Hen Harrier - Scottish Natural Heritage

Download PDF
2 downloads 122 Views 329KB Size Report
Comment
Fletcher et al., 2010, Baines and Richardson, 2013;. Thompson et al., 2016; Young et al., 2016), and it currently receives considerable media attention. The.
Hen Harrier

© Mark Hamblin

Authors Des BA Thompson Scottish Natural Heritage, Silvan House, 231 Corstorphine Road, Edinburgh, EH12 7AT. [email protected] Staffan Roos RSPB Centre for Conservation Science, RSPB Scotland, 2 Lochside View, Edinburgh Park, Edinburgh, EH12 9DH. Damian Bubb Paragon Ecology, 6 East Lane, Stanhope, Bishop Auckland, Co. Durham, DL13 2YX. Sonja C Ludwig Langholm Moor Demonstration Project, The Estate Office, Ewesbank, Langholm, DG13 0ND.

Summary

Introduction

• The hen harrier (Circus cyaneus) is one of Britain’s most alluring birds of prey, and one of the most threatened over parts of its breeding range.

The conservation conflict

• The SNH financial contribution to this SAF species covered its support of the the Langholm Moor Demonstration Project (LMDP). The LMDP was devised to contribute to the resolution of a long-standing conservation conflict between raptors (including hen harriers) and grouse moor management. It consists of a partnership of Scottish Natural Heritage (SNH), Buccleuch Estates (land owner), Game and Wildlife Conservation Trust (GWCT), Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB), and Natural England. • A seven year report gives preliminary results up to 2014. A full report will be published beyond the end of the project (September 2017) and scientific papers are being prepared for publication. • The LMDP was launched in September 2007, and in 2008 the project employed five gamekeepers, a project manager and a project scientist. Prior to this, between 2003 and 2007, there were on average only 2.8 pairs of nesting hen harriers and exceptionally low numbers of grouse in the 12,000 ha study area. The work in the LMDP has since 2008 involved a combination of active moorland management (i.e. legal predator control and habitat management), diversionary feeding of hen harriers, and scientific monitoring of a wider range of bird and habitat features. • Active management of the moor under the LMDP, other than ongoing heather habitat recovery following sheep reductions, ceased in spring 2016, with efforts currently being devoted to writing up the results of the work. The project is due to finish in October 2017.

The conflict between raptor conservation and grouse moor management is long-running (e.g. Joint Raptor Study, JRS; Redpath and Thirgood, 1997; Ratcliffe, 2007; Park et al., 2008; Redpath et al., 2001, 2010; Fletcher et al., 2010, Baines and Richardson, 2013; Thompson et al., 2016; Young et al., 2016), and it currently receives considerable media attention. The conflict involving hen harriers has been especially acute, with fundamental differences of view over how the conflict should be managed (e.g. Ratcliffe, 2007; Thirgood and Redpath, 2008; Watson and Moss, 2008; Sotherton et al., 2009; Thompson et al., 2009, 2016; New et al., 2011; Elston et al., 2014; Avery, 2015; Uplands Stakeholder Forum, 2016). Early ecological work on the hen harrier emphasised the constraining effects of persecution associated with grouse moor management on raptor conservation (e.g. Watson, 1977; Ratcliffe, 1990, 2007; Etheridge et al., 1997; Green and Etheridge, 1999; and see Watson and Moss, 2008 for other references). Recent work has shown a complex range of factors affecting hen harriers in different parts of their UK range, but with persecution still the most important constraint on their distribution (e.g. Anderson et al., 2009; Fielding et al., 2011). Some people illegally kill hen harriers because of their potential impact on red grouse populations and shooting bags (e.g. Redpath and Thirgood, 2008; Sotherton et al., 2009; Thompson et al., 2009; Redpath et al., 2010; Hardey et al., 2013; Avery, 2015; Uplands Stakeholder Forum, 2016). There are two broad but non-exclusive approaches to reducing such persecution of harriers: those involving enforcement of existing laws, and those directed at achieving consensus and cooperation. Redpath et al. (2010) gave examples of measures actively considered since 2005: enforcement and support for a move to less intensive grouse moor management; intra-guild predation by golden eagles; diversionary feeding of harriers; and a scheme to manage harrier broods (see also Elston et al., 2014). They concluded that progress requires continued dialogue between the main stakeholders and a risk analysis based on improved understanding of the costs, acceptability, legality, feasibility and the environmental, economic and social consequences of following alternative approaches.

