Severe reductions of mountain hares on many grouse moors
I believe that there is ample evidence for a complaint to the EU, because of SNH's complacency and
inaction over such reductions for many years, despite knowing about it, as well as ignorance of past
scientific literature on hare abundance including what is now the Cairngorms National Park.
SNH's Mammals Officer is Rob Raynor, based at SNH's Inverness HQ and close to many moors to
the south-east and east where hare reductions have been obvious and conspicuous for years to local
residents and visitors. In SNH's book, The Nature of the Cairngorms (2006), he was co-author of
the chapter on Mammals, the first author being Philip Ratcliffe. The sections on mountain hares
revealed ignorance of past literature on hare abundance in the area. The classic major studies of Ray
Hewson in Glen Rinnes and more generally in Hewson's questionnaire surveys of Scotland, and of
John Flux on Dinnet Estate, were omitted in the text and the references. Likewise, data during
counts of red grouse and ptarmigan by me along with colleagues in the grouse research team and
with Hewson, by then a member of the grouse team, were ignored. These are Watson & Hewson
(1973 and Watson et al. (1973). Yet, most study areas used by me and the others in the team lay in
the CNPA area, an area that was emphasised in the SNH book.
Furthermore, the chapter ignored in its text and references the report on Geographical variation in
the density of grazing mammals on montane sites in the Highlands of Scotland, including mountain
hares, by D. McLeod (2002), SNH commissioned report F99AC402A. The subsequent SNHcommissioned reports 287 (2008) and 444 (2011) also ignored MacLeod's work in their texts and
references, even though Rob Raynor of SNH was a co-author of report 287. This omission from the
chapter and the later commissioned reports is extraordinary and unacceptable.
Since my publications in 1973, I have continued to count hares on many of the study areas that we
had used for decades. This includes what are to my knowledge the first data on breeding success
from fieldwork of wild populations, albeit it has been possible to do this only on alpine areas, where
the alpine vegetation is prostrate and cannot hide well-grown leverets in late summer. I have also
counted dead hares in winter on one of my moorland study areas and on two alpine study areas, as
was done on their moorland study areas by Hewson and Flux too.
It has been well known that a few grouse-moor estates in Morayshire began severe killing of
mountain hares in the early 1990s, leading to great scarcity and localised extirpation. This spread to
many moors in Nairnshire, east Inverness-shire, Banffshire, Aberdeenshire, Angus, and east
Perthshire some years later, well advanced by the late 1990s, but starting as late as the early to mid
2000s on a few grouse-moor estates such as around the Lecht. As a result, now the localised
extirpations and general scarcity on grouse-moors are widespread.
In my Collins New Naturalist book Grouse (2008), with co-author Robert Moss, we described the
wave of hare reductions sweeping across many grouse-moors in eastern Scotland since the late
1990s, despite these reductions conflicting with the EU Habitats Directive. We mentioned SNH's
statements made in Scotland's Moorland Forum (2003), a document produced by SNH, 'We do not
recommend the indiscriminate culling of hares....In certain circumstances, however, culling may be
considered necessary'. In the latter case, estates were asked to contact SNH for advice, a request that
revealed SNH's poor personal knowledge and understanding of grouse-moor gamekeepers,
managers and landowners.
I collated data from my long-term studies of hares within three chapters of a recent book Mammals
in north-east Highlands (2013), Paragon Publishing, Rothersthorpe, Northampton. One chapter is
on difference in abundance amongst areas, a second is on changes in numbers within areas, and a
third is on severe reductions on many grouse-moor estates. The evidence in the second chapter
shows massive declines on many grouse-moor study areas, and increases on alpine land since the
recent milder climate began in the late 1980s (this was the opposite to the unjustified predictions of
some desk-workers that mountain hares would decline and be threatened by global warming). I
present with the second chapter four graphs just as examples, two showing big increases on alpine
areas, and two showing declines to localised spring extinction on two grouse-moor areas. The
Tables where I compare numbers with the calendar year show highly significant declines on many
moorland study areas and significant increases on alpine study areas. I am aware that significant
negative correlations with the calendar year do not tell one the number in the end year (for the book,
that year is generally 2012, though at many moors 2013). I do make the point that where there have
been severe killings and big significant declines, the typical spring value in spring is now zero.
