Last Keeper, The (2024)

[bunniefuu]

I've seen

pretty unethical practices

about mass culling of deer

that I think would turn

most people's stomachs,

not just sportsmen.

They actually had seen

a helicopter moving deer and

they kinda sh**t an arena.

There would've been at

least a dozen to 15 r*fles.

So

if we don't manage them,

their numbers will grow.

They'll track the habitat,

and then they'll die miserable deaths.

There must

have been about five, 600 deer

in the circle, and it really was cruel.

You could see the steam

coming off this deer.

They were just utterly

stressed out to their mind.

There's certainly been

the use of helicopters to round up deer

and effectively get 'em

into large segregations,

where there's been multiple

shooters firing into the herds.

The deer have been left to rot and sit

and certainly grates

with the sporting ethics.

The

human effort required

to drag or carry stags out,

or even the practicalities of using ponies

to take them out in these situations

is such that the carbon cost

associated with economic cost

is so high.

And then, you have to weigh that up

against the biodiversity benefits

from leaving carcasses on the hill.

And of

course, there was a mass panic.

It was a complete disgrace.

It's just a case of k*lling deer.

It's not management of deer, no.

It's just k*lling deer.

The roar of the stags in

the highland is now gone.

So, this castle in Scotland is famous

for holding out against

Oliver Cromwell's invasion

after he chopped off the head of Charles I

and we had crowned Charles II at Scone.

I'm here to explore the

plight of the rural folks

that live in the Highlands

and their relationship with wildlife.

How does history affect

today's modern land use issues?

Scholar's relationship with the lands

encapsulated in that story.

You've got conflict.

You've got the relationship

between those and power

and those in lowly position.

You've got survival, greed,

who owns resources and how

to protect what's yours.

Picts settled along these outcrops,

tribal peoples who lived with the land.

The history and mythology

of the stone of destiny

are all wrapped up in

the biblical struggle

between Jacob and Esau.

The conflict between hunter

gatherers working with the land

and farmers controlling and managing it.

And then when landless

vikings came looking for land,

the Picts and Scots came together

to forge what we call Scotland.

Not long after that,

Norman's crossed English channel.

More second sons seeking

estates for themselves.

And David I of Scotland brought them

in feudal land tenure with them.

The king owned the land and

the game that honed on it.

A forest wasn't a place of trees.

It was a royal hunting grounds.

And he divided it amongst his nobility

and that division between high

and low became starker still.

But in the Highland, these tribal groups

developed the clans who

belonged to the land.

To them, they were clan lands.

And so, the chief was

a steward of the lands.

And so, you had like common

grazings and summer shillings

and of course, you had

cattle raids and clan feuds

when resources were scarce, yeah.

And the Culloden changed all that.

Culloden was where 10 groups

attached to the land ended.

It wasn't just a battle

that was lost that day,

but lifestyle.

New landowners were brought in.

Existing chiefs changed

from stewards who managed

to landlords who rented the land.

When this sort of sheep

is more profitable,

the human tenants were displaced, cleared,

and shipped across the Americas.

And the connection between

people and land was broken.

See, there's always been

tension for resources

in these islands.

Even to this day, the

English are always going,

"Yeah, we subsidize you

and we needed that money

for our own hospitals."

And of course, the Scots was going,

"Yeah, well you took our oil

and we needed that for cooking chips."

You know?

It was just.

Walter Scott popularized highland culture.

And Queen Victoria came

north, fell in love,

and bought Balmoral over the hills there.

The Victorian era brought trains

and estates became a playground for toffs

to come hunting, sh**ting, and fishing,

reinforcing that separation

between the people who owned the land

and those who had belonged to.

Much of our coastal and lowland areas

were stripped to trees by humans.

Based in secondhand Roman

chroniclers, popular history

established a narrative of

the great forest of Culloden

spanning the land.

There's been a movement to rewild the land

with age old trees, plants, and animals.

While Scots now have the

right to roam the land,

there is a group who feel targeted.

The keepers, stalkers, and gillies,

working for the landed gentry,

whose relationship with the

land spans almost two centuries.

They feel like they're in

the government's crosshairs.

It's a way of life that may disappear.

Scotland,

known for its rolling hills.

It's glens. It's heather.

But for many, the reality

is very different.

Greenock on the river Clyde

was once a bustling port,

handling tobacco, sugar,

rum from a global empire.

In the Industrial

Revolution, this town rattled

with the sound of some of the

world's first steam engines

driving factories and mills.

And back then, Clyde built

was a mark of shipbuilding excellence.

The highlands were being depopulated

as the Scottish central

belt, factories, and mills

soaked up the displaced,

often in poor housing

and cramped conditions.