The development of a conservation framework for hen harriers (Fielding et al., 2011) and work to directly tackle illegal persecution of hen harriers (under the auspices of the Partnership for Action Against Wildlife Crime Scotland, PAWS) are ongoing. In particular, the Heads Up for Harriers project is successfully engaging members of the public and land managers in developing our awareness of harrier ecology. The RSPB Skydancer project has effectively raised awareness and promoted the conservation of harriers in the north of England, and has been extended cross-border by the RSPB Hen Harrier Life Project, including considerable use of satellite transmitters to track the birds throughout the year. Diverting harriers from grouse through diversionary feeding, and putting in place habitat management and predator control measures to reduce other factors potentially suppressing grouse numbers, have been at the core of the Langholm Moor Demonstration Project (LMDP). For the rest of this chapter, we confine ourselves to the LMDP, developed as the sole work under the Species Action Framework (SAF) to address a conservation conflict (sensu Redpath et al., 2013) involving a conservation priority species – the hen harrier. It is noteworthy that human-wildlife conflicts are defined as: ‘… occurring when an action by either humans or wildlife has an adverse effect on the other. This term is problematic in part because it suggests that wildlife species are conscious human antagonists.’ (Redpath et al., 2013). However, conservation conflicts are defined as: ‘Situations that occur when two or more parties with strongly held opinions clash over conservation objectives and when

one party is perceived to assert its interests at the expense of another. This definition recognises that conservation conflicts occur fundamentally between humans.’ (Redpath et al., 2013).

Langholm Moor - a totemic area for grouse shooting Langholm Moor has emblematic significance in grouse shooting circles. In Scotland, the record number of red grouse shot in a single day is 2,523 - killed by eight guns on 30 August 1911 on Roan Fell (part of Langholm Moor); another 1,266 grouse were shot there eight days later (Ratcliffe, 1990). In total, more than 20,500 grouse were shot on the Langholm Moor by the end of October that year (Ratcliffe, 2007). Since then, the number of grouse shot has declined, though large ‘bags’ continued to be shot until the early 1990s. The last time more than 3,000 brace (i.e. 6,000 individuals) of red grouse were shot was in 1934 and the last time 1,000 brace were shot was in 1992 (Fig. 1), the first year of the JRS and the last year of commercial shooting. Since 1996, no grouse shooting has taken place. One major habitat change across the moor has been the decline in moorland habitat dominated by heather (Calluna vulgaris). Between 1948 and 1988, approximately 48% of heather-dominated habitat at Langholm was lost, primarily through heavy grazing by sheep (Redpath and Thirgood, 1997). This is comparable with similar losses of heather cover across large tracts of the British uplands due to heavy grazing pressure and afforestation

Fig 1. Historic grouse bags at Langholm Moor 1933­-1998. No grouse shooting took place after 1996.

Fig 2. Langholm-Newcastleton Hills SSSI/SPA, traditional grouse beats, extent of heather (purple) and LMDP project area boundary (brown line) denoting the boundary of ‘keepered’ ground. Note that a small area of the SPA at the west of the project area boundary is outwith Buccleuch Estates’ ownership. Source: Langholm Moor Demonstration Project (2014). © Crown copyright and database rights 2016. Ordnance Survey 100017908