However, I can back this by producing many more graphs if Rob Raynor thinks that this would be
helpful to SNH.
After my book was published, I alerted Rob Edwards of the Sunday Herald, who produced an
article on the reductions and also a longer account in his website. Subsequently The Times picked up
the story with an article. Then we had the parliamentary questions by Alison Johnstone MSP,
obviously triggered by the press publicity. The responses of Minister Paul Wheelhouse were widely
perceived, including by me, as complacent and to be deplored for government inaction. Of course,
Mr Wheelhouse cannot be blamed, because he and his civil servants would not have had the
technical information needed to write the answers and would have depended on SNH as statutory
wildlife advisers to do so. I believe that Alison Johnstone and her MSP colleagues as well as the
Minister should have further information that is reliable and quantitative, not vague and woolly.
Since then Jim Crumley, an old colleague of mine, has published an article in the Scots Magazine
(December 2013) on the demise of the hare. Jim tells me that this was triggered by his being told by
Patrick Stirling-Aird of the Scottish Raptor Groups about the great scarcity of hares on grouse-moor
estates. I have now sent Jim much detailed evidence, and he intends to write further on the subject.
There have also been two recent letters in the Press and Journal, and a third has been submitted.
The issue of hare reductions was raised at the AGM of the Scottish Mountaineering Club this month
and it is hoped that the Mountaineering Council of Scotland will publicise the matter and take it
further with the government.
In an SNH-commissioned report No 287 (2008) on The conservation status and management of
mountain hares, that included Rob Raynor as a co-author, one reads under ii). Moorland
management, line 3, 'Requests are being made to the Scottish Government for licences for private
sporting estates to reduce mountain hare populations to very low levels (<5 hares per km squared)
in order to reduce tick-borne disease transmission'. I request that Rob Raynor informs me how
many such requests each year had been made before the report of 2008, and how many have been
made each year since. Also I wish to know whether SNH checked how far the reductions went, in
other words the proper monitoring that the public would expect from the granting of such licences.
In fact, reductions to <5 signify values still fairly high for abundance, yet on most of my grousemoor study areas the reductions are down to zero, fact rather not euphemistic fancy. Above all,
because the parliamentary answers of 5 December 2013 include the statement that SNH is still in
December 2013 trying to find a reliable method for estimating hare numbers, how were SNH staff
able to check whether reductions had in fact occurred down to <5, or down to some other level.
SNH is pursuing a nonsensical circular argument here.
The different commissioned report involving the Game Conservancy on a survey of distribution at
far too wide a level of 10 x 10 km was misleading and should not have gone ahead. It allowed
various influential organisations representing shooting interests to claim in letters to the press that
no change in distribution was a sign of a healthy population, a self-evident nonsense to any
biologist, but likely to be accepted by the general public. In replies in the same newspapers I
demolished this ridiculous assertion about a healthy population, and other silly claims by them
about sustainable culling. Most importantly, the report avoided the question of abundance on grouse
moors and other land, despite this being the key question. Why was it not demanded by Rob Raynor
and SNH? Was it because they thought that this would annoy the landed and shooting interests, and
that avoiding such a reaction by these interests was more important to SNH than respecting the
public interest for which SNH was founded?
