Mountain Hare cull

[Ukwildlifeo]

Yet another scientifically unfounded cull of wild animals.

Cull of 25,000 hares called into question - Scotsman.com News

Perhaps they finished off all the Hen harriers and needed another scapegoat

[Jason Green]

Afternoon all,

How utterly ridiculous!!

This is interesting:

The study, published in the Journal Of Applied Ecology by Scottish scientists, claims that on estates where there are other "hosts" on which the blood-sucking ticks can feed - such as deer or sheep - the culling of mountain hares has little effect on the spread of tick-borne diseases, such as louping ill virus

It'll give someone a good time with a rifle though, I'm sure

Take care,

Jason

[Kayleigh]

Maybe its time to cull the landowners and game shooters...
Maybe ban game all together..

Oh...forgot..money talks..

[Vectisbirder]

What is it with the human race? If it's non-human and deemed some sort of threat, no matter how tenuous the evidence, "Man's" response is 'kill it'. I'm more than a tad hacked off with this attitude.
Humans breed like rats and then have the gall to kill off other species because they're 'in our way'.

We'd do well, as a species to remember an old Native American prophecy:

"When all the trees have been cut down,
when all the animals have been hunted,
when all the waters are polluted,
when all the air is unsafe to breathe,
only then will you discover you cannot eat money."

[Jonathan]

Originally Posted by Kayleigh

Maybe its time to cull the landowners and game shooters...
Maybe ban game all together..

. . . or maybe look at the relationship between 'game shooters' and mountain hares . . .

From the Macaulay Land Use Research Institute's website:

They are typically more numerous in central and eastern Scotland and are strongly associated with the heather moorland that is managed for red grouse - where they likely benefit from habitat management and predator control aimed at improving grouse densities.

From the Game and Wildlife Conservation Trust website:

It is widely accepted that mountain hares are closely associated with grouse moors as the management of heather moorland for red grouse also benefits mountain hares (Hewson, 1984; Hudson, 1992). We therefore compared the intensity of management of the estates surveyed in 2006/07 to the total area of mountain hare presence on those estates.

The estates were divided into three management groups; those that undertake extensive heather management and predator control (driven grouse moors), those that undertake a lesser degree of heather management and predator control (walked-up grouse moors) and those that perform minor (if any) management (no grouse interest). This comparison showed that on average, mountain hares were reported on 64% of the area of driven grouse moors, compared with just 9% of walked-up grouse moors with mountain hares essentially absent from estates which had no grouse interest.

It may be unpalatable to some folk but mountain hares are one of several species which benefit from the habitat created by grouse moor management.

Cheers
Jonathan

[Dogghound]

Originally Posted by Jonathan

.
It may be unpalatable to some folk but mountain hares are one of several species which benefit from the habitat created by grouse moor management.

Not to mention breeding birds, particularly waders. Although I tend not to agree with the article in the OP.

[diggleken]

Quite ludicrous to shoot mountain Hares.
In contradiction to the theory mentioned and by Jonathon, some sources also maintain they are not detrimental to game either, certainly regarding the Derbyshire population that seems to apply.
On a stroll around the south pennines only a couple of days ago a good number of hares and also a good number of grouse were seen - whilst not conclusive, that does indicate they are comfortable together in the same area in good numbers - other observations over many years support that too.
This in an area that is only very low key, if at all, managed for game shooting, now taken over to a large extent at Dovestones by the RSPB.
That also disproves the theory that managing moor tends to help Hares too - its more the available habitat in my experience - they can also manage quite happily without Heather.
Another point that is largely unnoticed is that Lepus timidus will congregate and thrive round cover such as rocks, exactly where you would not expect to see Grouse, which are normally on open moor.
So yet again this seems to fall into a landowners/money/shooting biased approach. (not that I am of course)
Cheers
Ken

[Ukwildlifeo]

Originally Posted by Jonathan

It may be unpalatable to some folk but mountain hares are one of several species which benefit from the habitat created by grouse moor management.

