Judge grouse moor management by results, Moorland Association says

The Moorland Association has asked the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) to judge every grouse moor practice by its measured outcomes, in a response to the call for evidence on gamebird release, shooting and welfare submitted on Sunday, 1 November. The association argues that grouse moor management can be treated as neither uniformly beneficial nor uniformly harmful, and that red grouse, as wild birds, should not be judged on evidence about reared and released pheasants and partridges.

What does the evidence say about predators and waders?

The submission’s conservation case rests on an eight-year field experiment which found that lawful control of generalist predators increased breeding success roughly threefold, on average, for moorland birds including curlew, lapwing and golden plover. Separate observational research found curlew productivity about four times higher on the grouse moors studied than on paired moors without grouse management.

Six areas of evidence

Six areas are examined: ground-nesting birds, habitat and vegetation management, wildfire, protected sites, bird-of-prey crime, and rural employment. On wildfire, the association cites a 2026 study of 206 wildfires in England and Wales which found fires in areas managed by burning were smaller than those in unmanaged areas, while noting the study did not establish cause. On burning, cutting, grazing and rewetting, it argues the techniques are not interchangeable and no single one suits every site.

On bird-of-prey crime, the association states that it unequivocally condemns the illegal killing and persecution of birds of prey, acknowledges peer-reviewed evidence that illegal killing has harmed hen harrier populations, and asks Defra to distinguish confirmed offences, suspected incidents, unexplained satellite-tag disappearances and statistical patterns, because each supports different conclusions.

What is the association asking Defra to do?

Five asks are made: publish the methodology by which evidence will be selected and weighted; judge individual practices by measured outcomes rather than treating grouse shooting as a single pressure; examine realistic alternatives, including what would happen to predator control, monitoring and wildfire response if management changed; consider proportionate responses such as better enforcement and improved standards; and set clear tests of success for any intervention. “Any additional regulation must be shown to be necessary, proportionate and likely to produce better outcomes than the available alternatives,” the submission says.

What happens next

The call for evidence closed on 1 November and Defra has given no timetable for its findings, though it has told Parliament the two-month window was proportionate and that two requests for an extension were refused. The association’s full submission and seven supporting annexes are linked from its website for anyone who wants to examine the evidence.