge, N., Stoof, C.R., Gray, A., Marrs, R., Ascoli, D., Fernandes,
P.M., Allen, K.A., Doerr, S.H., Clay, G.D., McMorrow, J. & Vandvik, V. (2016).
The peatland vegetation burning debate: keep scientific critique in perspective.
A response to Brown et al. and Douglas et al. Philosophical Transactions of
the Royal Society B-Biological Sciences, 371, 20160434.
Davies, G.M. & Legg, C.J. (2008). The effect of traditional management burning
on lichen diversity. Applied Vegetation Science, 11, 529-538.
Davies, G.M. & Legg, C.J. (2011). Fuel Moisture Thresholds in the Flammability of
Calluna vulgaris. Fire Technology, 47, 421-436.
Davies, G.M. & Legg, C.J. (2016). Regional variation in fire weather controls the
reported occurrence of Scottish wildfires. Peerj, 4, e2649.
Davies, G.M., Legg, C.L., O’Hara, R., MacDonald, A.J. & Smith, A.A. (2010).
Winter desiccation and rapid changes in the live fuel moisture content of
Calluna vulgaris. Plant Ecology & Diversity, 3, 289-299.
Davies, G.M., Legg, C.J., Smith, A.A. & MacDonald, A.J. (2009). Rate of spread of
fires in Calluna vulgaris-dominated moorlands. Journal of Applied Ecology, 46,
1054-1063.
Davies, G.M., Smith, A.A., MacDonald, A.J., Bakker, J.D. & Legg, C.J. (2010). Fire
intensity, fire severity and ecosystem response in heathlands: factors affecting
the regeneration of Calluna vulgaris. Journal of Applied Ecology, 47, 356-365.
Dick, J., Andrews, C., Beaumont, D.A., Benham, S., Dodd, N., Pallett, D., Rose, R.,
Scott, T., Smith, R., Schäfer, S.M., Turner, A. & Watson, H. (2016). Analysis of
temporal change in delivery of ecosystem services over 20 years at long term
monitoring sites of the UK Environmental Change Network. Ecological
Indicators, 68, 115-125.
Douglas, D.J.T., Beresford, A., Selvidge, J., Garnett, S., Buchanan, G.M., Gullett,
P. & Grant, M.C. (2017). Changes in upland bird abundances show
associations with moorland management. Bird Study, 64, 242-254.
Douglas, D.J.T., Buchanan, G.M., Thompson, P., Amar, A., Fielding, D.A.,
Redpath, S.M., Wilson, J.D. (2015). Vegetation burning for game management

76

 in the UK uplands is increasing and overlaps spatially with soil carbon and
protected areas. Biological Conservation, 191, 243-250.
Douglas, D.J.T., Buchanan, G., Thompson, P. & Wilson, J. (2016). The role of fire
in UK upland management: the need for informed challenge to conventional
wisdoms: a comment on Davies et al. (2016). Philosophical Transactions of
the Royal Society B-Biological Sciences, 371, 20160433.
Ellis, C.J. (2008). Interactions between hydrology, burning and contrasting plant
groups during the millennial-scale development of sub-montane wet heath.
Journal of Vegetation Science, 19, 693-U657.
Ermgassen, S.O., McKenna, T., Gordon, J. & Willcock, S. (2018). Ecosystem
service responses to rewilding: first-order estimates from 27 years of rewilding
in the Scottish Highlands. International Journal of Biodiversity Science,
Ecosystem Services & Management, 14, 165-178.
Eyre, M.D., Luff, M.L. & Woodward, J.C. (2003). Grouse moor management:
habitat and conservation implications for invertebrates in southern Scotland.
Journal of Insect Conservation, 7, 21-32.
Farage, P., Ball, A.S., McGenity, T.J., Whitby, C. & Pretty, J.N. (2009). Burning
management and carbon sequestration of upland heather moorland in the UK.
Australian Journal of Soil Research, 47, 351-361.
Fyfe, R.M., Ombashi, H., Davies, H.J., Head, K. (2018). Quantified moorland
vegetation and assessment of the role of burning over the past five millennia.
Journal of Vegetation Science, 29, 393-403.
Gao, J., Holden, J. & Kirkby, M. (2016). The impact of land-cover change on flood
peaks in peatland basins. Water Resources Research, 52, 3477-3492.
Garnett, M.H., Ineson, P. & Stevenson, A.C. (2000). Effects of burning and grazing
on carbon sequestration in a Pennine blanket bog, UK. Holocene, 10, 729736.
Gazzard, R., McMorrow, J. & Aylen, J. (2016). Wildfire policy and management in
England: an evolving response from Fire and Rescue Services, forestry and
cross-sector groups. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society BBiological Sciences, 371.
Gimingham, C.H. (1972). Ecology of Heathlands. Chapman and Hall, London.
Glaves, D., Morecroft, M., Fitzgibbon, C., Owen, M., Phillips, S. & Leppitt, P.
(2013). Natural England Review of Upland Evidence 2012 – The effects of
managed burning on upland peatland biodiversity, carbon and water. Natural
England Evidence Review 004. Natural England.
Grant, M.C., Mallord, J., Stephen, L. & Thompson, P.S. (2012). The costs and
benefits of grouse moor management to biodiversity and aspects of the wider
environment. RSPB Research Report Number 43. RSPB, Sandy,
Bedfordshire.
Grant, S.A. (1968) Heather regeneration following burning: a survey. Grass and
Forage Science, 23, 26-32.
Grau-Andres, R., Davies, G.M., Gray, A., Scott, E.M. & Waldron, S. (2018). Fire
severity is more sensitive to low fuel moisture content on Calluna heathlands
than on peat bogs. Science of the Total Environment, 616, 1261-1269.