(Thompson et al., 1995). Declines in heather cover at Langholm were probably ongoing until sheep grazing was reduced in 2010-11. From then, heather-dominated habitat has been recovering and extending (see Langholm Moor Demonstration Project, 2014). From the perspective of a record shooting bag more than 100 years ago, Langholm Moor was viewed by some as the ideal and key moor on which to adopt and test management practices to resolve the conservation conflict between red grouse shooting interests and the conservation of raptors, especially the hen harrier (Redpath and Thirgood, 1997). In addition, the landowner, Buccleuch Estates, has had a long-standing desire

to shoot driven red grouse again, and this has added impetus to finding ways of resolving this conflict. Langholm Moor became the principal study moor in the Joint Raptor Study (JRS) from 1992 to 1997, which quantified the impact of hen harriers and, to a lesser extent, peregrine on red grouse numbers (Redpath and Thirgood, 1997). That work showed that predation by hen harriers and peregrines could reach levels sufficient to render red grouse shooting unviable on Langholm Moor, but the evidence was less clear on the other five moors in the JRS. In 1999, the gamekeepers were laid off at Langholm, and habitat and predator management virtually ceased. As a result, crow numbers and

fox population indices increased (the latter only recorded from 2003 onwards), breeding hen harrier numbers dropped to pre-JRS levels and grouse and breeding wader numbers declined to very low numbers (Baines et. al., 2008). Only in spring 2008, when keepering resumed, did the management of the moor change significantly as part of the new LMDP. A decade after the publication of Redpath and Thirgood’s 1997 report, the LMDP was developed by a partnership of SNH (chair), Buccleuch Estates (owner), GWCT, RSPB and Natural England. A Project Plan was devised, and the project was launched in Edinburgh in September 2007 by Michael Russell MSP, then Environment Minister. The LMDP was devised to deliver a ‘win-win’ situation of breeding raptors coexisting with commercial driven grouse shooting.

Langholm Moor and hen harrier SPAs Langholm Moor The 11,960 ha project area includes approximately 7,600 ha of upland moorland between the towns of Langholm and Newcastleton. The site falls into the Scottish Borders and Dumfries and Galloway Council areas (which together form the SNH Southern Scotland Area). Langholm Moor was notified as a Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) in 1974 (and re-notified in 1985). The notified features of the SSSI include the assemblage of upland habitats (heather moorland, blanket bog, dwarf shrub heath, upland grassland, woodland and flushes), aggregations of breeding birds, and geology (Carboniferous-Permian igneous). The site was classified as a Special Protection Area (SPA) for breeding hen harriers under the EC Birds Directive in 2001. The boundaries of the SPA and SSSI are the same except for the exclusion from the SPA of a small area of woodland in the south and an area on the western edge of the site (Fig. 2). The vegetation is dominated by extensive blanket bog, dry heath and species-poor acidic grasslands, and there are frequent small areas of broad-leaved woodland associated with streams.

SPAs for hen harriers Langholm Moor is one of 14 sites in the UK that qualify as SPAs for breeding hen harriers. Together these support, on average, 229 pairs, which amounts to about 47% of the British breeding population and about 3% of the European

population (as in 1998, and quoted in the JNCC species account). The European population is estimated at 32,000-59,000 breeding pairs. Further details of the SPAs for hen harriers in the UK can be found in the JNCC species account (see Table 6.47a.1).

Why was the hen harrier part of SAF The hen harrier met criterion 3a of the SAF as a threatened species that is the focus of conflicts between stakeholders with objectives for game management and raptor conservation. Given the detailed research carried out, as described above, it was timely in 2007 to initiate a key project to try and reconcile the stakeholders’ objectives.