And to this day, 70% of Scots

live in this narrow and

industrialized central ban

long after the shipyards

and mills fell silent.

And this Central Belt dominates politics

with Scotland's parliament

and affluent Edinburgh

having autonomous control of domestic law.

From highland life, these people

are generations removed, a world away.

But in Scotland, the difference

is often just a matter of perception.

Scotland today is in the midst

of a battle over land use.

On one side are the so-called

conservation groups,

politicians, and climate activists.

On the other are landowners

and the rural communities

impacted by the policy decisions.

At the crux of the conflict

are sporting estates,

which generate income that

fuels the rural economy

through the recreational hunting of deer,

grouse, and pheasants.

So we have a government

now, a Scottish government,

that two ambitions.

One is a breakup the union.

The other is a breakup

of a sport in states.

And they're making life so

unbearable and unmanageable,

unworkable, that it's very

difficult to do our job

the way it should be done.

We are managing these areas of habitat

for the benefit of very, very few people.

They'll conveniently overlook

the very large amounts of money

that those very, very

few people will pay to do

what they wanna do, what they hope to do,

and aspire to do on those

bits of ground, which in turn,

generates all sorts of

socio and economic factors.

They just look at the downside,

which is we're smashing things

up, we're suppressing it,

we're doing bad stuff,

and we should be stopped.

We are in the midst of a

bit of a biodiversity crisis,

a nature crisis.

We are a country that

is traditionally thought

to be rich in nature,

but actually many of

our wildlife populations

are suffering.

We're also a very deforested country,

quite a degraded country,

industrial agriculture,

industrial forestry.

The habitat that you see

around here, the landscape,

the animals that inhabit it,

and the way it's laid out

is all the consequences of human choices.

All the shepherds that came

to live in the Highlands

came because the sheep were here.

All the gamekeepers, and

gillies, and stalkers

that were here to show

benefit to sportsmen

from grouse, and salmon,

and deer came here

and lived in the houses

that were built for them

to support that activity and that habitat.

The big challenge really

is to manage our wildlife resources,

our wider habitat resource

in a sustainable way

and resolve many of the

big conflicts there are

over how that management takes place

and who makes the decisions.

Trying to find middle ground in there

and a workable solution

is definitely problematic at times.

The wildlife side of things,

the actual sort of

wildlife conservation then

can get completely lost

in the people politics.

One keeper is Alex Jenkins,

who at age 38 is working his dream job

at Edinglassie estate in Straton.

My job is to look

after the running estate.

We're primarily a sporting

estate, a driven grouse moor.

I manage the deer as well.

I oversee a lot of the

grazing aspect to the estate,

conduct all the muirburn,

look after the roads, infrastructure,

property side of things,

and a bit forestry work as well.

We also do a lot of conservation work

on the in by ground for waders.

We plant species rich grassland.

Red grouse is one of our

indigenous grouse species.

My whole year revolves

around trying to hopefully

produce a surplus stock

that we can take.

When numbers are very low, we don't sh**t.

It's not in our interest to sh**t.

We count our grouse

twice a year every year

and have done decades now,

if not a hundred years.

Generally sitting over a hundred grouse

to the kilometer square.

And that's gonna allow me

for a very moderate

sh**ting program this year.

But we know from generations of experience

when we can afford to

sh**t and when we can't.

It can be a hugely rewarding

way of life being a keeper.

We're very fortunate

that we get to work up

in these environments.

The majority of the

people that live here

and their families have

been here for generations,

very supportive and understanding.

You feel like you belong.

You don't feel like an outsider.

I'm the last traditional

employed gamekeeper

on an estate left on the Isle of Skye now.

Skye used to have a

rich sporting tradition,

with private estates

employing gatekeepers.

Having gamekeepers on this estate

means that not only is it

employment for local people,

but the added a benefit to

the environment, to crafting,

to farming communities is massive.

I was born and raised and

brought up on a housing estate

in the middle of a town city.

So, I haven't got

that kind of background with

gamekeepers in the family,

but it's something that I've wanted to do.

I always wanted to have that feeling.

I needed to be out out on the hill.

And I've been doing it now

for just over 30 years

in a gamekeeper role.

I think the most difficult part

about being a wife to a gamekeeper

is understanding what

they're going through I think

because there's a lot of pressure.

Not just Scott, but other gamekeepers

may not want to tell their partners

because of worrying them.

So, there's always

- that.

- Bobbie.

There's always that sort of thought,

you know, "Is he all right?"

'Cause he spends a lot of

time on his own, you know?

He is out on the hill on his

own, doing the deer count,

doing the deer call, and

it must get quite lonely.

So, I do worry about that side of things.

