IN his final column for DalesLife, Craven College countryside lecturer Nigel Labdon considers the controversial issue of grouse shooting.

IT is with sadness but no great surprise that I have discovered that recently an assistant gamekeeper has been found guilty of setting illegal pole traps here in the Dales.

For those of you that don’t know a pole trap is where a trap with two metal jaws that snap together with a lot of force when an animal stands on the metal plate is placed on top of a metal pole.

What sort of animal could the young gamekeeper have been trying to catch? Well his defence was that he was trying to catch grey squirrels. But the traps where set in an area of open heather moorland (not the normal habitat for a grey squirrel). So what was really going here?

Pole traps have been illegal in this country since 1904. Before that there was widespread on sporting estates to catch birds of prey. The birds, such as buzzards, kestrels, eagles, owls and the very rare hen harrier use trees or posts or anything raised above the ground to perch on and look for prey (uses less energy that flying around looking for prey).

The post with the trap on provides the birds of prey an ideal opportunity, they therefore perch on the post the trap springs shut on their legs (breaking them in the process) and the bird is then held there, hanging upside down until the gamekeeper returns and dispatches the unfortunate bird.

Why do some gamekeepers employ these illegal tactics? Birds of prey eat pheasants and grouse, different species will eat different amounts of game birds – kestrels will eat very few (except some very young chicks) whereas a hen harrier will without doubt kill and eat a reasonable number of grouse. The trap is totally indiscriminate and kills or seriously maims whatever bird of prey lands on it.

The owner of the shoot wants to maximise his/her profits and the more pheasants/grouse they can rear the greater their income; they therefore put pressure on their gamekeepers to maximise the number of game birds that reach maturity so that they can increase their income.

The hen harrier (or sky dancer as it is sometimes known due to dramatic mating displays) in this country is in serious trouble and could very easily become extinct if action is not taken. There were four breeding pairs in England last year and it it has not bred in the Dales since 2007. Nine youngsters that were fitted with satellite trackers have disappeared in the Dales. These satellite trackers are expensive and robust and the only way they can stop broadcasting their whereabouts is if they are smashed or buried deep underground (not anything any natural predator would do).

In other counties where grouse shooting is not big business the hen harrier is doing OK. It has been illegal to trap, poison or kill these magnificent birds for many years yet the only explanation for them not breeding is that they are still persecuted.

Hen harriers get their name for their predilection in olden times for feeding on free ranging chickens, a grouse is not far removed from a chicken and so hen harriers will feed on grouse. But must we lose one of our most wonderful birds of prey so that a few people can enjoy a few sporting days a year shooting grouse that are kept at unnaturally high population densities simply for the sport of a well-off few?

The alternative put forward by many people is to ban the driven-grouse shoot. On the face of it this sounds like a good solution, ban driven-grouse shooting and leave all our birds of prey alone. That is until you consider the benefits grouse shooting brings. It brings a huge income into a rural economy. Many people are employed in raising grouse and many more find casual employment on a shoot day. People come from far and wide to shoot them, what do they do when they are not shooting? They eat and drink in pubs and restaurants, they stay in hotels and they enjoy days out in our countryside spending money. Where do they buy their guns, cartridges and clothing from – normally from local suppliers who employ local people.

Add to this the fact that much of our moorland exists as moorland because it is looked after by the shooting fraternity and you can see there is dilemma here. What would happen to the land if it was not shot? Well grouse shooting land is primarily a monoculture of heather (Calluna vulgaris) which could be improved for general wildlife if it was managed in a slightly different way providing a mosaic of habitats but who is going to pay for this?

The only ways to make money from this sort of land is either by planting trees (barren monocultures of conifers) or by grazing sheep. The profit margins on sheep grazing are so small that the areas would have to be intensively grazed for the farmer to make any money this would totally destroy the habitat. The only ways sheep farmers in these upland areas survive without destroying the habitat is through massive subsidies which they receive for looking after the land and the habitat. How sustainable is this in the long-term and are we really willing to keep paying taxpayers money into conserving our countryside when the NHS is on its knees, education is suffering and the roads are full of potholes etc?

This is not a question I can answer but what I do know is that I for one would be extremely sad if we lost any more wildlife due to our innate greed to make money from every acre of our beloved countryside.

On a slightly different note this will be the last column I write for the Craven Herald as I have taken a job at a different college and am moving on to pastures new so it is with some sadness I say farewell to the Craven area and hello to East Yorkshire! Thank you for reading.