General ecology of hen harriers Detailed ecological accounts of hen harriers are given elsewhere (Watson, 1977; Hamerstrom, 1986; Hardey et al., 2013). Hen harriers are predominantly ground-nesting birds favouring areas of rank vegetation, such as heather, bracken, bog myrtle and rushes and the early stages of forestry plantations. The female typically lays four to six eggs between April and the end of May, and she incubates these for around 34 days. The chicks fledge at around 35 days after hatching. Occasionally a male mates with, and provides food for, two or more females. Hen harriers feed mostly on small birds and rodents, especially voles. Although rarely used for breeding, upland grasslands provide valuable foraging habitats. In winter, males and some juveniles move to lower reaches (farmland, marshland, fenland, heathland and river valleys), whilst many females and some males remain on the moor. In Scotland breeding strongholds include Orkney, Arran, Islay, Mull, the Uists and parts of mainland Argyll and Perthshire (Hayhow et al., 2013). The Isle of Man (IoM) is also a stronghold, with smaller numbers in Wales, northern England, and Northern Ireland (Hayhow et al., 2013). The most recent (2010) national (UK and the IoM) survey estimated the number of territorial pairs to be 662, of which 472 were confirmed as breeding pairs (Hayhow et al., 2013). This represented a significant 18% decline from the 806 territorial pairs estimated in 2004, but was not significantly different from the numbers recorded in 1998 (Hayhow et al., 2013). As in all of the previous surveys, Scotland held most (76%) of the UK and IoM population, estimated as 505 territorial pairs, which was 20% down on the 2004 estimate (633; Hayhow et al., 2013). A fourth national survey is being undertaken in 2016.

Aims Aims and objectives for the LMDP 2008-2017 The LMDP was established as a ten-year project, much of which overlapped with the SAF which ran from 2007-12. The core objective was to establish Langholm Moor as a driven grouse moor and to meet the nature conservation objectives for the SPA and SSSI. Under this objective, the following elements were to be included as measurable ‘success criteria’: • The project would be a demonstration of how to resolve conservation conflicts between moorland management for red grouse and raptor conservation. • The hen harrier population would be maintained as a viable component of the SPA. • The heather moorland habitat would be extended and improved beyond its state in 2002 (the date of the most recent survey of habitat condition). • The number of red grouse shot would be sufficient to ensure the moor reaches a financially viable state. • The wider upland bird community would increase in numbers. These elements were reviewed every three years, guided by six evaluation criteria detailed in Section 5.5 of the Project Plan.

Management Action The Project Plan - brief history Following publication of the report of the JRS (Redpath and Thirgood, 1997) Langholm Moor ceased to function as a grouse moor. Wider relationships between game management and conservation groups were poor - arguably the worst they have ever been. On the day the JRS report was published, the Chairman of SNH, the late Magnus Magnusson, announced the formation of a Moorland Working Group (MWG). Led by Colin Galbraith (then a senior staff member in SNH) the MWG was charged with building consensus between

parties. Its members were drawn from the Game Conservancy Scottish Research Trust, the Game Conservancy Trust (now GWCT), RSPB, the Scottish Landowners’ Federation (now Scottish Land and Estates) and SNH. In July 1998, the MWG signed a Statement of Intent, Action for Scotland’s Moorland, calling for concerted action to support moorland management and conservation. It also bore the signatures of nine supporting organisations: British Association for Shooting and Conservation, the Heather Trust, National Farmers’ Union of Scotland, Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors in Scotland, Scottish Association for Country Sports, the Scottish Gamekeepers Association, Scottish Raptor Study Groups, Scottish Wildlife Trust, and World Wide Fund for Nature (Scotland). The Statement made specific reference to Langholm Moor. Further discussion led to the formation of the Moorland Forum in 2002. This developed into a unique partnership that engages with matters influencing the uplands of Scotland, and actively promotes improvements in policy, practice and management. The Forum now consists of 28 member organisations. It provides the prime opportunity for cross-cutting debate on the future of the Scottish uplands and its communities, and seeks consensus on key issues affecting the uplands, founded on a sound evidence base. Importantly, that Forum (chaired first by Lady Isabel Glasgow, and now by the Earl of Lindsay) led discussions to develop a major demonstration project at Langholm which would address directly the conflicts between the conservation of birds of prey, other wildlife and habitat interests, and the objectives of driven grouse shooting. A small group was formed to take this work forward (SNH, Buccleuch Estates, GWCT and RSPB) under the chairmanship of Colin Galbraith. On 23 September 2005 work began on the development of a project plan to guide this work, and two years later, on 22 March 2007, the Langholm Project Plan was concluded. Following detailed discussions and the development of legal documentation, a company governed by Project Directors was formed, with Natural England joining as the fifth partner. The Project was launched in September 2007 with a ten-year time frame set out in the Project Plan. This plan has proved critical in guiding the work of the Project, and has continually been the source of guidance for the wider governance and work of the Project.