77

 Grau-Andres, R., Gray, A. & Davies, M. (2017). Sphagnum abundance and
photosynthetic activity show rapid short-term recovery following managed
burning. Plant Ecology and Diversity, 10, 353-359.
Grayson, R., Holden, J. & Rose, R. (2010). Long-term change in storm
hydrographs in response to peatland vegetation change. Journal of Hydrology,
389, 336-343.
Hancock, M., Egan, S., Summers, R., Cowie, N., Amphlett, A., Rao, S. & Hamilton,
A. (2005). The effect of experimental prescribed fire on the establishment of
Scots pine Pinus sylvestris seedlings on heather Calluna vulgaris moorland.
Forest Ecology and Management, 212, 199-213.
Hancock, M.H., Amphlett, A., Proctor, R., Dugan, D., Willi, J., Harvey, P. &
Summers, R.W. (2011). Burning and mowing as habitat management for
capercaillie Tetrao urogallus: An experimental test. Forest Ecology and
Management, 262, 509-521.
Harper, A.R., Doerr, S.H., Santin, C., Froyd, C.A. & Sinnadurai, P. (2018).
Prescribed fire and its impacts on ecosystem services in the UK. Science of
the Total Environment, 624, 691-703.
Hawthorne, D. & Mitchell, F.J.G. (2018). Investigating patterns of wildfire in Ireland
and their correlation with regional and global trends in fire history. Quaternary
International, 488, 58-66.
Hester, A.J. & Sydes, C. (1992). Changes in burning of Scottish heather moorland
since the 1940s from aerial photographs. Biological Conservation, 60, 25-30.
Hobbs, R.J. & Gimingham, C.H. (1987). Vegetation, fire and herbivore interactions
in heathland. Advances in Ecological Research, 16, 87-173.
Holden, J., Palmer, S.M., Johnston, K., Wearing, C., Irvine, B. & Brown, L.E.
(2015). Impact of prescribed burning on blanket peat hydrology. Water
Resources Research, 51, 6472-6484.
Holden, J., Wearingm C., Palmer, S., Jackson, B., Johnston, K. & Brown, L.E.
(2014). Fire decreases near-surface hydraulic conductivity and macropore
flow in blanket peat. Hydrological Processes, 28, 2868-2876.
Jáuregui, B.M., Celaya, R., Garcia, U. & Osoro, K. (2007). Vegetation dynamics in
burnt heather-gorse shrublands under different grazing management with
sheep and goats. Agroforestry Systems, 70(1), 103-111.
Kelly, R., Boston, E., Montgomery, W.I. & Reid, N. (2016). The role of the seed
bank in recovery of temperate heath and blanket bog following wildfires.
Applied Vegetation Science, 19, 620-633.
Kelly, R., Montgomery, W.I. & Reid, N. (2018). Differences in soil chemistry remain
following wildfires on temperate heath and blanket bog sites of conservation
concern. Geoderma, 315, 20-26.
Kettridge, N., Turetsky, M.R., Sherwood, J.H., Thompson, D.K., Miller, C.A.,
Benscoter, B.W., Flannigan, M.D., Wotton, B.M. & Waddington, J.M. (2015).
Moderate drop in water table increases peatland vulnerability to post-fire
regime shift. Scientific Reports, 5, 8063.
Kinako, P.D.S. & Gimingham, C.H. (1980). Heather burning and soil-erosion on
upland heaths in Scotland. Journal of Environmental Management, 10, 277284.

78

 Kirkpatrick, J.B., Marsden‐Smedley, J.B. & Leonard, S.W.J. (2011). Influence of
grazing and vegetation type on post‐fire flammability. Journal of Applied
Ecology, 48, 642-649.
Krivtsov, V. & Legg, C. (2011). Modelling Soil Moisture Deficit and Moisture
Content of Ground Vegetation: Progress Towards Development of a Fire
Weather Index System Appropriate to the UK. Fire Technology, 47, 539-548.
Lee, H., Alday, J.G., Rose, R.J., O’Reilly, J. & Marrs, R. (2013). Long-term effects
of rotational prescribed burning and low-intensity sheep grazing on blanket-bog
plant communities. Journal of Applied Ecology, 50, 625-635.
Lee, H., Alday, J.G., Rosenburgh, A., Harris, M., Mcallister, H. & Marrs, R.H.
(2013). Change in propagule banks during prescribed burning: A tale of two
contrasting moorlands. Biological Conservation, 165, 187-197.
Legg C.J., Bruce M. & Davies G.M. (2006). Country Report for the United
Kingdom. International Forest Fire News, 34. http://gfmc.online/wpcontent/uploads/IFFN-34-1.pdf.
Legg, C.J., Maltby, E. & Proctor, M.C.F. (1992). The ecology of severe moorland
fire on the North York Moors – seed distribution and seedling establishment of
Calluna-vulgaris. Journal of Ecology, 80, 737-752.
Lukenbach, M.C., Devito, K.J., Kettridge, N., Petrone, R.M. & Waddington, J.M.
(2016). Burn severity alters peatland moss water availability: implications for
post-fire recovery. Ecohydrology, 9, 341-353.
Luxmoore, R. (2016). The relationship between prescribed burning and wildfires.
An analysis of wildfire occurrence in the Scottish uplands. National Trust for
Scotland, Edinburgh.
Macdonald, A.J., Kirkpatrick, A.H., Hester, A.J. & Sydes, C. (1995). Regeneration
by natural layering of heather (Calluna-vulgaris) – frequency and
characteristics in upland Britain. Journal of Applied Ecology, 32, 85-99.
Mackay, A.W. & Tallis, J.H. (1996). Summit-type blanket mire erosion in the forest
of Bowland, Lancashire, UK: Predisposing factors and implications for
conservation. Biological Conservation, 76, 31-44.
Marrs, R.H., Phillips, J.D.P., Todd, P.A., Ghorbani, J. & Le Duc, M.G. (2004).
Control of Molinia caerulea on upland moors. Journal of Applied Ecology, 41,
398-411.
Marrs, R.H., Marsland, E.L., Lingard, R., Appleby, P.G., Piliposyan, G.T., Rose,
R.J., O’Reilly, J., Milligan, G., Allen, K.A., Alday, J.G., Santana, V., Lee, H.,
Halsall, K. & Chiverrell, R.C. (2019). Experimental evidence for sustained
carbon sequestration in fire-managed, peat moorlands. Nature Geoscience,
12, 108-112.
McCarroll, J., Chambers, F.M., Webb, J.C. & Thom, T. (2016). Informing
innovative peatland conservation in light of palaeoecological evidence for the
demise of Sphagnum imbricatum: the case of Oxenhope Moor, Yorkshire, UK.
Mires and Peat, 18.
McFerran, D.M., McAdam, J.H. & Montgomery, W.I. (1995). The impact of burning
and grazing of heathland plants and invertebrates in county Antrim. Biology
and Environment-Proceedings of the Royal Irish Academy, 95B, 1-17.
Miller, G.R. (1980). The burning of heather moorland for red grouse. Bulletin
d’Ecologie, 11, 725-733.
79