In a recent SNH-commissioned report 444 on Development of a reliable method for estimating
mountain hare numbers (2011), the authors concentrated on fieldwork involving removal of hare
dung in relation to catch/re-catch rates. They emphasised that this method had been successful in
estimating numbers of snowshoe hares in 'Canada and North America' (sic). Report 287 also made
this silly mistake, as if Canada were not part of North America. The long-term noteworthy research
programme on snowshoe hares at Kluane Lake in the Yukon by Charles Krebs did involve this
method, but the study areas were in the boreal forest, where hares could not be counted on open
ground because dense coniferous trees and scrub dominated the region. Professor Krebs, who spent
a sabbatical year with me and my grouse research team at Blackhall, Banchory, in 1979, took part in
counts by us of grouse and hares on moorland and alpine ground. I assure Rob Raynor that he
would never have considered this indirect method had the environment been open alpine or tundra,
or for that matter moorland as in the man-induced moorland of Scotland. Report 444.was
inconclusive, finding no correlation between dung and catch/re-catch rates. Hence the title of the
report is incorrect and misleading, because the report fails to develop a reliable method.
The authors of report 444 measured the amounts of hare dung deposited since their previous visits,
and compared the amounts of dung with catch-recatch methods for estimating density. Fieldwork
was done on four estates, signified as ED, IC, ML and TP. Readers who do not know the region well
are given no clue which estates are referred to with these capital letters, but anyone with much local
knowledge will infer that they are Edinglassie (presumably of Don and not of Deveron, and this
should have been made clear), Invercauld, Mar Lodge and Tillypronie. Ironically, Invercauld and
Tillypronie estates had severely reduced hares already before the fieldwork for report 444 started.
The policy on Edinglassie of Don was to forbid reductions, but hares have become scarcer, probably
because the estate on several sides is bounded by estates where reductions have been pursued. Mar
Lodge estate has pursued a policy of protection, but hares have declined because muirburn has
ceased on much of the estate and heather has grown too tall for high hare densities as a result.
On p15 of report 444, the authors dismiss other, direct methods, such as those of Flux, Hewson, and
me. In paragraph 3 one reads that 'Direct methods such as seeing and counting individual hares are
generally more labour intensive than indirect methods' (my comment, so why favour the latter that
have proved inconclusive?), 'and suffer from a number of practical problems' (not specified or
defined), and 'because of snow cover the application of direct methods is likely to be restricted'
(well, avoid days with snow cover!). In report 287, under 4. Overview, the assertion is made that,
because hares are crepuscular and active at night, 'Total counts during daylight hours are therefore
not an option'. This assertion is a mere assumption, made with no evidence adduced to back it up.
The authors claim, again without any rationale, that a national estimate of hare numbers is required
before one can assess trends, far less the recent reductions on many grouse-moors. A national
estimate is totally irrelevant, and the desire for this conflicts with the need for assessments to
answer whether hares have declined on many grouse moors due to severe killing by gamekeepers
with the backing of factors, agents and landowners. All that is required is an assessment of changes
in abundance on a good sample of grouse-moor estates where severe killing is known to be
practised, versus changes in numbers on grouse-moor estates without such policies and changes in
numbers on alpine areas again without such policies. I have produced such an assessment in my
book published at the end of 2013.
In report 287, sweeping claims are made on the purported little value of transect counts because a
transect count produces merely an index. In many cases, such as transect counts involving flushing
distance or distance perpendicular to the walking line, such counts can be provide estimates of
density, known as 'distance sampling', and the authors concede that it has been tried by one of them
(Newey) on hares, and worked, but that there are still limitations on the method due to the technical
difficulties and possible errors. Unfortunately, the authors do not specify in any more detail what
they mean exactly by the technical difficulties and possible errors. Furthermore, the authors ignore
the fact that an index from a crude transect count that does not involve distance sampling can easily
be compared with total area counts by other methods. It can also be compared with totals before and
after a large-scale shoot on a winter day when the number shot was a high proportion of the total
population and was known, as Flux elegantly showed. The authors of report 287 then make the
strange comment that transect counts 'at best will be limited to open habitat'. This claim is
misleading, for most Scottish mountain hares live on open moorland or alpine land, and nearly all
are on moorland, where the current issue of severe reductions is concentrated.