Organisation of the work Over the early years of the project, the following organisational structure and functions emerged: • Project Board – This managed the work, and comprised funding partners (Buccleuch Estates, SNH, GWCT, RSPB and Natural England). Management of the Board rotated every three years between SNH and Buccleuch Estates, and was initially chaired by SNH. The Project Board met quarterly to consider reports from the Project Manager and annual reports from the Scientific and Technical Advisory Group (STAG). The Project Board reviewed progress, and in the third and seventh years reported on progress against the five success criteria. • STAG, the Science and Technical Advisory Group – Drawing on scientific and land management experts, this group advised the Board on relevant matters of evidence, notably the results of the monitoring of the grouse moor, habitat and other management. • Science Contact Group – Chaired by GWCT, this consisted of scientific staff working for the Project Board member organisations, and was actively involved in and advised on scientific and technical details of the work. • PR Group – Chaired by GWCT, this attended to media issues and website content.

extra cost incurred by Buccleuch Estates and SNH to cover e.g. heather regeneration and livestock removal). • Monitoring - £75,150. • Project management and support costs - £15,800. The annual contributions were set as: £86,893 from each of SNH, Buccleuch Estates and GWCT; £30,000 from RSPB, and £15,500 from Natural England, but increased with the rate of inflation over the years. The Project aimed to receive income from driven grouse shooting (see figures in the Langholm Project Plan).

Management actions Full details are given on the Project website and in specialist papers published or planned. Most of the activities listed below were undertaken between 2008 and 2015, with the exception of livestock management (sheep numbers reduced from 2010 onwards) and strongyle worm control (which ceased in 2013-14).

Land and wildlife management Four activities were undertaken.

• Staff – A part-time Project Manager (Graeme Dalby) was appointed in 2008. He managed the Head Keeper (Simon Lester), responsible for a team of four under-keepers. The LMDP staff also included the Project’s Head Scientist (GWCT staff members seconded to the project: originally Damian Bubb, and from 2012 Sonja Ludwig) and 1-2 seasonal field assistants (RSPB employees seconded to the project) supported by several MSc and GWCT placement students, Raptor Study Group Members and volunteers. In 2012 a full-time PhD student (Richard Francksen), based at Newcastle University, joined the science team to study buzzards (he was awarded his PhD in 2016).

• Habitat management - heather burning and cutting, bracken control, heather restoration, blanket bog management entailing treatment using glycophosphate on a 300 ha site to reduce purple moor-grass dominance, livestock management and goat control.

Project budget

• Diversionary feeding of hen harriers – to divert harriers from red grouse, using techniques developed on Langholm Moor (e.g. Redpath et al., 2010).

Over the ten-year duration of the Project the annual budget was set as: • Moorland management - £214,730 (the actual costs were considerably higher, estimated overall at approximately £450,000, with the

• Legal predator control – involving trapping and shooting to remove foxes, crows, stoats and weasels. • Application of medication for strongyle worm control – to combat Trichostrongylus tenuis, an intestinal nematode parasite that can cause high mortality and reduced breeding success in red grouse and induce population crashes approximately every six years (Hudson, 1992; Newborn and Foster, 2002).

• A fifth technique, importation of grouse, was contemplated but not implemented given the steady increase in grouse numbers during the

early phase of the project. Project partners also wished to demonstrate that a grouse moor could recover without such reinforcement using birds from other areas.

Monitoring There were five components of monitoring: • Red grouse numbers and productivity – assessments were made of abundance and breeding success, with counts in March/April and July. • Red grouse mortality – using radio tags fitted to adult and juvenile grouse, the extent and possible causes of grouse mortality were estimated, in order to assess the impacts of predation, disease and other factors (see figure 5 in the Langholm Project Plan). • Numbers and breeding success of hen harriers - numbers and breeding success of hen harriers were recorded. This work included nest watches, from hides and in later years nest cameras, to record prey brought back to chicks. • Other birds and mammals – abundance of other raptors, ravens, waders, passerines and mammals was recorded annually, and in some cases more frequently. A PhD study undertaken by Richard Francksen based at Newcastle University focused on the diet and foraging behaviour of buzzards. A considerable amount of data were gathered on annual predator indices (fox scats, foxes killed by ‘lamping’, mustelid tunnels, sightings of corvids) and related to keepering intensity (traps set, hours lamped etc.) and its efficiency (numbers of predators killed). • Habitat extent, composition and structure – this was determined through combinations of repeat aerial photographic surveys, with monitoring of vegetation within the grouse count areas and along permanent transects.

