Curlew and lapwing edging closer to extinction
If we don’t have more sensible conversations, there will be no curlew or lapwing to argue over.
By Owen Williams
I hope readers won't mind me returning to that old chestnut of predator control, but I can't remain silent whilst curlew and lapwing slide towards extinction.
In this increasingly binary world, you either believe that every game keeper is the devil personified or the only person working on conservation in the countryside; both are equally untrue. These are the narratives chewed over in the pugilistic arenas of the social media. Winston Churchill allegedly said: “You will never reach your destination if you stop and throw stones at every barking dog” and indeed it is clear if we don’t have more sensible conversations, there will be no curlew or lapwing to argue over.
That is why I was willing to sign up to Jamie Blackett’s efforts to broker sensible conversations under his new initiative Ground Cry. For many in the world of conservation, indulging in vilifying all keepers now makes it difficult to turn to your tribe and admit that managed grouse moors have the only sustainable populations of ground nesting species such as curlew.
It is even harder to accept that habitat management and predator control have delivered this as these are the very things that you convinced yourself (and so many others) had left our uplands dead burned and barren.
Today most of, but admittedly not all, the work gamekeepers do delivers significant biodiversity benefits. I can hear the rewilders muttering: “But it’s not a fully functioning ecosystem,” to which I reply, given the plight of ground nesting birds, let’s not allow the prefect to be the enemy of good… for the time being at least.
The Victorian keeper
Undoubtedly the legacy of the Victorian game keeper has not helped perceptions. Whilst reading A Game Keeper’s Notebook (Jones and Woodward 1910) I came across that now infamous list of “vermin” killed on the Invergarry Estate in the Highlands over three years in the mid 19th century. This makes fascinating reading, not least for the sheer numbers of predators killed.
It lists:
11 foxes
198 wild cats
246 martens
106 polecats
301 stoats and weasels
67 badgers
48 otters
27 white-tailed sea eagles
15 golden eagles
18 ospreys
98 peregrines
211 hobby hawks
75 kites
63 goshawks
285 common buzzards
462 kestrels
83 hen harriers
1,431 carrion crows
475 ravens
These astonishing figures should be seen in the context that the Invergarry estate at that time covered a very large area estimated to have been around 55,000 acres. This level of intensive keepering not only boosted the numbers of grouse, which was its primary objective, but the low number of predators will also have increased fledging success of many other bird species across the estate.
This abundance of prey, coupled with vacant predator territories, undoubtedly pulled a large number of predators from beyond the boundaries of Invergarry creating what ecologists might call a “predator sink.”
Low numbers of foxes?
What I find interesting is the very low number of foxes on that list, with around four being shot each year over the entire 55,000 acres of the estate. This probably reflects the fact that there had been widespread and consistent control of fox populations to protect farm livestock across rural Britain well before shooting estates became commonplace through the 18th century.
Farmers acted individually (and sometimes collectively) using a variety of effective methods to control fox numbers such as snaring, shooting, cubbing with terriers, and hunting with hounds. This was done for good reason because farming livelihoods were, and to some extent remain, extremely marginal in upland areas with poor soils that today we classify as “Less Favoured.”
The predation of livestock delivered a severe economic shock for families that farmed smallholdings and crofts. Often these were little more than 20 acres in an area with a few cows, a small flock of sheep, and a horse for the heavy work and transport.
Through the late 19th and early 20th centuries, many farming families abandoned their small holdings to head for a more secure future working in nearby towns and cities, or even overseas. Their abandoned smallholdings were bought up and amalgamated into larger farms. On our hill farm here in Ceredigion, we have evidence of this with the ruins of eight smallholdings abandoned in the early 1900s.
Whilst larger farms benefitted from the economies of scale, embracing mechanisation and the increasing use of fertiliser and supplementary feed continued to negatively impact agricultural incomes. So, the economic impact from the predation of livestock by foxes and corvids remained a significant threat, until subsidies made farming a less perilous occupation.
The loaded shotgun
When we look at the historical population trend of foxes and crows it’s easy to ignore the sustained downwards pressure going on across farmland in many parts of rural Britain. When I was growing up here in rural Ceredigion almost every farm kept a loaded shotgun on a gunrack above the fireplace, or leant up behind the front door should the chance to shoot a crow or fox offer itself.
It is important to reflect that despite this sustained pressure, the population status of both foxes and crows never reached a critical point. This illustrates the intelligence of most predators and their ability to evade culling efforts.