It is really hard to live

as a gamekeeper's wife.

I'm warm.

I know.

I know that there are nights

when they don't come home

for long time.

I know that I'm bringing

up a family without them.

They don't go to the schools.

They don't get chance to go to the events

that as the children are growing up.

And so it is really, really hard.

At its core, this controversy

is a clash of ideologies.

A class warfare centered on

how we should manage the land.

On one side, there's a commitment

to wildlife conservation

for both financial gain

and cultural preservation.

On the other, the rewilding movement

advocates for letting

nature be truly wild,

free from human management.

The epicenter of this clash,

grouse moors and red deer.

Grouse moors often are misunderstood,

but they're a vital ecosystem

supporting endangered species.

Although historical evidence

challenges this claim,

red deer accused of causing deforestation,

has become a focal point.

It's a battle between

carefully woven tapestries

and the allure of leaving

nature's canvas untouched

by human hands.

For me, rewilding is anything

that counteracts more dewilding.

Anything that joins up

and enriches habitats

rather than further

fragment and degrade them.

Anything that results in more nature

and not less nature.

It is a fact that we

have lost certain species

from our country over decades, centuries.

It's also a fact that everything existed

before we were around

in a rather better way than it does now.

It's not our prerogative to say

whether trees will grow there or not.

We just want to create

the right environment

if the trees want to grow.

But when things start getting gritty,

and granular, and confused,

and we don't have a lot

of the data we need,

it's very easy just to

be overruled by the tree.

I mean, the trees look great.

We kind of have this sort

of innate association

that there should be trees

because we love trees,

because they're sort of

built into our understanding

of what nature and wildlife should be.

It's not as simple as just

the more trees we have,

the better we're gonna do,

the better things are gonna be for us.

People blame the introduction of sheep

for getting rid of the trees.

But the sheep weren't introduced

till during the Highland

Clearances after 1750.

And woodland was only

about 45% of the landscape

before sheep came along there.

There's a famous Scottish

geologist way back in 1866,

James Geikie.

And he concluded then that the woodlands

had died out naturally.

And all the evidence looking

at tree remains in peat.

And the

evidence shows that woodland

has been declining for the

last four to 5,000 years

or 7,000 years in some places.

The rewilding word is incredibly loaded

with lots of connotations,

whether justified or not.

But one of the connotations

might be that in some way

the rewilding word is anti-people,

anti-community, anti something.

We are more than capable of

looking after our natural assets

and having vibrant communities

living in amongst those areas.

Without this I idea

that it's one or other.

At the moment, it's one that,

it's a word that I find

unhelpful in terms of the debate

because it's polarized.

I would prefer we talk

about ecological restoration,

or nature restoration, or

even peatland recovery.

That's what I want to see.

I want to see our wetlands, our peatlands,

our forests, our rivers

restore to ecological health.

But if you choose to

label it rewilding, okay,

you immediately enter a

whole series of debates,

like was this wild at land

wild in the first place,

'cause you're implying it was, right?

And excuse me, my ancestors lived here.

You know, this is a degraded

environmentally habitat,

but it's also a depopulated environment.

Are you actually saying

we should all live in a nature reserve?

So, those were the kind

of responses to that.

And in my view, it's set

up a fairly unhelpful

and unproductive debate,

which needn't have been.

There's a big difference between trees

and a woodland ecosystem.

Our tree cover is something like 18%.

The average across Europe is about 37%.

So, trees plays a part in it,

but as does heather, blaeberry, wood ants,

badgers, otters, all of these species

are components in a system.

And it's the system, it's the

functionality of the system

that we as rewilders want to improve.

It's been known for a long

time that you get an ice age,

then you get the climate changes

warms up after an ice age,

and then plants colonize.

The soils are quite rich

from more than glacial mixing of the soil.

And woodland expands

and that's what's called

the mesocratic phase.

But in this part of all, it rains,

and it rains, and it rains.

And after 10,000 years of rain,

the nutrients get leached out of the soil.

It becomes too acidic for

earthworms, so you get podzols.

You often get an iron pan,

a solid layer of iron

precipitating out in the soil,

which is impenetrable.

So in fact, the soil deteriorates

and the climate may deteriorate

after the middle phase of an interglacial,

you get the mesocratic phase,

then the oligocratic phase.

And that means that the

woodland declines naturally

and you get more acid moorland

and heathland and peat bog.

So at this stage, we about

10,000 years after interglacial,

you expect woodland have declined

and moorland to become dominant.

And that for an open landscape

with woodland

is a natural feature you'd expect.

But every time you plant trees

on Scottish upland vegetation,

you're resulting a loss of biodiversity

'cause you're reducing the area

of natural habitat in Scotland.