 Milligan, G., Rose, R.J., O’Reilly, J. & Marrs, R. (2018). Effects of rotational
prescribed burning and sheep grazing on moorland plant communities: Results
from a 60-year intervention experiment. Land Degradation & Development, 29,
1397-1412.
Muirburn Code (2017) and all supplements. Scottish Natural Heritage.
https://www.nature.scot/professional-advice/land-and-seamanagement/managing-land/upland-and-moorland/muirburn-code.
Mustin, K., Arroyo, B., Beja, P., Newey, S., Irvine, R.J., Kestler, J. & Redpath, S.M.
(2018). Consequences of game bird management for non-game species in
Europe. Journal of Applied Ecology, 55, 2285-2295.
Newey, S., Mustin, K., Bryce, R., Fielding, D., Redpath, S., Bunnefeld, N., Daniel,
B. & Irvine, R.J. (2016). Impact of management on avian communities in the
Scottish Highlands. PLoS ONE, 11(5).
Nilsen, L.S., Johansen, L. & Velle, L.G. (2005). Early stages of Calluna vulgaris
regeneration after burning of coastal heath in central Norway. Applied
Vegetation Science, 8, 57-64.
Noble, A., Crowle, A., Glaves, D.J., Palmer, S.M. & Holden, J. (2019). Fire
temperatures and Sphagnum damage during prescribed burning on peatlands.
Ecological Indicators, 103, 471-478.
Noble, A., O’Reilly, J., Glaves, D.J., Crowle, A., Palmer, S.M. & Holden, J. (2018).
Impacts of prescribed burning on Sphagnum mosses in a long-term peatland
field experiment. PLoS ONE, 13, e0206320.
Noble, A., Palmer, S.M., Glaves, D.J., Crowle, A. & Holden, J. (2017). Impacts of
peat bulk density, ash deposition and rainwater chemistry on establishment of
peatland mosses. Plant and Soil, 419 (1-2), 41-52.
Noble, A., Palmer, S.M., Glaves, D.J., Crowle, A., Brown, L.E & Holden, J. (2017).
Prescribed burning, atmospheric pollution and grazing effects on peatland
vegetation composition. Journal of Applied Ecology, 55, 559-569.
Noble A., Palmer, S.M., Glaves, D.J., Crowle, A. & Holden, J. (2019). Peatland
vegetation change and establishment of re-introduced Sphagnum moss after
prescribed burning. Biodiversity and Conservation, 28, 939-952.
Palmer, S.C.F. & Bacon, P.J. (2001). The utilization of heather moorland by
territorial Red Grouse Lagopus lagopus scoticus. Ibis, 143, 222-232.
Pearce-Higgins, J.W. & Grant, M.C. (2006). Relationships between bird
abundance and the composition and structure of moorland vegetation. Bird
Study, 53, 112-125.
Pilkington, M.G., Caporn, S.J.M., Carroll, J.A., Cresswell, N., Phoenix, G.K., Lee,
J.A., Emmett, B.A. & Sparks, T. (2007). Impacts of burning and increased
nitrogen deposition on nitrogen pools and leaching in an upland moor. Journal
of Ecology, 95, 1195-1207.
Ramchunder, S.J., Brown, L.E. & Holden, J. (2013). Rotational vegetation burning
effects on peatland stream ecosystems. Journal of Applied Ecology, 50, 636648.
Robertson, G.S., Newborn, D., Richardson, M. & Baines, D. (2017). Does
rotational heather burning increase red grouse abundance and breeding
success on moors in northern England? Wildlife Biology.

80

 Rosenburgh, A., Alday, J.G., Harris, M.P.K., Allen, K.A., Connor, L., Blackbird,
S.J., Eyre, G. & Marrs, R.H. (2013). Changes in peat chemical properties
during post-fire succession on blanket bog moorland. Geoderma, 211, 98-106.
Ross, S., Adamson, H. & Moon, A. (2003). Evaluating management techniques for
controlling Molinia caerulea and enhancing Calluna vulgaris on upland wet
heathland in Northern England, UK. Agriculture Ecosystems & Environment,
97, 39-49.
Santana, V.M., Alday, J.G., Lee, H., Allen, K.A. & Marrs, R.H. (2016). Modelling
Carbon Emissions in Calluna vulgaris-Dominated Ecosystems when
Prescribed Burning and Wildfires Interact. PLoS ONE, 11(11), e0167137.
Santana, V.M. & Marrs, R.H. (2014). Flammability properties of British heathland
and moorland vegetation: Models for predicting fire ignition. Journal of
Environmental Management, 139, 88-96.
Santana, V.M. & Marrs, R.H. (2016). Models for predicting fire ignition probability
in graminoids from boreo-temperate moorland ecosystems. International
Journal of Wildland Fire, 25, 679-684.
Smith, A.A., Redpath, S.M., Campbell, S.T. & Thirgood, S.J. (2001). Meadow
pipits, red grouse and the habitat characteristics of managed grouse moors.
Journal of Applied Ecology, 38, 390-400.
Scottish Natural Heritage. (1996). Cutting of heather as an alternative to muirburn.
Scottish Natural Heritage Information Advisory Note No. 58. Scottish Natural
Heritage.
Sotherton, N., Baines, D. & Aebischer, N.J. (2017). An alternative view of
moorland management for red grouse Lagopus lagopus scotica. Ibis, 159,
693-698.
Sozanska-Stanton, M., Carey, P.D., Griffiths, G.H., Vogiatzakis, I.N., Treweek, J.,
Butcher, B., Charlton, M.B., Keenleyside, C., Arnell, N.W., Tucker, G. & Smith,
P. (2016). Balancing conservation and climate change – a methodology using
existing data demonstrated for twelve UK priority habitats. Journal for Nature
Conservation, 30, 76-89.
Stevenson, A.C. & Rhodes, A.N. (2000). Palaeoenvironmental evaluation of the
importance of fire as a cause for Calluna loss in the British Isles.
Palaeogeography Palaeoclimatology Palaeoecology, 164, 195-206.
Stewart, G.B., Coles, C.F., Pullin, A.S. (2004). Does burning of UK sub-montane,
dry dwarf-shrub heath maintain vegetation diversity? Systematic Review.
Collaboration for Environmental Evidence (CEE) Evidence Syntheses.
Taylor, E.S., Levy, P.E. & Gray, A. (2017). The recovery of Sphagnum capillifolium
following exposure to temperatures of simulated moorland fires: a glasshouse
experiment. Plant Ecology & Diversity, 10, 77-88.
Tharme, A.P., Green, R.E., Baines, D., Bainbridge, I.P. & O’Brien, M. (2001). The
effect of management for red grouse shooting on the population density of
breeding birds on heather-dominated moorland. Journal of Applied Ecology,
38, 439-457.
Thomas, P.A., Proctor, M.C.F. & Maltby, E. (1994). The ecology of severe
moorland fire on the North York Moors – chemical and physical constraints on
moss establishment from spores. Journal of Ecology, 82, 457-474.

