Grouse Moor Management
Management for shooting and grazing
On common land the grouse moor owner has less control over grazing than on a private moor as common rights give commoners a secure “freehold” right to graze. This means that the owner can only change grazing levels through negotiation or the purchase of common rights.
From the Second World War until the 1990s there was a significant increase in upland sheep numbers which resulted in grouse moor owners seeking to reduce grazing levels as heather condition degraded. Many owners bought up a large number of common rights to reduce grazing pressure or entered into specific arrangements with commoners. More recently in certain areas, e.g. the North York Moors, the opposite has been true and sheep numbers have fallen below the optimal level for a grouse moor.
In some places there remains a tension between grazing interests and those of a grouse moor. In particular this arises around winter grazing, which owners view as the main cause of heather decline as grass growth stops in the winter and sheep turn to eating heather.
Common rights do not give graziers the right to supplementary feed but only to graze vegetation on the moor. However, on many commons supplementary feeding has become a custom, although this does not make it legal as ruled in the case of Besley v John 2003. In some areas, agreements have been reached when owners have erected sheep sheds in return for the off-wintering. Paying for off-wintering and stewardship schemes are other solutions with the latter often being a means of creating a common interest out of a previous tension though it is important that the integrity of traditional grazing systems is respected.
As well as tensions, there are common interests.
Many gamekeepers undertake vermin control on commoners’ farms and commoners on grouse moors often have good access to the common via tracks constructed for sporting purposes. From 2005, stewardship schemes require moorland managers and commoners to be joint managers of agreements which encourage graziers and grouse moors to work together for management that is in both interests. In negotiating management, the information under Negotiating Management will be helpful. By being joint signatories to an internal agreement for a stewardship scheme, the responsibilities and rights of all parties can be clearly defined to establish a functional partnership.
Management for grouse moors and conservation
Many commons run as grouse moors are designated as SSSIs, requiring moorland managers to have particular regard to conservation. In the last ten years the Moorland Association and individual owners have worked closely with Defra and Natural England to develop moorland management plans that deliver conservation benefits on commons and allow productive grouse moors.
Areas where nature conservation and sporting interests may diverge are:
Size and frequency of burns - Defra’s Heather and Grassland Burning Code 2007 is recommended best practice and is compulsory for commons in UELS. It is endorsed by the Moorland Association.
Nature of predator control - Predators, including raptors (birds of prey), are a significant cause of grouse mortality. Where the predators are protected species they should not be killed.
Grip management - Many moorland owners now recognise the benefit of wet areas on commons to encourage insects for grouse chicks. Grip blocking is now a requirement of moorland stewardship schemes to minimise run off, water discolouration and carbon loss.
Use of vehicles particularly on blanket bog - Vehicles can cause significant damage to peat moors. As grouse moors have become more intensive, the use of vehicles has increased leading to rutting and erosion. Careful choice of vehicles and sensitive tracks are two solutions.
Construction of tracks, butts, fencing and shooting boxes - Works on commons require consent under Part 3 the Commons Act 2006 though some exemptions for de minimus works apply, e.g. for butts under 10m2 . Details are on the planning inspectorate website – see also Capital Works.
In many of the above cases, opinions vary as to what is “right” but usually, through listening to and understanding each other’s interests, an acceptable balance can be reached. See Achieving Consensus for advice on how best to generate this constructive dialogue and cooperation among stakeholders.
Further information
Moorland Association - This source of information is recommended for a variety of topics relating to sporting management of land.