Grouse moor management most sustainable option - report

A new academic report which examines the sustainability of driven grouse shooting has concluded that moorland managed for the sport provides greater environmental, social, and economic benefits than any alternative use.

The study, entitled, ‘Is driven grouse shooting sustainable?’ is an update to a previous report published in 2021 and brings to light new evidence uncovered over the last two years. It is written by Professor Simon Denny, formerly of the University of Northampton, and reviewed by Professor James Crabbe from the University Oxford.

This comprehensive study resolves that driven grouse shooting is a vital part of what Denny calls “integrated moorland management”, without which the moorlands become socially, economically, and environmentally unsustainable.

Crucially, Denny defines ‘sustainability’ in his report through the criteria of the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN), which declares that “The core of mainstream sustainability thinking has become the idea of three dimensions, environmental, social and economic”.  

This concept contends that ‘true’ sustainability must be concerned with making improvements to the environmental, social, and economic sectors and that each sectors must be protected from negative impacts equally for any operation of the system to be sustainable.

On the environmental front, Denny concludes that “compared with upland areas where grouse shooting does not take place, the biodiversity of ‘grouse moors’ seems to be at least as rich, if not richer”, citing how driven grouse shooting has consistently generated a diverse and assemblage of rare plants, animals, and invertebrates.

Denny surmises that the extensive data in his report all makes the case that “the biodiversity impacts of integrated moorland management… are sustainable and should be maintained”. 

Denny’s study takes a similar approach to the social dimension of sustainability. Driven shooting, unlike walked-up shooting, requires the participation of a wider range of individuals, typically from a variety of backgrounds, which thus creates the greatest social impact for upland communities out of all activities.

In addition to outlining how driven grouse shooting facilitates contact between people from different class backgrounds, Denny importantly examines the effect of driven grouse shooting on an individual’s wellbeing; analysing how the activity positively impacts their social and work life whilst also improving their physical and mental health.

Denny finds that there are no socially sustainable alternatives to driven grouse shooting and that banning the practice would worsen the wellbeing of individuals who rely upon the sport for social encounters. 

Finally, Denny’s report examines how driven grouse shooting impacts the economic sustainability of the moorlands. He notes that substitutions to driven grouse shooting are ultimately unsustainable in comparison to the activity, as it is highly “unlikely that the alternative uses … for the moorlands would deliver the same positive economic impacts [as driven grouse shooting] at least for a number of generations”.

Therefore, considering the definition of sustainability used by the IUCN, driven grouse shooting is inarguably sustainable, providing significantly positive impacts to the uplands in every meaning of the word.

Considering this report, it is interesting to note that if any government intends to achieve the UK’s legally binding target of having 30% of land protected for nature by 2030, the environmental benefits of British grouse moors must be recognised.

Additionally, attempts to ban or reduce grouse shooting should be viewed as entirely unsustainable and will significantly deplete the UK’s current level of biodiversity. Therefore, it should be apparent to governments that any threat to grouse shooting is tantamount to a threat against the natural environment and the government’s own sustainability goals.

Similarly, the report observes that multiple Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) and Special Protection Areas (SPA) in Britain were first recognised for their level of biodiversity, which occurred only as a result of management for driven grouse shooting. Indeed, in England, 74% of upland SPAs are still managed as grouse moors.

Throughout previous debates about the future of driven grouse shooting, studies have focussed entirely on environmental impacts, repeatedly excluding factors of economic and social sustainability. Which, coincidentally, are the aspects which most affect the mental wellbeing of members of rural communities.

Many of the report’s conclusions are not new to those working on grouse moors. However, Denny’s approach, which includes a broader understanding of sustainability, will help to inform those in power before it’s too late.

 Already, uninformed judgments have been made which threaten the sustainability of moorland communities.  Earlier this month, United Utilities’ took a unilateral decision to stop issuing sporting licences on its lands.

Hopefully this study will open the eyes of decisionmakers to the importance of driven grouse shooting to moorland communities, as well as the sustainability and biodiversity of the entire United Kingdom.

The report and a summary of its findings are available on the Regional Moorland Groups’ research page.