81

 Thompson, D.B.A., MacDonald, A.J., Marsden, J.H. & Galbraith, C.A. (1995).
Upland heather moorland in Great Britain: A review of international importance,
vegetation change and some objectives for nature conservation. Biological
Conservation, 71, 163-178.
Thompson, P., Douglas, D.J., Hoccom, D.G., Knott, J., Roos, S. & Wilson, J.D.
(2016). Environmental impacts of high-output driven shooting of Red Grouse
Lagopus lagopus scoticus. Ibis, 158. 446-452.
Towers, W., Hester, A., Chapman, S., Pakeman, R., Littlewood, N. & Artz, R.
(2010). Review of muirburn impacts on soil carbon and biodiversity. Review
for WANE. Aberdeen, Macaulay Land Use Research Institute, Aberdeen.
Turner, T.E. & Swindles, G.T. (2012). Ecology of Testate Amoebae in Moorland
with a Complex Fire History: Implications for Ecosystem Monitoring and
Sustainable Land Management. Protist, 163, 844-855.
Usher, M.B. (1992). Management and diversity of arthropods in Calluna
heathland. Biodiversity and Conservation, 1, 63-79.
Usher, M.B. & Thompson, D.B.A. (1993). Variation in the upland heathlands of
Great Britain: conservation importance. Biological Conservation, 66, 69-81.
Van Der Wal, R., Bonn, A., Monteith, D., Reed, M., Blackstock, K., Hanley, N.,
Thompson, D., Evans. M. & Alonso, I. (2011). UK National Ecosystem
Assessment: Technical Report Broad Habitats. Chapter 5: Mountains,
Moorlands and Heaths. In: The UK National Ecosystem Assessment:
Synthesis of the Key Findings. UNEP-WCMC, Cambridge.
Vandvik, V., Töpper, J., Cook., Z., Daws, M.I., Heegaard, E., Måren, I.E. & Velle,
L.G. (2014). Management-driven evolution in a domesticated ecosystem.
Biology Letters, 10 (2). https://doi.org/10.1098/rsbl.2013.1082.
Vane, C.H., Rawlins, B., Kim, A.W., Moss-Hayes, V., Kendrick, C.P. & Leng, M.J.
(2013). Sedimentary transport and fate of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons
(PAH) from managed burning of moorland vegetation on a blanket peat, South
Yorkshire, UK. Science of the Total Environment, 449, 81-94.
Vanhinsbergh, D.P. & Chamberlain, D.E. (2001). Habitat associations of breeding
Meadow Pipits Anthus pratensis in the British uplands. Bird Study, 48, 159172.
Velle, L.G., Nilsen, L.S., Norderhaug, A. & Vandvik, V. (2014). Does prescribed
burning result in biotic homogenization of coastal heathlands? Global Change
Biology, 20, 1429-1440.
Ward, S.E., Bardgett, R.D., McNamara, N.P., Adamson, J.K. & Ostle, N.J. (2007).
Long-term consequences of grazing and burning on northern peatland carbon
dynamics. Ecosystems, 10, 1069-1083.
Ward, S.E., Ostle, N.J., Oakley, S., Quirk, H., Scott, A., Henrys, P.A., Scott, W.A. &
Bardgett, R.D. (2012). Fire Accelerates Assimilation and Transfer of
Photosynthetic Carbon from Plants to Soil Microbes in a Northern Peatland.
Ecosystems, 15, 1245-1257.
Welch, D. (2016). The floristic changes of Scottish moorland dominated by
heather (Calluna vulgaris, Ericaceae) but unburnt for 50 years and kept
checked by moderate grazing. New Journal of Botany, 6, 31-42.

82

 Worrall, F. & Adamson, J.K. (2008). The effect of burning and sheep grazing on
soil water composition in a blanket bog: evidence for soil structural changes?
Hydrological Processes, 22, 2531-2541.
Worrall, F., Armstrong, A. & Adamson, J.K. (2007). The effects of burning and
sheep-grazing on water table depth and soil water quality in an upland peat.
Journal of Hydrology, 339, 1-14.
Worrall, F., Clay, G.D. & May, R. (2013). Controls upon biomass losses and char
production from prescribed burning on UK moorland. Journal of Environmental
Management, 120, 27-36.
Worrall, F., Clay, G.D., Marrs, R. & Reed, M.S. (2010). Impacts of burning
management on peatlands. Scientific review for the IUCN UK Peatland
Programme Commission of Inquiry on Peatlands. https://www.iucn-ukpeatlandprogramme.org/sites/www.iucn-ukpeatlandprogramme.org/files/images/Review%20Impacts%20of%20Burning%2
0on%20Peatlands%2C%20June%202011%20Final.pdf
Worrall, F., Rowson, J. & Dixon, S. (2013). Effects of managed burning in
comparison with vegetation cutting on dissolved organic carbon concentrations
in peat soils. Hydrological Processes, 27, 3994-4003.
Worrall, F., Rowson, J.G., Evans, M.G., Pawson, R., Daniels, S. & Bonn, A. (2011).
Carbon fluxes from eroding peatlands - the carbon benefit of revegetation
following wildfire. Earth Surface Processes and Landforms, 36, 1487-1498.
Yallop, A.R., Clutterbuck, B. & Thacker, J.I. (2012). Changes in water colour
between 1986 and 2006 in the headwaters of the River Nidd, Yorkshire, UK: a
critique of methodological approaches and measurement of burning
management. Biogeochemistry, 111, 97-103.
Yallop, A.R., Thacker, J.I., Thomas, G., Stephens, S., Clutterbuck, B., Brewer, T. &
Sannier, C.A.D. (2006). The extent and intensity of management burning in
the English uplands. Journal of Applied Ecology, 43, 1138-1148.
Mountain Hares
Angerbjorn, A. & Flux, J.E.C. (1995). Lepus timidus. Mammalian Species, 495, 1–
11. https://doi.org/10.2307/3504302.
Armstrong, H.M., Gordon, I.J. & Sibbald, A.R. (1997). A model of the grazing of hill
vegetation by sheep in the UK. I. The prediction of vegetation biomass.
Journal of Applied Ecology, 34, 166-185.
Bell, D. J., Davis, J. R., Garner, M., Barlow, A. M., Rocchi, M., Gentil, M. & Wilson,
R. J. (2019) Rabbit heamorrhagic disease type 2 in hares in England,
Veterinary Record, 26 January 2019, https;//doi: 10.1136/vr.1337/.
Bisi, F., Newey, S., Nodari, M., Wauters, L.A., Harrison, A., Thirgood, S. &
Martinoli, A., (2011). The strong and the hungry: bias in capture methods for
mountain hares Lepus timidus. Wildlife Biology, 17, 311–316.
https://doi.org/10.2981/10-133.
Boag, B. & Iason, G.R. (1986). The occurrence and abundance of helminth
parasites of the mountain hare Lepus timidus (L.) and the wild rabbit
Oryctolagus cuniculus (L.) in Aberdeenshire, Scotland. Journal of
Helminthology, 60, 92-98.

