In my ignorance after listening to the above arguments I do think Aaron has some valid points about a vacuum that would result if grouse shooting suddenly stopped. It would be difficult to change from a managed landscape for grouse directly to a managed landscape for moorland farming or as a nature reserve. There is only so much a volunteer force and a charity can do in a reserve and farming would most likely be difficult to re-introduce. Quite possibly because the landscape has been too managed for one particular species (even if others seem to benefit).
I also question the shooting estate's who claim they are supporting natural diversity through their actions. I must admit I do not have the evidence or the knowledge to argue this but I do think the land was not a natural landscape before shooting for sport came along and it wouldn't have been developed into a shooting estate if there wasn't a suitable landscape there before the shooting. If the landscape, habitat and species biodiversity came before the shooting then it is possible for them to survive without shooting. The difficulty is to get back to the patterns of land use prior to the switch to shooting estates. Might not be a good argument but makes a kind of logic in my mind. BTW I grew up on the edge of the Ribble Valley and not too far from the great big shooting estates that are the Forest of Bowland. Before CRoW act it was mostly a huge no go area. The only places you could go were a few public rights of way and certain estates not owned by shooting businesses such as United Utilities. Shooting is definitely still doing well despite access but from a non-shooter's / walker's view it has a feel of mono-culture just as much as the coniferous swathes put up by Forestry Commision. Only it does have a bit more life. Fortunately the Hen Harrier is not doing too badly up in the Forest of Bowland. However in over 13 years of growin up there I never saw one. I did about 3 years ago and it was a sight. If managed shooting moorland is so great then why are there not more of them around? Surely I'd see more.
I also question the shooting estate's who claim they are supporting natural diversity through their actions. I must admit I do not have the evidence or the knowledge to argue this but I do think the land was not a natural landscape before shooting for sport came along and it wouldn't have been developed into a shooting estate if there wasn't a suitable landscape there before the shooting. If the landscape, habitat and species biodiversity came before the shooting then it is possible for them to survive without shooting. The difficulty is to get back to the patterns of land use prior to the switch to shooting estates. Might not be a good argument but makes a kind of logic in my mind. BTW I grew up on the edge of the Ribble Valley and not too far from the great big shooting estates that are the Forest of Bowland. Before CRoW act it was mostly a huge no go area. The only places you could go were a few public rights of way and certain estates not owned by shooting businesses such as United Utilities. Shooting is definitely still doing well despite access but from a non-shooter's / walker's view it has a feel of mono-culture just as much as the coniferous swathes put up by Forestry Commision. Only it does have a bit more life. Fortunately the Hen Harrier is not doing too badly up in the Forest of Bowland. However in over 13 years of growin up there I never saw one. I did about 3 years ago and it was a sight. If managed shooting moorland is so great then why are there not more of them around? Surely I'd see more.