So, you can't plant trees really,

or certain commercial trees

without losing biodiversity.

So, and also the landscape.

So not only damage in the

soils, dubious climate impact,

you also change a natural landscape

into an artificial landscape.

And windthrow is a huge problem.

A lot of the new native wooden

plantations been put up.

will just blow over.

A lot fo economic use for the trees.

And in 50 or 60 years time,

you end up with a huge lot

of wind blown plantations

and no use to anybody,

having destroyed a natural open landscape

in the process of creating them.

The trees are there just now.

All we're saying is just

like the trees grow.

So if you reduce the grazing pressure,

we don't need to plant trees.

This notion that the climate

is such that trees don't

want to grow in Scotland,

it's a construct that people

are working quite hard to create.

But the problem with the argument

is that, well, what happens

if the trees are there

and they just want to grow?

Nobody's planting them.

You're just reducing the

deer grazing pressure

and the trees are starting to grow.

What then?

And is it not slightly unusual

that Scotland is almost

unique across Europe

and it doesn't have a natural tree life?

That's not to do with

our climate or anything.

That's just to do the

fact it's been overgrazed.

Land reform is being debated

by the Scottish government.

The arguments come down

to who owns the land

and who has the right to

determine its best use.

We had hardly heard of land reform.

We had, but it seemed to be

something very, very distant,

promoted by a very, very small minority.

I would say their

motivation is neo-Marxist.

I mean, they want to see the breaking up

of large land holdings.

Scotland is a wild

country, a lot of mountain,

a lot of moorland, and

you need large areas

in order to be able to manage

them viably and efficiently.

Who pays to stop, or

prevent, or disincentivize

the farmer from ripping up a forest

or, you know, filling in

an a peat bog or whatever?

Those systems are benefiting

the whole of society

and therefore, the whole of

society has to contribute

to the maintenance of those systems

or the preservation of those systems.

And that includes the business sector.

And if we can get to a situation

where we have the private

sector fueling nature recovery,

but what gets spat out at the other end

is community benefit.

And that might be money.

It might be jobs.

It might be recreational opportunities.

It might be ecosystem services.

If we can get that conveyor

belt flowing more freely,

then I think we've gotta,

maybe not a perfect situation,

but a situation that's

moving towards rewilding

a nature recovery becoming an

economically viable land use.

We're not there yet, but that

is the direction of travel.

So, I think the problem with rewilding

is to put it in a nutshell,

it embraces a lot of concepts

which are problematic

and come into conflict with each other.

And some of the more

modern advocates of it

are people who are coming in,

buying a lot of land

and restoring forests.

But these people often

tend to be very wealthy

and they immediately bring

with them the baggage

associated with the whole

debate around land ownership,

because they're buying large

areas of land to rewild.

So again, that makes

this debate complicated

because people who don't want

foreigners, or wealthy people,

or people buying large areas of land,

find themselves critical of an endeavor,

which in other terms

were it to be done by other people maybe

if it were to be done by themselves maybe

would be regarded as quite positive.

Across the millennia,

the patterns of land use in Scotland

have sculpted the tapestry

of the rural highlands.

Today, a collective yearning exists

to enhance Scotland's biodiversity,

yet finding consensus on the precise goals

remains a formidable challenge.

It's a delicate dance

between preserving tradition

and forging a sustainable future.

You see an effort to

target heather moorland

and plant trees on it.

And then, we look

at marginal agricultural

lands at lower elevations,

where there's actual biodiversity loss.

Why doesn't the rewilding

movement target these lands?

Again, I don't think

rewilding is targeting,

as you put it, a given

habitat or a given land use.

I think there are some extremes.

You might argue that driven grouse moors

are one such extreme, where

the intensity of the management

in some cases is undoubtedly detrimental.

Maybe not to red grouse,

but to a whole range of other species.

And there's, you know, routine

calling of stokes, weasels,

foxes, corvids on those estates.

One of the challenges in Scotland

or in rural places really

across Europe is depopulation,

especially young people

leaving rural areas

to go and work in the city.

It's completely understandable.

We believe that rewilding

is not a silver b*llet,

but if we get it right, it

brings benefits for nature,

it brings benefits for climate,

but crucially, it also

brings benefits for people.

If you have a look at the

biodiversity within these areas,

they're often far greater

than anywhere else.

And I dunno why people

don't seem to understand why that is.

And unfortunately, I think

it comes all the way down

to this emotional aspect that

people just want to believe

that yes, nature will just prevail.

We don't need to do

anything. That's not the case

On sporting estates

specializing in grouse sh**ting,

one of the critical

roles of the gamekeepers

to manage the land in a way that maximizes

the number of grouse available

each year for the hunt.