Results As the project is ongoing, the data are currently being analysed and prepared for publication (e.g. Ludwig et al., in press). The reader is directed to detailed data and preliminary results in the seven year report and to the project website for updates on results and future publications.

Lessons Learnt, and Further Work Given the nature of the Project, a lot of effort has been devoted to communicating the results of the work. Publicity has included: • Six Government Ministers visiting the Project. • More than 100 visiting groups of stakeholders visiting the Project to learn from project staff about heather restoration, diversionary feeding of hen harriers and many other aspects of the work in the LMDP. • A Parliamentary Committee visiting the Project during careful consideration of the Wildlife and Natural Environment (WANE) Scotland Bill. • Considerable media coverage (e.g. TV, radio, magazine articles and blogs). • LMDP joining up with an educational awareness project, Making the Most of Moorland, focused on Langholm. Over the duration of establishing and running this project much has been learnt about large project management, governance, and reporting. All of this will feature in the final report of the Project. Several key lessons include: • The Project Plan was key to guiding the project. Often during the conduct of the work the original assumptions were questioned, and the Project Plan proved invaluable in setting out the rationale for these. • One of the drawbacks of the Project Plan was that it sometimes proved inflexible. However, as Project partners took a long time to sign up to this, there was considerable reluctance to change any of the targets. This proved especially contentious in relation to the grouse targets, which some partners considered to be unrealistic as the Project developed. • The impacts of sheep grazing, and importance of removing these for heather recovery, were not reflected in the Project Plan. Only after large numbers of sheep were removed from the moor (in 2010) was there a marked improvement in heather cover. • The detailed scientific work, now being prepared for publication, will be crucial in revealing the relative importance of drivers of change in numbers and productivity of grouse, raptors and other wildlife.

• The challenges of adopting collaborative approaches to meeting sustainable moorland management objectives are considerable. What might be viewed as legitimate ‘good practice’ by one organisation may not have the support of others.

Etheridge B, Summers RW, Green RE 1997. The effects of illegal killing and destruction of nests by humans on the population dynamics of the hen harrier Circus cyaneus in Scotland. Journal of Applied Ecology 34: 1081-1105.

Further Information

Fletcher K, Aebischer NJ, Baines D, Foster R, Hoodless AN. 2010. Changes in breeding success and abundance of ground-nesting moorland birds in relation to the experimental deployment of legal predator control. Journal of Applied Ecology 47: 263-272.

http://www.langholmproject.com/ - Project website. In particular, the reader is directed to the seven year report, and Ludwig et al. (in press). The Executive Summary in the former (pages 6-7) gives a comprehensive overview of the findings, and presents the meeting of targets as red, amber or green.

References Anderson J, Arroyo BE, Collingham, YC, Etheridge B, Fernandez-De-Simon J, Gillings S, Gregory RD, Leckie FM, Sim IMW, Thomas CD, Travis J, Redpath SM. 2008. Using distribution models to test alternative hypotheses about a species’ environmental limits and recovery prospects. Biological Conservation 142: 488-499. Avery M. 2015. Inglorious: Conflict in the Uplands. Bloomsbury: London. Baines D, Redpath SM, Richardson M, Thirgood SJ. 2008. The direct and indirect effects of predation by hen harriers Circus cyaneus on trends in breeding birds on a Scottish grouse moor. Ibis 150: 27-36. Baines D, Richardson M. 2013. Hen harriers on a Scottish grouse moor: multiple factors predict breeding density and productivity. Journal of Applied Ecology 50: 1397-1405. Elston DA, Spezia L, Baines D, Redpath SM. 2014. Working with stakeholders to reduce conflict – modelling the impact of varying hen harrier Circus cyaneus densities on red grouse Lagopus lagopus populations. Journal of Applied Ecology 51: 1236–1245.