That same intelligence and adaptability is the reason for the asymmetry between the relative resilience of the generalists (foxes and corvids) and specialists (curlews and lapwings). Generalist predators can rapidly adapt to exploit alternative food sources once one becomes scarce.
For example, fox scats at this time of year show how many blackberries are eaten, whereas back in March a preponderance of lambswool in scats clearly showed what was available on their menu at that time. This level of adaptability to prevailing circumstances means generalists are bound to do better than specialists when ecosystems come under stress from human land use.
From the time when subsidies provided farm incomes with a safety net, the number of farmers conducting predator control has dropped and probably caused an increase in overall population densities. This is often overlooked when we talk about all the other land use factors that boost fox and corvid numbers.
The picture regarding foxes is very complex and we have lacked accurate population monitoring and research. However, best estimates suggest that overall, our UK fox population has fallen significantly over the past couple of decades. Whilst the drivers of this decline are unclear, other factors have played a role – most notably the removal of fallen livestock on farms and the increased efficiency of shooting, aided by thermal scopes.
Interestingly nobody seems to be seriously calling for a ban on fox culling despite this suggested national decline. However, many from the conservation sector find it hard to openly endorse predator control as a means of supporting declining populations of ground nesting birds.
Maybe it’s not surprising that predator control is inevitably regarded as anachronistic and undesirable in a time when the national zeitgeist is moving rapidly towards nature-based solutions and reducing human interference in natural ecosystems.
However, I feel it is important to reflect on whether species such as curlew and lapwing would now be extinct as breeding species in Britain had predator control been banned at some time over the past 50 years? I think the answer to this is pretty certainly, yes!
As unpalatable as it might be for some, the reason curlew head-starting and reintroduction projects in places like Sussex and Ireland have a source of eggs is entirely due to the management of grouse moors and protection from predators which has maintained the sustainability of our remaining populations.
What about releasing game birds?
We should not get diverted by should’ve, could’ve, would’ve arguments. Yes, we have caused the decline of species such as curlew and lapwing by removing breeding habitat on farmland. We have also created a system of land use that benefits meso-predator populations.
Some single out game bird releasing for boosting predator numbers – and they are right if shoots don’t mitigate this by using predator control to reduce this local effect, as recommended in the code of good shooting practice. However, declines have continued in places where there are no shoots and this is mirrored in other countries with little or no game bird releasing.
So, this topic is very complex and there’s a lot that we don’t understand, but what we do know is that for the time being the one measure we can use with proven results is predator control. Although this is entirely artificial and is far from ticking any rewilding boxes, it is nonsensical that so many in the conservation world continue to push back against a proven method of boosting fledging success above the 0.7 per pair, per year required to maintain a stable populations.
I don’t say this from any theoretical perspective; I have spent considerable time on grouse moors and have seen the benefits the control of foxes and crows delivers in terms of fledging success of ground nesting birds. I have also read the research that proves this. My own experience of delivering high levels of fledging success for the first pair of lapwings to breed in my locality for over 50 years has redoubled my conviction on this matter.
They came back to breed again this year and by targeting 11 crows and a nearby nest, this feisty pair enjoyed a 100% fledging success rate. It is hard to describe the deep joy Sally and I felt watching those four young lapwings fly from their natal area in late June, and our fervent hope is that next year some of those seven juveniles might return to breed themselves on this site.
Adaptive approaches
I recognise that predator/prey dynamics are complex and frequently very site specific, so cutting and pasting what I did in a different context might not be as successful – but that isn’t a reason for not doing it elsewhere.
What is vital is understanding the local predator dynamics so that adapting approaches accordingly will work – and that is where local knowledge and observation is essential for success. I don’t think I’m unique, I know many people who would be happy to put in the effort, and at little or no cost to the public purse.
After all, if observations show that fox predation is a potential problem, I need only to call my local marksman knowing that with his sophisticated kit and expertise he can deal with it swiftly and at no cost. This is because he’s as keen to see lapwing back on our Welsh landscape as I am. These sorts of home-grown initiatives are a viable way forward and give local groups a sense of ownership of the mission to save their curlew or lapwing.
Sliding into extinction
The longer policy makers hear equivocation, diversionary arguments, or a flat denial that predator control works, the nearer we get to the extinction of these species. Those who have remained silent – despite knowing that predator control works – will have to look at themselves in the mirror knowing that a lack of courage to enter the debate contributed to one or more of our iconic upland waders sliding into extinction.