The Glorious Twelfth is the

first day of grouse season.

The sporting estates support

various rural businesses,

including Pam Blackhall,

who has run Wm Blackhall,

makers of fine kilts and

tailoring for three generations.

You are wanting a new suit

- or is it-

- Yes, please.

I just...

Just a pair of breaks.

A pair of breaks this year, please, Pam.

And I'm needing a new hat and I-

Would you like a cap,

- right?

- Yes, please.

Let

just take a note to that.

A lot of the tweets are

designed for camouflage.

So, there's historically they

were supposed to blend in

with the, you know,

the heather, the rocks.

The business has been

going for 101 years now,

and I've been doing it myself since 1992.

My father took over

from his father in 1966.

And my grandfather started

the business in 1921.

I probably have a pool

of about 35 to 40 different estates

that I work for.

And normally in a year,

I will do possibly up to about 28 states

outta that 35.

So, it's quite a lucrative

business to be honest,

as long as everybody keeps going.

So the day starts for me pretty early.

I think most head keepers

would be the same.

You don't get much sleep the night before.

Morning boys, how are you?

- Good.

- Yeah.

So, how's the game?

- Pete.

- Alex.

I look like him almost,

but yeah, how you doing?

It's all good.

Yeah, good, good. Baller.

Hi.

Hi.

What regiment are you boys?

Eh

Oh, a bit whole different.

Yeah, yeah.

Yeah, yeah. Cool.

Done A bad being.

Nice.

Yeah.

Seasoned beaters like half.

Nice.

Good stuff, guys.

At Edinglassie estate,

organizing a driven grouse sh**t

is no small feat.

Alex oversees 30 beaters

driving wild red grouse

toward eight g*ns or hunters

stations and butts or blinds.

The typical day involves six drives,

and on a larger estate,

birds may be pushed in two directions

during back-to-back drives.

22 and a half old, 90.

Okay,.

Alex and his beekeepers

meticulously sort the grouse

after a day's work.

The young birds find

their way to game dealers,

distributing them to

restaurants and markets

across the UK.

Each g*n takes home a brace or two,

while beaters and support

staff depart with a brace

for their own tables.

The famed Glorious Twelfth

marks the start of grouse season

upholding a longstanding tradition

of featuring this quarry

in the finest restaurants

across Scotland.

The grouse to me is the holy grail.

It's the holy grail of what we do here.

It's heap in history.

It's something that we're

really proud to do here

in the restaurant.

Every year, we celebrate

it, the Glorious Twelfth.

People come from all over the world

to eat the grouse on the 12th,

but we don't take it

for granted, you know?

The work that goes into, you know,

keeping the grouse to sh**ting the grouse,

to protecting the grouse, to

keeping the traditional alive,

you know?

So someone like Andy going to pick it up

from the sh**t, the goat, the gamekeepers

looking after the grouse

through the tough times

from when the exit hatched to now.

It's part of the journey

and it goes hand in hand

with what we do here and our

philosophy of nature to plate.

The young birds of

which are really tender.

This is what we're after.

This is the holy grail.

This is when you eat it, it's like butter.

It's tender. It's absolutely delicious.

Grouse moors on sh**ting estates

undergo intense management,

a crucial responsibility

of the gamekeeper,

sparking debates about the land's usage.

However, many argue that it's hard

to justify using this land this way,

but science tells us a different story.

Grouse moor management provides

the habitat for the grouse

and reduces the predation level

and the disease risk for grouse.

But that also means that other species

that enjoy the same

habitats, such as the waders,

like curlew, they're

having the same benefits.

Well, we're gonna do a grouse count

so that we can look at how many young

and how many old grouse

there are on this bit.

And it's a bit of ground

that we count every year.

I walk along the transact and

the dog quarters in front.

So, the dog will be hunting with the wind

looking for grouse.

And whenever any grouse flush,

we need to write down how

many old and how many young,

because all the data I collect

obviously goes straight

to the estates and they compare

it with previous counts.

But from our point of view

as the Game and Wildlife

Conservation Trust,

we're collecting this data,

so that we can look at long-term trends

and compare the kind of management

that's done on the grouse

with, you know, what impact

it is on the grouse themselves

and on other wildlife that

shares the same habitats.

If it's more about

less animals being shot,

would you have a problem with grouse mores

if they weren't so intensively managed?

I mean, the purpose is not

to sh**t large bag limits.

So, I struggle still to get to

is that there's any biodiversity benefit

from grouse moors of any sort.

Large areas of land are being given award

for the management of a single species

for the very privileged few to benefit.

