Annoyed to hear that over 1500 of these partially protected species are thought to have been killed this year in the Lammermuir Hills, southeast of Edinburgh. This disturbing statistic has been privately confirmed by some landowners who either participated in, or knew those responsible for the cull. Unsurprisingly this news has provoked strong condemnation from wildlife and animal rights groups across the United Kingdom, calling for stricter regulation on these practices, which are currently only prohibited for a few months of the year in Scotland. For me, this is another example of completely unjustifiable tactics being employed by ill-informed landowners to the detriment of our country’s bio-diversity.

Whether it is the chronic overgrazing from our proliferating deer population, often preventing forest rejuvenation, or the nutrient-sapping, barren land management to facilitate the grouse shooting industry, the game-keeping fraternity seems intent on diluting the richness of our landscapes and fauna. Landowners and the often associated aristocracy in this country seem to wield far too much power and influence in our countryside, with our native bio-diversity potential usually having to take a back seat. I would like to see a greater degree of accountability.

The landowners’ defence is that mountain hares can carry diseases which are harmful to grouse and they are consequently just protecting their investment to ensure the birds can then be shot for sport. But if this is the only reason, the reaction to the issue has surely been disproportionate, if the reported figure of hares killed is accurate. Mountain Hares were reintroduced to the southern uplands from the highlands and have only existed in small, sporadic populations here. So this cull will have had a major impact on their future survival in this region. Hare numbers are also in decline in England and Wales, where they have no legislative protection.

No laws have been broken, but it does seem morally wrong to have effectively exterminated so many of them based upon questionable scientific evidence of them posing a direct health risk to grouse. Some are believed to transport ticks that can be transmitted to the game birds and cause the sometimes fatal virus of louping ill to occur. However, my understanding is that the main source of these ticks is not hares, but the ubiquitous sheep. Would sheep have been dealt with in the same manner? Furthermore, studies have shown that removing hares has not been effective in eradicating the disease.

A more scientific, research-based approach is surely needed before culls such as this are enforced. The issue is soon to make its way onto the political stage, forming the basis for a larger debate on the relationship between the obvious economic benefits of commercial shooting estates and the apparent adverse effect they have on the conservation of our wildlife. A representative from the Moorland Trust defended the cull, saying that hare numbers had actually benefited from their land management, by ‘controlling’ the numbers of foxes and stoats on the grouse moors, which would have preyed on young hares. Now, I would not dispute this, however, I can’t help but feel that killing two more species to inadvertently conserve one is rather missing the point. After all, their main concern is the commercial value of the grouse.