The authors of report 287 stated 'it is recognised, however, that direct methods of counting hares are
likely to be favoured over indirect methods by estate managers and their staff.' One might therefore
question why the authors emphasise in this report the value of indirect methods and the need to
develop them. Any attempt to involve estate staff in counts on grouse moors to check whether
severe reductions have occurred and how widespread they are, i.e. the main issue facing SNH in
relation to the EU, is therefore likely to fail. The notion that gamekeepers would happily measure
dung as an indirect method is risible, and reveals that the authors have little knowledge and
understanding of Scottish grouse-moor gamekeepers.
This is followed by further untested claims in report 287 (Section 6) that, 'direct counts are likely to
be of limited use at very low density and very high density', but no evidence for this is adduced. The
authors go on to dismiss counts using dogs, because Watson et al. (1973) found that the coefficient
of variation of counts was greater at medium and low population densities than at high densities.
However, the authors were wrong to claim that the greater CVs at medium and low densities
'suggest that dog counts are of dubious use (Watson et al. 1973)', as if quoting from Watson et al.
(1973). Watson et al. (1973) stated nothing of the sort, so this was a serious misrepresentation by
the authors of report 287 including yourself as an SNH officer involved in commissioning this
report. Higher CVs of counts at low density are inevitable because the individual animal has a
larger home range that may straddle the boundary of the study area and therefore on a given count
may be inside the boundary or outside. It is an elementary fact of statistical; analysis that this can be
easily solved by using a larger sub-area or by combining sub-areas into larger ones.
In Section 6 of report 287, the authors claim that a comparison of dog counts with distance
sampling showed that dog counts seriously underestimate hare density, by 2 to 10-fold . Readers are
referred to the graph showing this in Fig. 2a, However, no information is provided on methods, and
the reference is given as Newey et al. unpublished. This is unacceptable misuse, where an
apparently crucial piece of evidence is airily described as coming from a yet unpublished study, and
readers looking at the graph see no further information even in the form of detailed footnotes.
Nothing is added on the timing for a given study area of either the distance sampling or of the dog
counts, to reassure readers that the two methods were used in similar weather, and that recounting
of the same individuals in the distance sampling and the dog counts could be ruled out. Moreover,
for the study areas on Edinglassie (presumably Edinglassie of Don, though one despairs at the
unwillingness to be exact when describing geographical details, especially given that there is an
Edinglassie estate and grouse moor on Deveronside), nothing is shown for the dog counts. It is not
made clear whether the dog counts in this case revealed no hares, or whether there were no data
from dog counts. This is sloppy work. If one assumes that no hares were seen on dog counts there,
the claim that dog counts underestimate density by 2-10 fold is incorrect. Even if distance sampling
showed only one hare per unit area and dog counts revealed none, the underestimation would be
infinity).
Another important issue with Fig. 2A is the quality control of the distance sampling and the dog
counts. Nothing is added about the repeatability of either method on a given area by the same
observer and by different observers. Nothing is added on checking of the observer doing the
distance sampling by an independent observer. Similarly, with dog counts, success depends on the
dog breed, dog training, and above all the vigilance and keenness of the field observer. Many dogs
used by grouse-moor gamekeepers are Labradors and spaniels. These can be trained to run sideways
enough to cover an area and indeed overlap the coverage, but usually they walk or run too close, in
which case they cover only a minority of the ground. Setters and pointers are the best breeds for
covering the ground thoroughly on moorland and alpine land, but those bred for show or field
trials, and above all trained for field trials, are inadequate for counting because they run too far out
and too quickly to get the first point and hence become winner, ignoring the great majority of the
ground and often disturbing and flushing game animals too far out and beyond the visibility of the
dog handler. Finally, many dog counts are done by individuals whose aim is to get totals for cocks,
hens and young of red grouse, and usually they are not interested in finding totals for meadow
pipits, golden plover, mountain hares, and other species. They are therefore liable to ignore them in
note-taking, or to overlook them.
The above issues concerning dog counts are elementary to those who have much experience of
using dogs. Ignoring them and presenting results for dog counts and distance sampling as if these
were easy standard methods that could be achieved by anyone, as done by the authors of report 287,
reveals deplorable lack of the necessary knowledge required to make confident assertions in reports
intended to be scientific and reliable and rigorous.