83

 Boddington, R. (2017). The changing status of mountain hares on Ben Lomond:
An investigation using ecological niche factor analysis to assess habitat. MSc
Thesis, University of Stirling. https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.14721.56163.
Caravaggi, A., Leach, K., Santilli, F., Rintala, J., Helle, P., Tiainen, J., Bisi, F.,
Martinoli, A., Montgomery, W.I. & Reid, N. (2016). Niche overlap of mountain
hare subspecies and the vulnerability of their ranges to invasion by the
European hare; the (bad) luck of the Irish. Biological Invasions, 19, 655-674.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10530-016-1330-z
Caravaggi, A., Zaccaroni, M., Riga, F., Schai-Braun, S.C., Dick, J.T.A.,
Montgomery, W.I. & Reid, N. (2016). An invasive-native mammalian species
replacement process captured by camera trap survey random encounter
models. Remote Sensing in Ecology and Conservation, 2, 45-58.
https://doi.org/10.1002/rse2.11.
Chapman, J.A. & Flux, J.E.C. (1990). Rabbits, Hares and Pikas: Status Survey
and Conservation Action Plan. IUCN (World Conservation Union), Gland,
Switzerland.
Cope, D.R., Iason, G.R. & Gordon, I.J. (2004). Disease reservoirs in complex
systems: A comment on recent work by Laurenson et al., Journal of Animal
Ecology, 73, 807-810. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0021-8790.2004.00850.x.
Cork, S.J. (1994). Digestive constraints on dietary scope in small and moderatelysmall mammals – how much do we really understand, in: Chivers, D.J. and
Langer, P. (Ed.), Digestive System in Mammals: Food, Form, and Function. pp.
337-369. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511661716.022.
Dahl, F. (2005). Distinct seasonal habitat selection by annually sedentary
mountain hares (Lepus timidus) in the boreal forest of Sweden. European
Journal of Wildlife Research, 51, 163-169.
Dahl, F. & Willebrand, T. (2005). Natal dispersal, adult home ranges and site
fidelity of mountain hares (Lepus timidus) in the boreal forest of Sweden.
Wildlife Biology, 11, 309-317.
Duncan, J.S., Reid, H.W., Moss, R., Phillips, J.D.P. & Watson, A. (1978). Ticks,
louping ill, and red grouse on moors in Speyside, Scotland. Journal of Wildlife
Management, 42, 500-505.
European Environment Agency (2019). Report on progress and implementation
(Article 17, Habitats Directive). Eionet, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Fletcher, K. & Baines, D. (2018). The effects of acaricide treatment of sheep on
red grouse Lagopus lagopus scotica tick burdens and productivity in a multihost system. Medical and Veterinary Entomology, 32, 235-243.
https://doi.org/10.1111/mve.12282.
Flux, J.E.C. (1970). Life history of the Mountain hare (Lepus timidus scoticus) in
north-east Scotland. Journal of Zoology, 161, 75-123.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-7998.1970.tb02171.x.
Gill, R.M. (1992). A Review of Damage by Mammals in North Temperate Forests.
2. Small Mammals. Forestry, 65, 281-308.
https://doi.org/10.1093/forestry/65.3.281.
Grant, S., Milne, A., Barthram, G. & Souter, G. (1982). Effects of season and level
of grazing on the utilization of heather by sheep. 3. Longer‐term responses and
84

 sward recovery. Grass and Forage Science, 37, 311-320.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2494.1982.tb01611.x.
Harrison, A. (2011). Dispersal and compensatory population dynamics in a
harvested mammal. PhD thesis, University of Glasgow.
Harrison, A., Newey, S., Gilbert, L., Thirgood, S.J. & Haydon, D.T. (2010). Culling
wildlife hosts to control disease: mountain hares, red grouse and louping ill
virus. Journal of Applied Ecology, 47, 926–930. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.13652664.2010.01834.x.
Hesford, N., Fletcher, K., Howarth, D., Smith, A.A., Aebischer, N.J. & Baines, D.
(2019). Spatial and temporal variation in mountain hare (Lepus timidus)
abundance in relation to red grouse (Lagopus lagopus scotica) management in
Scotland. European Journal of Wildlife Research, 65, 33.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10344-019-1273-7.
Hewson, R. (1970). Variation in reproduction and shooting bags of mountain hares
on two moors in north-east Scotland. Journal of Applied Ecology, 7, 243-252.
Hewson, R. (1976). A Population Study of Mountain Hares (Lepus timidus) in
North-East Scotland from 1956-1969. The Journal of Animal Ecology, 45, 395.
https://doi.org/10.2307/3881
Hewson, R. (1984). Mountain hare, Lepus timidus, bags and moor management.
Journal of Zoology 204, 563-565.
Hulbert, I.A. & Boag, B. (2001). The potential role of habitat on intestinal helminths
of mountain hares, Lepus timidus. Journal of Helminthology, 75, 345-349.
Hulbert, I.A.R., Iason, G.R., Hewson, R. & Dingerkus, S.K. (2008). Mountain
Hare/Irish Hare Lepus timidus, in: Harris, S. (Ed.), The New Handbook of
British Mammals. Blackwell Scientific Publication, Oxford.
Iason, G.R. & Van Wieren, S.E. (1999). Digestive and ingestive adaptations of
mammalian herbivores to low-quality forage. in Olff, H., Brown, V.K. & Drent,
R.H. (Eds.), Herbivores: Between Plants and Predators, pp. 337-369. 38th
Symposium of the British Ecological Society. Blackwell Scientific, Oxford.
James, M.C., Gilbert, L., Bowman, A.S. & Forbes, K.J. (2014). The Heterogeneity,
Distribution, and Environmental Associations of Borrelia burgdorferi Sensu
Lato, the Agent of Lyme Borreliosis, in Scotland. Frontiers in Public Health, 2,
1-10. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2014.00129
Kauhala, K., Hiltunen, N. & Salinen, T. (2005). Home ranges of mountain hares
Lepus timidus in boreal forests of Finland. Wildlife Biology, 11, 1932-00.
https://doi.org/10.2981/0909-6396(2005)11[193:HROMHL]2.0.CO;2.
Kinrade, V., Ewald, J.A., Smith, A., Newey, S., Iason, G., Thirgood, S.J. & Raynor,
R. (2008). The distribution of Mountain Hare (Lepus timidus) in Scotland
(2006/07). Scottish Natural Heritage Commissioned Report No. 278. Scottish
Natural Heritage.
Knipe, A., Fowler, P.A., Ramsay, S., Haydon, D.T., McNeilly, A.S., Thirgood, S. &
Newey, S. (2013). The effects of population density on the breeding
performance of mountain hare Lepus timidus. Wildlife Biology, 19, 473-482.
https://doi.org/10.2981/12-109.
lason, G.R. & Boag, B. (1988). Do intestinal helminths affect condition and
fecundity of adult mountain hares? Journal of Wildlife Diseases, 24, 599-605.
https://doi.org/10.7589/0090-3558-24.4.599.
85