Fielding A, Haworth P, Whitfield DP, McLeod D, Riley H. 2011. Conservation Framework for Hen Harriers in the United Kingdom. JNCC, Peterborough.

Green RE, Etheridge B. 1999. Breeding success of the hen harrier Circus cyaneus in relation to the distribution of grouse moors and the red fox Vulpes vulpes. Journal of Applied Ecology 36: 472-483. Hamerstrom F. 1986. Hawk of the marshes: the hawk that is ruled by a mouse. Smithsonian Institute Press: Washington, USA. Hardey J, Crick HPC, Wernham C, Riley H, Etheridge B, Thompson DBA. 2013. Raptors. A field guide for surveys and monitoring. 3rd edition. The Stationery Office, Edinburgh. Harris SJ, Massimino D, Newson SE, Eaton MA, Balmer DE, Noble DG, Musgrove AJ, Gillings S, Procter D, Pearce-Higgins JW. 2015. The Breeding Bird Survey 2014. BTO Research Report 673. British Trust for Ornithology, Thetford. Hayhow DB, Eaton MA, Bladwell S, Etheridge B, Ewing S, Ruddock M, Saunders R, Sharpe C, Sim IMW, Stevenson A. 2013. The status of the Hen Harrier, Circus cyaneus, in the UK and Isle of Man in 2010. Bird Study 60: 446-458. Hudson PJ. 1992. Grouse in space and time. Game Conservancy: Fordingbridge, Hampshire. Langholm Moor Demonstration Project. 2014. The Langholm Moor Demonstration Project: Seven Year Review - December 2014. Ludwig SC, Roos S, Bubb D, Baines D. (in press). Long-term trends in abundance and breeding success of red grouse and hen harriers in relation to changing management of a grouse moor. Wildlife Biology, DOI 10.2981/wlb.00246. New LF, Buckland ST, Redpath SM, Matthiopoulos J. 2011. Hen harrier management: insights from demographic models fitted to population data. Journal of Applied Ecology 48: 1187-1194.

Newborn D, Foster R. 2002. Control of parasite burdens in wild red grouse Lagopus lagopus scoticus through the indirect application of anthelmintics. Journal of Applied Ecology 39: 909-914. Park KJ, Graham KE, Calladine J, Wernham C. 2008. Impacts of birds of prey on gamebirds in the UK: a review. Ibis 150: 9-26. Ratcliffe DA. 1990. Bird Life of Mountain and Upland. CUP: Cambridge. Ratcliffe DA. 2007. Galloway and the Borders. New Naturalist series. HarperCollins: London. Redpath SM, Thirgood SJ. 1997. Birds of prey and red grouse. The Stationery Office, London. Redpath SM, Amar A, Smith A, Thompson DBA, Thirgood S. 2010. People and nature in conflict: can we reconcile hen harrier conservation and game management? In: Species management: challenges and solutions for the 21st century, Baxter J, Galbraith CA (eds). TSO Scotland: Edinburgh; 335-350. Redpath SM, Thirgood SJ, Leckie FM. 2001. Does supplementary feeding reduce predation of red grouse? Journal of Applied Ecology 38: 1157-1168. Redpath SM, Young J, Evely A, Adams WM, Sutherland WJ, Whitehouse A, Amar A, Lambert RA, Linnell JDC, Watt A, Gutiérrez, RJ. 2013. Understanding and managing conservation conflicts. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 28: 100-109. Sotherton N, Tapper S, Smith A. 2009. Hen harriers and red grouse: economic aspects of red grouse shooting and the implications for moorland conservation. Journal of Applied Ecology 46: 955-960. Thirgood S, Redpath SM. 2008. Hen harriers and red grouse: science, politics and human–wildlife conflict. Journal of Applied Ecology 45: 1550-1554. Thomas L, Laake JL, Strindberg S, Marques FFC, Buckland ST, Borchers DL, Anderson DR, Burnham KP, Hedley SL, Pollard JH, Bishop JRB, Marques TA. 2006. Programme DISTANCE. Version 5. Research Unit for Wildlife Population Assessment, University of St Andrews, UK. Thompson DBA, MacDonald AJ, Marsden JH, Galbraith CA. 1995. Upland heather moorland in Great Britain: A review of international importance, vegetation change and some objectives for nature conservation. Biological Conservation 71: 163-178.