How do you justify

the loss of biodiversity

if we don't intensively

manage these hill sites?

I struggle to get my head around

even the basis of the argument.

It's what they're sort of saying

is that we have offshoot

benefits from managing for grouse

and we're gonna amplify those,

and then claim that somehow if

we didn't manage for grouse,

those species wouldn't exist.

And you think that's

difficult to understand

that argument actually.

If grouse sh**ting had never existed

and in 2023 in a climate emergency,

in a biodiversity emergency,

somebody suggested it as

a sustainable land use

for the future, it would be laughed at.

It would be completely dismissed.

And yet, here we have roughly 12, 15%

of Scotland's entire land area

devoted to driven grouse sh**ting.

Driven grouse sh**ting

was not really a big

environmental problem as such.

What it was a problem,

however, was in the extent

to which they k*lled anything

that predated on grouse and grouse chicks.

The issue of

predator control on grouse moors

is steeped in controversy.

Historically, gamekeepers

and crofters were notorious

for targeting various raptor species

that threatened grouse and lambs.

The k*lling of raptors was

outlawed in 1954 in Scotland

through the Protection of Birds Act.

However, the actions of a few

rogue keepers who defy the law

cast a shadow over the

reputation of all keepers.

Gamekeepers have come to symbolize

the injustice in land ownership

or the perceived injustice.

There's links as well that we

can't avoid of raptor crime.

And in the past, gamekeeping

models in the country

were responsible for k*lling a

lot of our predatory species,

but I really think that's very detached

from the model today.

And I think we need to get over that.

There's the historical vestige there

that is really challenging

for wildlife management.

We know from a major study

published five years ago

on satellite tagged eagles

was that applying an analysis

of the fate of these eagles,

these birds were disappearing.

That's all they were doing.

They were disappearing at

far, far higher intensities

on areas used for driven grouse moors.

And that is all proven by data.

And that proves that raptor persecution

is still happening on driven grouse moors.

It's just an nonsense.

I mean, we've had harriers

breed and draft on

in recent years.

We've got in numerous buzzard nests.

I mean, a lot of the

eagles that were taken

to repopulate Ireland, for example,

came from sporting estate.

This was 20 years ago.

We had enough surplus eagles to ship out

to reintroduction programs,

but they hunt on these moors for a reason.

You know, there's plenty of prey.

This is down to our management.

This is because we're

controlling the legal predators

that we can, like the fox, stokes, crows.

And that's why you see so

many raptors on grouse moors.

There's evidence on a regular

basis that is it going on.

Is it going on all estates? No.

Is it any more appropriate or moral

to sh**t stout or to sh**t a golden eagle?

Golden eagle is ill*gal to sh**t

and society rightly recoils in horror,

but stouts are somehow dispensable.

Traditionally, you know, birds of prey

was seen as competition.

So particularly on grouse

moors back in Victorian times,

any predator there that was

competition for the grouse

was eliminated.

You know, we know that

that's part of the history.

A couple hundred years ago,

numbers were, you know, much reduced

due to mostly to human

influence persecution

across Scotland.

When legal protection came

in about 50, 60 years ago,

numbers have begun to increase

across most of Scotland,

but in the South we weren't

seeing that increase.

There was a very small

isolated residual population

of just three pairs, so six, seven birds

and they weren't producing

enough young for the population

to kind of increase on its own.

So, we decided to do a translocation

to bring chicks from nest in

the Highlands and islands down

into the south of Scotland,

just to kind of boost that population.

We take a chick from a nest of twins,

taking one, leaving one behind.

We actually work with a qualified vets,

who comes with us to every nest.

They'll do a health check on both birds

and make sure that we are taking

really strong healthy

chicks for translocation.

They remain completely wild.

We are feeding them from behind a screen.

So, we're giving them natural

food that they'd expect.

Things like rabbits and

bits and bobs like that.

And they stay in the Avery and they grow

until they're, you know,

would naturally fledge.

So, they're full adult size.

We have released 20

juvenile golden eagles.

Some of the older birds are

now four, five years old.

They are pairing up,

settling on territories.

So, we're now looking at

probably five new territories,

which is brilliant progress

in kinda five, six years that we've had.

Out of the 20 or so birds

that we've translocated,

I'd say 18 or 19 of

them have come from land

managed for sh**ting.

So typically, grouse moors and stalking.

We've not lost any birds to persecution.

If you look at the tag

data from our eagles,

they are spending a lot of time

in areas managed for sh**ting.

I think without those areas,

we wouldn't have the prey base.

We wouldn't have the available

habitat for golden eagle.

So I think it's really, really

kind of key important part

to having them there.

The issues that we have had

have been unrelated to persecution.