 Laurenson, M.K., Norman, R.A., Gilbert, L., Reid, W. & Hudson, P.J. (2003).
Identifying disease reservoirs in complex systems: mountain hares as
reservoirs of ticks and louping-ill virus, pathogens of red grouse. Journal of
animal ecology, 72, 177-185.
Li, S., Gilbert, L., Harrison, P.A. & Rounsevell, M.D.A. (2016). Modelling the
seasonality of Lyme disease risk and the potential impacts of a warming
climate within the heterogeneous landscapes of Scotland. Journal of The
Royal Society Interface, 13, 20160140. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsif.2016.0140.
Marques, J.P., Ferreira, M.S., Farelo, L., Callahan, C.M., Hackländer, K., Jenny,
H., Montgomery, W.I., Reid, N., Good, J.M., Alves, P.C. & Melo-Ferreira, J.
(2017). Mountain hare transcriptome and diagnostic markers as resources to
monitor hybridization with European hares. Scientific Data, 4, 170178.
Massimino, D., Harris, S.J. & Gillings, S. (2018). Evaluating spatiotemporal trends
in terrestrial mammal abundance using data collected during bird surveys.
Biological Conservation, 226, 153–167.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2018.07.026.
Mathews, F., Coomber, F., Wright, J. & Kendall, T. (eds). (2018). Britain’s
Mammals 2018: The Mammal Society’s Guide to Their Population and
Conservation Status. The Mammal Society.
Millins, C., Gilbert, L., Johnson, P., James, M., Kilbride, E., Birtles, R. & Biek, R.
(2016). Heterogeneity in the abundance and distribution of Ixodes ricinus and
Borrelia burgdorferi (sensu lato) in Scotland: implications for risk prediction.
Parasites & Vectors, 9, 595. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13071-016-1875-9.
Millins, C., Gilbert, L., Medlock, J., Hansford, K., Thompson, D.B.A. & Biek, R.
(2017). Effects of conservation management of landscapes and vertebrate
communities on Lyme borreliosis risk in the United Kingdom. Philosophical
Transactions of the Royal Society of London B: Biological Sciences, 372
(1722). https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2016.0123.
Mills, L.S., Bragina, E.V., Kumar, A.V., Zimova, M., Lafferty, D.J.R., Feltner, J.,
Davis, B.M., Hackländer, K., Alves, P.C., Good, J.M., Melo-Ferreira, J., Dietz,
A., Abramov, A.V., Lopatina, N. & Fay, K. (2018). Winter color polymorphisms
identify global hot spots for evolutionary rescue from climate change. Science,
359 (6379). https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aan8097.
Mills, L.S., Zimova, M., Oyler, J., Running, S., Abatzoglou, J.T. & Lukacs, P.M.
(2013). Camouflage mismatch in seasonal coat color due to decreased snow
duration. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United
States of America, 110, 7360-5. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1222724110.
Moss, R. & Miller, G.R. (1976). Production, dieback and grazing of heather
(Calluna vulgaris) in relation to numbers of Red Grouse (Lagopus l. scoticus)
and Mountain Hares (Lepus timidus) in North-East Scotland. Journal of
Applied Ecology, 13, 369-377.
Mougeot, F., Moseley, M., Leckie, F., Martinez-Padilla, J., Miller, A., Pounds, M. &
Irvine, R.J. (2008). Reducing tick burdens on chicks by treating breeding
female grouse with permethrin. Journal of Wildlife Management, 72, 468–472.
https://doi.org/10.2193/2007-111.
Nation Gamebag Census (2018). Game & Wildlife Conservation Trust.

86

 Newey, S., Allison, P., Thirgood, S.J., Smith, A.A. & Graham, I.M. (2009). Using
PIT-Tag Technology to Target Supplementary Feeding Studies. Wildlife
Biology, 15, 405-411. https://doi.org/10.2981/08-083.
Newey, S., Bell, M., Enthoven, S &, Thirgood, S.J. (2003). Can distance sampling
and dung plots be used to assess the density of mountain hares Lepus
timidus? Wildlife Biology, 9, 185-192.
Newey, S., Dahl, F., Willebrand, T. & Thirgood, S. (2007). Unstable dynamics and
population limitation in mountain hares. Biological Reviews, 82, 527-549.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-185X.2007.00022.x.
Newey, S., Fletcher, K., Potts, J. & Iason, G. (2018). Developing a counting
methodology for mountain hares (Lepus timidus) in Scotland. Scottish Natural
Heritage Research Report No. 1022. Scottish Natural Heritage.
Newey, S., Shaw, D.J., Kirby, A., Montieth, P., Hudson, P.J. & Thirgood, S.J.
(2005). Prevalence, intensity and aggregation of intestinal parasites in
mountain hares and their potential impact on population dynamics.
International Journal for Parasitology, 35, 367-373.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpara.2004.12.003.
Newey, S. & Thirgood, S. (2004). Parasite-mediated reduction in fecundity of
mountain hares. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences,
271, S413-S415. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsbl.2004.0202.
Newey, S., Thirgood, S.J. & Hudson, P.J. (2004). Do parasites burdens in spring
influence condition and fecundity of female mountain hares Lepus timidus?
Wildlife Biology, 10, 171-176.
Pehrson, Å. (1980). Winter food consumption and digestibility in caged mountain
hares, in: Myers, K & MacInnes, CD (Eds.) Proceedings of the World
Lagomorph Conference (1979). Guelph, Ontario. pp. 732-742.
Pehrson, Å. (2010). Caecotrophy in caged Mountain hares (Lepus timidus).
Journal of Zoology, 199, 563–574. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.14697998.1983.tb05107.x.
Rao, S., Iason, G.R., Hulbert, I.A.R., Daniels, M.J. & Racey, P.A. (2003). Tree
browsing by mountain hares (Lepus timidus) in young Scots pine (Pinus
sylvestris) and birch (Betula pendula) woodland. Forest Ecology and
Management, 176, 459-471. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-1127(02)00311-0.
Rao, S., Iason, G.R., Hulbert, I.A.R., Elston, D.A. & Racey, P.A. (2003). The effect
of sapling density, heather height and season on browsing by mountain hares
on birch. Journal of Applied Ecology, 40, 626–638.
https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2664.2003.00838.x.
Rao, S., Iason, G.R., Hulbert, I.A.R. & Racey, P.A. (2006). The effect of
establishing native woodland on habitat selection and ranging of moorland
mountain hares (Lepus timidus), a flexible forager. Journal of Zoology, 260, 19. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0952836903003534.
Rehnus, M., Bollmann, K., Schmatz, D.R., Hackl, K. & Braunisch, V. (2018).
Alpine glacial relict species losing out to climate change: The case of the
fragmented mountain hare population (Lepus timidus) in the Alps. Global
Change Biology, 1-18. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.14087.