Further unjustified dismissal (report 287) occurs on the use of vantage points to watch and count
hares. Without adducing quantitative statistical evidence, the authors assert, 'Vantage points are of
little use'. The authors reveal an aversion to hard prolonged fieldwork aimed at direct counts or total
enumerations of all hares present. Confusion appears on 'Clearance methods'. Because dung
clearance is elsewhere emphasised repeatedly, readers would readily assume on first reading that
Clearance methods refer to dung-clearance. But no! If one reads on, it becomes apparent that the
authors here mean methods that clear an area of hares, or 'drive counts' with a number of humans
driving the area. It is asserted that these 'may have a place in local small-scale assessments, but like
direct counting methods are unlikely to be suitable for national or large-scale surveys'. The authors
completely miss the boat here, once again, by their emphasis on the need for national or regional
assessments of numbers, even thought these are irrelevant to the issue of the recent massive
reductions on many grouse moors. For the latter, 'local or small-scale assessments' are necessary.
In report 287, the authors state of mountain hare abundance that it 'could be repeated in the same
area as originally if sufficiently precise methodological details were available. By re-surveying
these historic sites using the original survey method, and calibrating that method against one of the
methods developed earlier in this proposal to derive an absolute estimate of abundance, it should be
possible to gain an insight in to the long-term trend in hare abundance. The original studies would
have had to have been undertaken at a known stage of a population fluctuation, or to have been
conducted over a sufficiently long run of years to enable it to be determined. Table 1 lists these
studies, the methods they used, and identifies whether sufficient detail is available to repeat the
methods both in terms of methodology and geographical location.'
'It is evident from Table 1 that there are very few studies for which sufficient
methodological information exits to allow a re-survey, for many of the studies there is no
information on the stage of population growth, or the studies were too short for this to be
determined (AW comment. This applies equally to the recent studies using distance sampling and
catch/re-catching and dung plots). Furthermore, many of the historic counts are based on dog or
vantage point counts which are thought (AW comment, 'thought' is not good enough, and, 'thought'
by whom? This report lacks objective thinking and rigour.) to poorly index true density. Hewson
(1976) represents the only published long-term population study of mountain hares and includes
sufficient data on methodology, location and population dynamics to allow a resurvey using vantage
point counts and possibly capture-recapture (AW comment. So, why not do it?). The 9 year timeseries for three study sites in the Cairngorms presented by Watson & Hewson (1973) could
potentially be re-surveyed using dog counts if the count areas could be relocated with sufficient
accuracy (AW comment. This is third-rate biased and lazy thinking. AW has maps at 1:25000 scale
for the three areas, and for many other study areas on grouse moors as listed in Watson et al. (1973)
and again in AW's book Mammals in north-east Highlands. How can the authors make this criticism
without boithering to ask me whether I had the maps and other details? Also, why are the three
alpine sites in Watson & Hewson mentioned, but not the larger number on grouse moors, including
moors where estates have caused massive reductions of hares since the late 1990s by severe
killing?) Additionally it would be possible to re-survey sites on Orkney and Shetland that Hewson
(1988, 1995) surveyed using vantage point counts, although there are insufficient data to identify
the stage of population growth. However, vantage point count and dog counts are thought (AW
comment, 'thought' is not good enough, and, 'thought' by whom?) to be of little use in obtaining
absolute estimates of abundance or density (Section 6), although it would be possible to obtain
indices of abundance. Given the small number of potential sites (AW comment. Biased again. The
sites are more numerous than in recent work using catch/re-catching, distance sampling and dung
plots), and the limitations of vantage point counts and dog counts we do not recommend pursuing a
retrospective surveys of these historic study areas.' AW's final comment here is that the reason why
the authors do not recommend this is that it would entail some harder fieldwork by them than they
have used for their indirect methods.