You know, we've even had tags fall off

and found them on grouse moors.

So, I think jumping to those conclusions

that it's automatically

persecution, I think, is unhelpful.

The keeper support is really important.

So yeah, they have that

incredible knowledge

of their ground.

They often know where

their eagles are nesting

and how they're doing.

And in terms of collection, you know,

we really couldn't do it without keepers.

They're helping to often take the team out

to the nest in ATVs or four by fours,

which helps us access very quickly

and get the chicks back

very quickly as well.

Much of the food we're

getting for our young eagles

is provided by keepers.

So, we're getting foxes,

rabbits, squirrels,

that kind of thing.

And nearly all of that

is coming from keepers

in the south of Scotland.

So, the support has been

absolutely fantastic.

And welcoming us, welcoming the eagles,

you know, sharing

sightings, things like that.

You know, sh**ting estates welcoming us

with, you know, with artificial areas,

like the one behind me,

I see that partnership

with sh**ting estates

as one of the real

successes of this project.

Taking the life of a raptor in Scotland

now carries severe consequences.

An automatic prison

sentence and unlimited fines

with both landowner and the

employee held accountable.

The risk is palatable, making

it a choice few, if any,

would consider.

For gamekeepers managing

ground predators is integral

to the success of wild

red grouse populations

and yields unintended positive effects

on ground nesting waders and raptors.

However, government efforts to license

and restrict specific

predator control methods

presents challenges for keepers

in executing their duties.

The control of foxes with

snares is deemed crucial.

In 2023, the Scottish government

proposed a complete ban

on their use, raising

concerns about how gamekeepers

will continue to fulfill their roles.

So, I'm targeting

targeting the fox here.

And so as the fox walk wanders down here,

it'll pick up and round the neck here

and it's just a restraining device.

It's not a k*lling device.

I have to check these every 24 hours,

well within a 24 hour period.

So every day.

So if it's a non-target

species, a hare for example,

I can just, I can let it go.

These are pretty heavily

legislated in Scotland these days.

They have to be set in a certain way,

designed in a certain way.

I have to have my own unique

snaring number attached to it,

so folk know that I've set these snares.

Everybody that undertakes

snaring in Scotland now

has to be trained and

we have to keep record.

The detriment is to those species

that are literally eliminated

to allow red grouse

to produce a harvest for the shooters.

If you're a crow, or a fox,

or a stout, or a weasel,

it's detrimental 'cause you

have your head blown off.

The studies we've

done have clearly shown

that wader breeding

success is much greater

when there's grouse moor management,

particularly the predator control aspect.

So, the birds of here

are at higher densities

when there's grouse moor management,

as well as breeding much better,

which means that populations

are likely to be robust enough

to continue and hopefully

even increase into the future.

Gamekeepers employ a strategic approach

to Heather moorland management

utilizing low intensity

burning in small patches,

typically less than half an acre.

This practice efficiently

clears old or overgrown heather,

fostering a mosaic pattern

of new growth buds.

From this rejuvenated growth,

young grouse find a

vital primary food source

ensuring a sustainable ecosystem.

Once the heather gets

old and degenerate,

it loses a lot of its feed value.

So, we look to rotationally

burn it on a cycle.

Now, that cycle's roughly

about 20 years up here

and we take the surface

of the vegetation off

only just the heather.

it leaves the understory

of the mosses, et cetera.

Removing that old vegetation

results in new growth.

One common

argument against muirburn

is its impact on peat,

crucial carbon storage

deep in the heather moorland.

However, my firsthand observation

challenges this notion.

The mirror burn I witnessed

moves swiftly across the land,

leaving a chocolate bar buried in the soil

beneath the heather untouched.

The candy remained as fresh

as the day it was made

demonstrating the keepers precision

and targeting specific vegetation

without compromising the

surrounding environment.

If you're trying to

conserve global biodiversity,

the full range of plants,

animals on the planet

need to conserve the

variety of natural habitats

across the world.

And that means heather moorland.

Heather moorland is an ancient landscape

between a thousands of years old

and burning doesn't stop it

being a heather moorland.

It just adds diversity of pattern to it.

Those landscapes is actually

what brings in huge amounts

of tourists to Scotland in particular

because of this unique

habitat that we have.

And I think we do value it as a nation.

And I think that's been forgotten

with this whole argument

of planting the trees and it's more money

and focusing on the carbon

sequestration side of things.

I'm in Kinrara,

an old grouse sh**ting

and stalking estate.

It has been purchased by

a Scottish beer company

that wishes to be the first beer company

to be carbon neutral.

Unfortunately, when you

talk to the scientist,

what you see behind me not

only destroys what the UN says

is an ecosystem of concern,

but also creates many other issues.

