Letter: Pros and cons of grouse conservation

Share this article

I echo R Gooch's comments (Letters, 14 August) about the anachronistic views of Douglas McAdam and Alasdair Laing regarding many grouse moors.

Lochindorb and much of Ferness is a man-made burnt, desert wasteland with virtually no wildlife apart from some rabbits and, presumably, grouse.

This is echoed across much of eastern Scotland where the skies are empty of eagles and buzzards. Fishers, deer stalkers and walkers contribute far more economically to remote rural areas throughout the year than do grouse shoots, yet it is the land management for grouse that sees birds of prey poisoned and enormous areas burnt every spring.

HARRIS KEILAR

Swanston Park

Edinburgh

I was amused by the ignorance of the "Glorious Twelfth" ranters. Do they think it's only about big-shots striding about in funny trousers, killing birds? It's all about conservation.

How do the birds stay there? How much work goes on behind the scenes?

How many other creatures are saved?

An enormous about of work goes on to maintain the land, make sure there is sufficient food at the right stage, watch out for over-efficient predators. I would guess that for every funny-trousered guy there are at least three people to see it all goes according to plan.

The phrase "grouse moors" for me conjures up a whole world of activity.

Come on, you lot - grow up. And if you feel so strongly about it, stop eating chicken.

SHEILA THOMSON

Thurston

Dunbar, East Lothian