Yet towards the end of the more recent report 444, its authors also reveal woolly confused and
contradictory thinking, because they mention that it might be worth trying transect counts and
counts with dogs! I quote, 'despite potential limitations we recommend that direct methods need to
be fully considered, and may benefit from better uptake if proven to be effective. Direct counts of
hares along transects with or without the use of a dog to flush hares during day light, or with the aid
of a lamp or thermal imaging equipment at night are probably the most obvious and simple methods
worth considering, but are only suitable for open habitats'. The authors' bias against such methods is
again conspicuous when these methods are dismissed as being suitable only 'for open habitats'. As I
have stated above, almost all mountain hares in Scotland are in the treeless and almost scrub-less
open environments of moorland and alpine land (I refrain from using the authors' vague and
undefined use of the term 'habitats'). Moreover, the current controversy over severe reductions of
hares by estates applies solely to the open environment of moorland. The authors have painted
themselves and SNH into an absurd unrealistic corner, and are in danger of becoming laughingstocks of their own making.
The authors of report 287 stress again the need for a national assessment of mountain hare
distribution and abundance, and, 'We recommend a desk-based study'. I ask of SNH, let us please
forego yet more desk-based studies, because they have not been worth the outlay of taxpayers'
money paid for them. Moreover, why again the need for a national assessment of total hare
numbers, an issue that is totally irrelevant to the key question at issue, and that would completely
divert SNH money and time into a useless channel.
I found both reports poorly written because of unclear thinking and above all the profuse use of
jargon, bad grammar and gibberish, such as 'methodology' instead of method, 'dung-plot clearance
methodologies' (ugh!), 'sufficient methodological information exists to allow a re-survey', 'existing
mountain hare population information', ' a suite of methods are evaluated', 'necessary to inform
management', 'counting methodologies', 'extremes of density present methodological problems'
'methodological outputs', 'sufficiently precise methodological details were available' (AW comment.
Here the authors make the elementary error of confusing precise with accurate. It is accuracy that is
important here, not precision), 'national population assessment exercise', 'the study was conducted',
'Phase 1 was conducted', 'spatial and temporal movement', 'compared to', 'logistics very difficult',
'the weather prevented access to study areas due to snow-blocked hill roads' (why did the authors
not consider snow shoes or skis?), 'Trapping mountain hares is very challenging', and elsewhere one
reads that 'catching hares is very difficult' (AW comment. I wish Ray Hewson were still alive, for he
would have laughed loudly at these examples of poor fieldwork and lack of motivation. He caught
and marked hares in snares on winter nights during his spare-time from his work as an excise
officer, easily and skilfully, and deep snow and bad weather did not deter him, for he was a good
cross-country ski-mountaineer). Other examples of unclear writing are 'Pellet accumulation will
likely be greater in feeding habitats' (AW comment. What is a feeding habitat, or for that matter
what do the authors mean by their frequent loose use of habitat? Generally, their use is redundant),
'capture rates are dependant on' (misspelling of dependent), the euphemistic 'harvest' and
'harvesting' instead of killing, continual incorrect use of 'limited' and 'limitation'. Why not write in
explicit simple English, and, where it is really necessary to use a technical term, define it clearly?
On this tack, I request Rob Raynor to tell me how much SNH paid for the commissioned report 287
on Conservation and management of the mountain hare, in which Rob Raynor was a co-author, and
the report 444 in which he was not.
In one of his parliamentary answers, Minister Paul Wheelhouse on 5 December 2013 mentioned the
need for 'improved monitoring methods (Commissioned Report 444), but unfortunately, due to two
severe winters hampering the fieldwork, the results did not provide SNH with the statistical
relationship needed to progress this work. SNH therefore propose to develop a further programme
of research, with the intention to commencing further fieldwork later in 2014. The exact detail of
this work programme is still to be agreed.' The hoped-for statistical relationship needed by SNH in
the end would be a regression where dung counts were highly correlated positively with catch/recatch rates and hence with presumed density, and SNH would then use a given amount of dung
count to predict density on areas without the use of catch/re-catch rates. This failed because the
study showed no such correlation or hint of it. In any case, even if it had done so, such a prediction
was likely to be subject to much error because of the highly variable nature of the deposition of
dung by hares.
