Bog Myrtle & Peat

2 responses to “Seven Years”

1. 

   Pete Moss

   January 7, 2015 at 11:45 pm

   Patrick, Its interesting that your tweet linking to your blog was “Seven years at Langholm: making sure the goalposts don’t shift”, and yet that’s precisely what has happened.

   Chapter 8 of the review explains that the project found that there was less grouse habitat at Langholm than was thought – 3,000ha rather than 4,000ha, but instead of reducing the 1,000 brace target in proportion, to 750 brace, it was maintained. This means that the target grouse density had to be increased, to 200 birds per km2 in July, and 90 birds per km 2 in spring.
   This is double the average density of the 22 Scottish grouse moors used as comparators shown in Table 1 of the report, which had an average july count of 104 grouse per km2 and of 49 grouse per km2 in spring.

   And yet, para 7.1 of the report further informs us that there are only 2,200ha at Langholm with >30% heather cover – so around 1/3 of the “grouse habitat” at Langholm, on which there is a target grouse density of double the average on Scottish grouse moors, has <30% heather cover. And your post further informs us that a goodly chunk of what heatheer there is at Langholm has been severely damaged by heather beetle. Yet a July grouse density of double the average of Scottish grouse moors has to be achieved?

   In spite of what I would say is the poor state of the heather at Langholm compared to most Scottish driven grouse moors, the spring density of grouse at Langholm in 2014 was 82/km2, almost double the average on the sample of Scottish grouse moors, and the July density was ~120/km2 in both 2013 and 2014, double the density which has for a long time been regarded as the minimum required for driven shooting.

   How many Scottish grouse moors have more than 82 grouse per km2 in their spring counts, and don’t end up shooting? I’d like to know. Indeed, given the comparative figures in the report, what proportion of Scottish grouse moors regularly achieve such numbers? I’m sure the GCWT could furnish these facts.

   I think it is remarkable what has been achieved with the grouse at Langholm, given the state of the heather at the start of the project, and its isolation from other moors, without the advantage of exchanging birds with neighbours. Indeed, one must ask whether this was really the place to test hypotheses about the coexistence of driven grouse shooting and harriers. When all is said and done, can any conclusions be drawn from Langholm, an isolated moor which had become moribund, about what would happen if harriers were allowed to nest on some of the really primo moors? A moor in the Angus glens or the Lammermuirs would have been a far better place to test these things in my opinion. Although, that would have required a reintroduction of harriers. One of the most interesting things to come out of Langholm is the revelation of just how successful harriers could be, if left alone. There were twelve pairs of harriers at Langholm this year, on its 12,000 hectares. In the whole of the Lammermuirs, which cover several times that area, no harriers have even attempted to nest for over 10 years. I wonder why?

   Reply
2. 

   tom1cameron

   January 10, 2015 at 6:36 pm

   That is a pretty good, well reasoned and informed response Pete Moss.

   Reply