Cheers
Jonathan

I’m not saying there are no benefits to wildlife on grouse moors maintained for shooting. I just fail to see how it benefits mountain hares when they are being shot? Especially when there appears to be little or no evidence for them being significant as carriers of the ticks (this is from British wildlife not this papers story in the link).

[Jonathan]

Originally Posted by diggleken

Quite ludicrous to shoot mountain Hares.
In contradiction to the theory mentioned and by Jonathon, some sources also maintain they are not detrimental to game either, certainly regarding the Derbyshire population that seems to apply.
On a stroll around the south pennines only a couple of days ago a good number of hares and also a good number of grouse were seen - whilst not conclusive, that does indicate they are comfortable together in the same area in good numbers - other observations over many years support that too.
This in an area that is only very low key, if at all, managed for game shooting, now taken over to a large extent at Dovestones by the RSPB.
That also disproves the theory that managing moor tends to help Hares too - its more the available habitat in my experience - they can also manage quite happily without Heather.
Another point that is largely unnoticed is that Lepus timidus will congregate and thrive round cover such as rocks, exactly where you would not expect to see Grouse, which are normally on open moor.
So yet again this seems to fall into a landowners/money/shooting biased approach. (not that I am of course)
Cheers
Ken

If you read my post again Ken I was suggesting that mountain hare numbers would be vastly reduced if it were not for grouse moors. If you feel your 'stroll around the South Pennines' has totally discredited this suggestion, perhaps you should report your findings to Macaulay Land Use Research Institute, The Game Conservancy Trust, SNH, etc. as they appear to have spent a great deal of needless time and money researching the subject.

Cheers
Jonathan

[Jonathan]

Originally Posted by Ukwildlifeo

I’m not saying there are no benefits to wildlife on grouse moors maintained for shooting. I just fail to see how it benefits mountain hares when they are being shot? Especially when there appears to be little or no evidence for them being significant as carriers of the ticks (this is from British wildlife not this papers story in the link).

Hi Neil,

My initial reply wasn't to your original post, I was simply pointing out the link between grouse moors and mountain hare populations.

Presumably, if the recent research proves there is no link between hares and louping-ill virus then the level of culling will reduce. Mountain hares have been culled for many years however, I doubt it has had any lasting effect on the population nationwide. Human recreational activities, afforestation and climate change are possibly far more serious threats.

This earlier (2003) paper may interest you:

Identifying disease reservoirs in complex systems: mountain hares as reservoirs of ticks and louping-ill virus, pathogens of red grouse
M. K. LAURENSON, R. A. NORMAN, L. GILBERT, H. W. REID and P. J. HUDSON

A few interesting paragraphs . . .

This study provides the first powerful evidence, through a large scale field manipulation, that mountain hares can be a reservoir host for the louping-ill virus /Ixodes ricinus/ red grouse system. Four strands of evidence support this conclusion.

First, even when hare densities were relatively low compared to other hosts, hares are an important host for ticks of all stages and, depending on host community composition, can be the most important host for maintaining tick populations on moorland. Second, when hare numbers were reduced, tick infestations on other hosts and thus the overall size of the tick population, declined to very low levels. Third, the prevalence of louping-ill virus declined dramatically when hare densities were reduced. Last, a model of the system suggested that the virus may persist if only hares are present (Gilbert et al. 2001).

Good sheep management through vaccination and tick control is still fundamental to the control of louping-ill virus and its tick vector, whether or not hares and red grouse are present. Tick control is particularly crucial when wild hosts are unavailable for vaccination and thus the number of susceptible hosts is difficult to reduce; the only way to further reduce R0 in this scenario is to reduce vector density and thus transmission. However, when sheep are well managed, red deer are absent and mountain hare, tick and louping-ill virus densities are high, it may not be possible to take large harvests of red grouse. In this situation, a reduction in hare density may be the only method of improving red grouse harvests.

The last paragraph seems appropriate!

Disease transmission between domestic animals and wildlife can be a source of human–wildlife conflict either when transmission occurs from a wildlife reservoir to livestock or from domestic animals to endangered wildlife (Cleaveland et al. 2001). The discovery that mountain hares can be a reservoir for louping-ill virus could present another conservation conflict.

Cheers
Jonathan