Thompson PS, Amar A, Hoccom DG, Knott J, Wilson JD. 2009. Resolving the conflict between driven-grouse shooting and conservation of hen harriers. Journal of Applied Ecology 46: 950–954. Thompson PS, Douglas DJT, Hoccom DG, Knott J, Roos S, Wilson JD. 2016. Environmental impacts of high-output driven shooting of Red Grouse Lagopus lagopus scotica. Ibis 158: 446–452. Uplands Stakeholder Forum. 2016. Hen harrier sub-group Joint action plan to increase the English hen harrier population. Defra, London. Watson A, Moss R. 2008. Grouse. New Naturalist series. Collins: London. Watson D. 1977. The hen harrier. T & AD Poyser: Berkhamstedt. Young JC, Thompson DBA, Moore P, MacGugan A, Watt A, Redpath SM. 2016. A conflict management tool for conservation agencies. Journal of Applied Ecology 53: 705-711.

Acknowledgements Scores of people have supported this Project. We are particularly grateful to the keepers (led by Simon Lester), field assistants, Scottish Raptor Study Group members, students and volunteers who have done so much of the hard work at Langholm. Much of the scientific work has been undertaken by Sonja Ludwig (Head Scientist) and her team, with Damian Bubb leading the science team in the early years. The Project Board has steered the work, and we thank Colin Galbraith (founder chair), Susan Davies, Ron Macdonald and Mark Oddy (former chairs) and the current Board for all their work: Andrew Bachell (current chair), Mark Oddy, Teresa Dent, Duncan Orr-Ewing and Rob Cooke. The scientific work has been directed by the Science Contact Group, chaired by Nick Sotherton, and involving the following in addition to the authors of this chapter: Richard Francksen, Stephen Murphy, and Jeremy Wilson. The wider scientific steer has come from the Science and Technical Advisory Group (STAG), chaired first by Jeremy Greenwoood and later by Robert Kenward; we are particularly grateful to members for their many incisive and challenging contributions. Project Manager Graeme Dalby has tirelessly attended to the administration of the Project. The PR group, led by Adam Smith, has guided the communications and drafted much of the Project website material.

Several individuals have provided invaluable scientific inputs over the years, and in additon to those named above we must thank: Mick Crawley, Peter Hudson, Ian Newton, Steve Redpath and the late Simon Thirgood. SNH Area and other staff have been ceaselessly helpful, and we thank Phil Boon, Roger Burton, Sarah Eno, Martin Gaywood, Chris Miles, Andrew Panter, Kay Prichard, Iain Rennick, Karen Rentoul and Ian Strachan. The Duke of Buccleuch, Mark Oddy and Simon Lester deserve special thanks for the remarkable industry and faith they have shown in the Project. We remember the late Gareth Lewis, Charles Connell, John Miles and Simon Thirgood who did so much to lay the early foundations for this work.

The SAF Partners • Scottish Natural Heritage • Buccleuch Estates • Game & Wildlife Conservation Trust • Royal Society for the Protection of Birds • Natural England

The Species Action Framework Handbook This account comes from the Species Action Framework Handbook published by Scottish Natural Heritage. For more information on the handbook please go to www.snh.gov.uk/ speciesactionframework. This document should be cited as follows: Thompson DBA, Roos S, Bubb D, Ludwig SC. 2016. Hen harrier. Version 1.0. In The Species Action Framework Handbook, Gaywood MJ, Boon PJ, Thompson DBA, Strachan IM (eds). Scottish Natural Heritage, Battleby, Perth.