87

 Reid, N. & Montgomery, W.I. (2007). Is naturalisation of the brown hare in Ireland
a threat to the endemic Irish hare? Biology and Environment, 107, 129-138.
https://doi.org/10.3318/BIOE.2007.107.3.129.
Scotland’s Moorland Forum (2018). Moorland Management Best Practice:
Mountain hare management guidance. Scotland’s Moorland Forum, Locherbie.
Tälleklint, L. (1996). Lyme borreliosis spirochetes in Ixodes ricinus and
Haemaphysalis punctata ticks (Acari: Ixodidae) on three islands in the Baltic
Sea. Experimental and Applied Acarology, 20, 467–476.
https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00053310.
Thulin, C.G. (2003). The distribution of mountain hares Lepus timidus in Europe: a
challenge from brown hares L. europaeus? Mammal Review, 33, 29-42.
Thulin, C.G., Jaarola, M. & Tegelstrom, H. (1997). The occurrence of mountain
hare mitochondrial DNA in wild brown hares. Molecular Ecology, 6, 463-467.
Townsend, S.E., Newey, S., Thirgood, S.J. & Haydon, D.T. (2011). Dissecting the
drivers of population cycles: Interactions between parasites and mountain hare
demography. Ecological Modelling, 222, 48-56.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2010.08.033.
Townsend, S.E., Newey, S., Thirgood, S.J., Matthews, L. & Haydon, D.T. (2009).
Can parasites drive population cycles in mountain hares? Proceedings of the
Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 276, 1611-1617.
https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2008.1669.
Watson, A. (2013). Mammals in north-east Highlands. Paragon Publishing.
Watson, A. & Hewson, R. (1973). Population densities of mountain hares (Lepus
timidus) on western Scottish and Irish moors and Scottish hills. Journal of
Zoology, 170, 151-159.
Watson, A., Hewson, R., Jenkins, D. & Parr, R. (1973). Population densities of
mountain hares compared with red grouse on Scottish moors. Oikos, 24, 225230.
Watson, A. & Wilson, J.D. (2018). Seven decades of mountain hare counts show
severe declines where high-yield recreational game bird hunting is practised.
Journal of Applied Ecology, 55(6), 2663-2672. https://doi.org/10.1111/13652664.13235.
Werritty, A., Pakeman, R.J., Shedden, C., Smith, A. & Wilson, J.D. (2015). A
Review of Sustainable Moorland Management. Report to the Scientific
Advisory Committee of Scottish Natural Heritage. Scottish Natural Heritage,
Battleby.
Wheeler, P.M., Ward, A.I., Smith, G.C., Croft, S. & Petrovan, S.O. (2019). Careful
considerations are required when analysing mammal citizen science data – A
response to Massimino et al. Biological Conservation, 232, 274-275.
Wolfe, A. & Hayden, T.J. (1996). Home range sizes of Irish mountain hares on
coastal grassland. Biology and Environment-Proceedings of the Royal Irish
Academy, 96B, 141-146.
Wolfe, A., Whelan, J. & Hayden, T.J. (1996). The diet of the mountain hare (Lepus
timidus hibernicus) on coastal grassland. Journal of Zoology, 240, 804-810.
Zimova, M., Hackländer, K., Good, J.M., Melo-Ferreira, J., Alves, P.C. & Mills, L.S.
(2018). Function and underlying mechanisms of seasonal colour moulting in

88

 mammals and birds: what keeps them changing in a warming world?
Biological Reviews, 93, 1478-1498. https://doi.org/10.1111/brv.12405.
Zimova, M., Mills, L.S., Lukacs, P.M. & Mitchell, M.S. (2014). Snowshoe hares
display limited phenotypic plasticity to mismatch in seasonal camouflage.
Proceedings of the Royal Society B Biological sciences, 281, 20140029.
https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2014.0029.
Zimova, M., Mills, L.S. & Nowak, J.J. (2016). High fitness costs of climate changeinduced camouflage mismatch. Ecology Letters, 19, 299-307.
https://doi.org/10.1111/ele.12568.
Medicated Grit
Baines, D., Newborn, D. & Richardson, M. (2019). Are Trichostrongylus tenuis
control and resistance avoidance simultaneously manageable by reducing
anthelmintic intake by grouse? Veterinary Record, 185, 53.
Bundschuh, M., Hahn, T., Ehrlich, B., Höltge, S., Kreuzig, R. & Schulz, R. (2016).
Acute toxicity and environmental risks of five veterinary pharmaceuticals for
aquatic macroinvertebrates. Bulletin of Environmental Contamination and
Toxicology, 96, 139-143.
Game & Wildlife Conservation Trust (2017). Review of 2016.
Game & Wildlife Conservation Trust (2019). Best practice use of medicated grit.
Mackenzie, C. A review of flubendazole and its potential and a macrofilaricide. A
report submitted to Dr. Gary Weil (PI DOLF) – a study supported by the Bill
and Melinda Gates Foundation.
Newborn, D. & Foster, R. (2002). Control of parasite burdens in wild red grouse
Lagopus lagopus scoticus through the indirect application of anthelmintics.
Journal of Applied Ecology, 39, 909-914.
Scotland’s Moorland Forum (2018). Moorland Management Best Practice. Worm
Control in Red Grouse – Guidance. Scotland’s Moorland Forum, Locherbie.
Scotland’s Moorland Forum (2018). Moorland Management Best Practice. Worm
Control in Red Grouse – Supplementary Information. Scotland’s Moorland
Forum, Locherbie.
Seivwright, L.J., Redpath, S.M., Mougeot, F., Watt, L. & Hudson, P.J. (2004).
Faecal egg counts provide a reliable measure of Trichostrongylus tenuis
intensities in free-living red grouse Lagopus lagopus scoticus. Journal of
Helminthology, 78, 69-76.
Wagil, M., Białk-Bielińska, A., Puckowski, A., Wychodnik, K., Maszkowska, J.,
Mulkiewicz, E., Kumirska, J., Stepnowski, P. & Stolte, S. (2015). Toxicity of
anthelmintic drugs (fenbendazole and flubendazole) to aquatic organisms.
Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 22(4), 2566-2573.