It will be revealing to see what further research and fieldwork SNH will develop in 2014. Given the
failure of the study in report 444, surely SNH will be careful about commissioning yet more work
on dung. Because the authors of the reports 287 and 444 stress the importance of a reliable method
easy to use by many people. Certainly, gamekeepers would not be happy if asked to collect dung,
and would question the further development and testing of such indirect methods. The kinds, skills,
and motivation of persons who will be asked to do monitoring on their moors and estates are crucial
to bear in mind when devising methods. Following the parliamentary questions and perhaps
involvement of the EU, many in the public will be watching carefully to see what further
programme of work SNH decides to use in 2014. It is now more than five years since report 287 of
2008, eight years since that SNH commissioned that report, and more than three since report 444
was published in 2011, yet progress has been non-existent. Dithering and unwillingness to face
reality have prevailed. This is far from good enough, and will be widely perceived as such. SNH
deserves severe criticism because of its supine attitude to the estates doing the heavy killing and
large reductions, and its dithering and inaction for years in tackling this problem properly and
ending the severe killing.
I am surprised that Rob Raynor personally has not seen or found for himself that hares have
declined drastically on many grouse-moors. He is based at Inverness. Only a short car drive or bus
trip for some miles takes one into grouse-moor estates that have reduced hares to near extirpation,
such as at Moy, Cawdor, Corrybrough, and Castle Grant on the south side of the Slochd. By
stopping in lay-bys and using binoculars, or betters till by taking a walk on the moor, Rob Raynor
would have seen the near absence of hares on the nearby hill as well as the absence of road-kills by
vehicles. Many hill-walkers, mountaineers and cross-country skiers have told me that they have
noticed the scarcity of hares since the late 90s, and are concerned about it. Why not Rob Raynor and
colleagues in SNH?
There are a very few grouse-moor estates where a policy of severe reduction of hares has not been
pursued, such as Edinglassie of Don, Balmoral, Mar Lodge Estate, Coignafearn, the Convals near
Dufftown, Glen Muick, and the alpine parts of Glen Clunie on Invercauld, and there one can still
see mountain hares still quite plentiful.
My friend Pat Wells who lives by the Slochd road just east of the Findhorn Bridge and beside
Corrybrough wrote to me saying she found the Minister's responses to the parliamentary questions
complacent. Although very busy opposing the rash of wind-turbines on our hills, she has offered to
show Rob Raynor the lack of hares at Corrybrough and nearby, and to tell him what it was like
when the hares abounded. If he is interested in taking up her generous offer, please let me know.
As far as I am aware, I have not met Rob Raynor. I have known his colleague Des Thompson for
decades, and if Rob Raynor would like to know more about my background and work as a scientist
since the 1940s I am sure he would be helpful.
I have seen the email by Rob Raynor in response to Dr Bill Smith, formerly of the Scottish
veterinary service, who sent his concerns about the decline of hares on grouse moors. In his reply of
10 January 2014, Rob Raynor wrote, 'The issue of hare numbers is a complex one and the honest
answer is that our knowledge of their current population size is inadequate. The only published
population estimate for Scotland exists is in the 1995 JNCC Review of British Mammals in which a
figure of 350,000 +/- 50% is given. There is a need, therefore, to provide a more reliable updated
figure.' Once again, the irrelevant issue of discovering a national estimate for Scotland is given
emphasis, to the complete exclusion of tackling the key question, which is to find whether numbers
have declined to scarcity on a good sample of grouse moors with and without a policy of severe
killing.
Lastly, the row over the hares is gathering momentum and will I hope result in the actions of many
of the grouse-moor landowners being regarded and deplored as illegal in view of the EU Habitats
Directive.
Yours sincerely
Dr Adam Watson, Clachnaben, Crathes, Banchory, Kincardineshire AB31 5JE, 14 Feb 2014