89

 Annex 2: Account of how the review was conducted
The Review Group met eighteen times for full-day meetings generally at the Royal
Society of Edinburgh, but for three of our meetings we were hosted by estates
variously located in the Angus Glens, the Scottish Borders and Speyside. Being
able to see grouse moors and a conservation charity’s property at first hand and
discussing issues with owners and land managers greatly assisted our subsequent
deliberations. We are most grateful for the hospitality we received at these
estates.
Our initial meetings in 2018 from January through to July were focused on building
an initial evidence-base. Group members, assisted by our Specialist Advisers and
other experts in key areas, provided a series of presentations summarising key
findings on each of the main issues in our remit – environmental law relevant to
grouse moors, SEPA’s licensing systems, wildlife crime (within both Scotland and
the UK), raptor population trends and illegal persecution, legal predator controls,
Mountain Hare management, muirburn and the use of medicated grit. We are
most grateful for the contribution made by these outside experts. The Chair also
held meetings with a number of organisations, normally with another member of
the Group. Alongside receiving oral presentations, we assembled a database of
key references. Some of the references were provided from within the Group and
others contributed by outside groups and individuals who wished to contribute to
our discussions and deliberations. Items in this database are included in our list
of published sources. We decided not to add references generally to the main
body of the text but provide the sources which we consulted in an extended list in
Annex 1.
Having reviewed all the information and summarised the key findings from our
initial trawl for evidence, during the summer (July through September 2018) we
issued a questionnaire for key stakeholders. In this questionnaire (sent to 57
organisations and individuals) we sought to explore key issues in greater detail that
either remained contested or constituted evidence gaps at this stage in the review.
By the end of September we had received responses from 31 organisations and
individuals across a wide range of stakeholders: individual estates, organisations
variously representing particular interests (conservation NGOs, conservation
special interest groups, land-owners and land managers, gamekeepers, sport
shooting, groups of estates, trade organisations), firms of chartered surveyors,
research scientists, veterinary scientists and public bodies including National
Parks. Having analysed responses to our questionnaire, we then identified key
areas where we wished to dig deeper into the evidence-base, either to resolve the
remaining contested issues or to fill in continuing evidence gaps. Two meetings in
November and December were devoted to taking oral evidence from nine experts,
who collectively represented a wide range of views on grouse shooting. Again we
are most grateful for the care taken by each of these experts in preparing for the
meeting and for engaging in lively discussion with Group members. The Specialist
Advisers were present at all except one of the meetings throughout 2018.

90

 In 2019 we had six meetings (January, February, May, two in June and one in
July). The significant gap between the second and third meetings arose from the
Chair’s temporary incapacity due to illness. The first four of these meetings in
2019 involved only Group members and were used to compile our report. The
Specialist Advisers were invited back to re-join the Group for our second meeting
in June. The Review Group then concluded its work during video-conferencing
sessions in July and subsequent discussions from August to November.
Evidence gathered during the inquiry included that retained in the Minutes of
meetings; copies of presentations made to the Group; a spreadsheet in which all
the questionnaire returns were initially extracted verbatim and then subsequently
summarised and commented upon by Group members; and a database of key
references used by Group members.

91

 Annex 3: List of abbreviations
BBS
BTO
CPD
EU
EC
FTE
GIS
GPS
GWCT
IUCN
JNCC
JRS
LMDP
RPID
RSPB
SEPA
SFRS
SLE
SPA
SSSI
SNH

Breeding Bird Survey
British Trust for Ornithology
Continuing Professional Development
European Union
European Commission
Full time equivalent
Geographic Information System
Global Positioning System
Game & Wildlife Conservation Trust
International Union for the Conservation of Nature
Joint Nature Conservation Committee
Joint Raptor Study
Langholm Moor Demonstration Project
Rural Payments and Inspections Division
Royal Society for the Protection of Birds
Scottish Environment Protection Agency
Scottish Fire and Rescue Service
Scottish Land & Estates
Special Protection Area
Site of Special Scientific Interest
Scottish Natural Heritage

92

 Annex 4: Glossary
Favourable conservation status
The statutory nature conservation agency, SNH, advises JNCC and the UK and
Scottish governments on the condition assessments, based on ‘condition
objectives’ set for individual species and sites (SPAs, SSSIs), and EC Birds
Directive Article 12 and EC Habitat Article 17 assessments. On collating returns
from a variety of sources, the conservation status of the species being considered
can be reported as:
-

Good: Favourable
Unknown
Poor: Unfavourable-inadequate
Bad: Unfavourable-bad
Not applicable/not reported

with the category ‘inadequate’ referring to the available data.
In the present context, emphasis will be placed specifically on the local
conservation status of raptors (especially, Golden Eagles, Peregrines and Hen
Harriers) on and around grouse moors.
SNH reports to and advises the JNCC and the UK and Scottish governments on
the conservation assessment of raptors in Scotland. The assessments are drawn
from a variety of sources including the BBS (BTO/JNCC/RSPB Breeding Bird
Survey – the main scheme for monitoring the population changes of the UK’s
common and widespread breeding birds, producing population trends for 117 bird
and nine mammal species), the Scottish Raptor Monitoring Scheme (SRMS,
chaired by SNH, of which JNCC is also a member), the Rare Breeding Birds
Breeding Panel, and national surveys organised under SCARABBS (Statutory
Conservation Agency and RSPB Annual Breeding Bird Scheme).

93

 © Crown copyright 2019

This publication is licensed under the terms of the Open Government Licence v3.0 except
where otherwise stated. To view this licence, visit nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/opengovernment-licence/version/3 or write to the Information Policy Team, The National
Archives, Kew, London TW9 4DU, or email: psi@nationalarchives.gsi.gov.uk
Where we have identified any third party copyright information you will need
to obtain permission from the copyright holders concerned.
This publication is available at www.gov.scot
Any enquiries regarding this publication should be sent to us at
The Scottish Government
St Andrew’s House
Edinburgh
EH1 3DG
ISBN: 978-1-83960-434-8 (web only)
Published by The Scottish Government, December 2019
Produced for The Scottish Government by APS Group Scotland, 21 Tennant Street, Edinburgh EH6 5NA
PPDAS675294 (12/19)

w

w

w

.

g

o

v

.

s

c

o

t