I mean, what we have at

the moment is this real rush

into the whole carbon market,

carbon trading market.

And that we will risk losing

altogether a range of species,

you know, in this sort

of carbon gold rush.

There's another debate,

which is that we want to offset carbon.

I've got a super tank of oil

on the way to New Zealand.

I want to decarbonize it. How do I do it?

Well, I plant some trees

in some other country

and I sell the carbon credits for it.

And then, I've decarbonized

and made money.

We can't just go short term

and say there's short term economic goals.

That we need to meet our political goals

that we're trying to get to and damage

our very natural assets

that we've only got once.

Once we've damaged them or destroyed them,

we don't get 'em back.

Peatland is the greatest

sequestration vessel for carbon.

And actually planting woodland

on peatland, deep peat,

is counterproductive.

It actually releases more

carbon than it sequesters.

The big corporates will enter the market.

They will buy their carbon

or create their carbon,

and then exit the market again

quite quickly thereafter.

And what they'll leave

us with is uncertain.

I think we should make it

ill*gal to sell carbon credits.

We should be restoring these ecosystems

because it's a good thing to do,

because it sequesters carbon,

because it helps cool the planet,

and we shouldn't be getting

messed up at offsetting schemes.

I was invited

by wildlife photographer Neil McIntyre

and his son-in-law Ed

Jaundrel, a gamekeeper,

to see carbon sequestration

schemes in action.

Neil's brother was a second

generation keeper on Kinrara,

but when the estate was

purchased by the brewery,

all the keepers were fired.

What they showed me on the

old estate blew my mind.

Well, it was a, I

would say more than that,

it was a very typical, we call

a typical highland estate.

Had a bit of everything.

Yeah, grouse very much so.

But a, you know, decent deer stocking,

a roll stocking, and it

just looks horrendous

to be honest with you.

It beats me how that's

conducive to conservation

or you know, it's just

mind boggling really

with the damage they've

done in that place.

You know, you used

to drive up this road,

these rocky knolls will

be full of kestrels.

Further out we go, we'd see eagles.

But if it's all been fenced off

and they're culling the deer

and let's say the hares,

there's no food source valley

for any of these predators now.

So, there's no real reason for

these birds to be back here.

The

sheer volume of trees

that are getting parked in,

you know, they're not for, you know,

they're for carbon capture.

So they're the forests

that are gonna be supposedly

there forevermore.

But what a missed opportunity as well

to actually to create nice forests,

you know, just a little bit of thought.

Have some open bits,

you know, just have it,

just, you know, you could

have the native trees in it,

You know,

there was always exposed peat

out in the hill,

but now there's more

exposed peat on this estate

than ever before.

And it's gonna take at least 10 years,

five years to 10 years to

get them trees established

and to get that heather

to grow back under it.

And it eventually it will die back

when it's all got a canvas of pain

and no light getting to all these,

you know, plants and everything.

And that's the end of that.

And if there was a fire

here sit by a barbecue

or anybody, it would

go up through the moor.

But when all that's one

big bunker for fuel load,

you'll never get this out ever.

The example you've mentioned

not too far from here,

I would argue is not a

particularly good example.

I think their motivations

are questionable,

but equally we work with corporate bodies

who have no agenda.

They don't want greenwash.

They just want to give back to nature

and in many cases, give back

to local communities as well.

So, we need to make sure

that the motivation of these

investors is well placed.

And it is true to say that in some cases

that's not the case.

It's been realized

there were a lot of plantations of trees

of non-native conifers,

biological part of this instance

in the peat bogs in the

north, very north of Scotland,

what's called the flow country.

And research shows there

that the water content

of the soil goes down,

it dries out the soil

and the peat oxidizes away.

That carbon's released into the air.

So, it's known for quite a long time now

that planting trees on deep

peat isn't good for the climate

'cause an order magnitude

more carbon stored in the peat

than the trees.

So, there's now a government

of not planting on deep peat,

but there's no policy by not

planting on shallow peat.

Peat is a dead plant remains

as the plants remains decay.

You know, the peat gets thicker

and thicker and thicker,

being a store of carbon

for 5,000 years or more.

Trees are cut down after 60 years.

They can't store more than

60 years worth of carbon.

So if you have a shallow

peat and plant trees on that,

you're stopping that,

going to be a huge

terrestrial store of carbon.

'Cause that much organic matter

covering the landscape

stores as much forest,

sorry, stores as much carbon

as a 60 year rotation spruce forest.

The Highlands of Scotland

and the sporting estates

play a crucial role

in sustaining the incomes

of rural communities,

Beyond direct staff employment,

these estates contribute

to the local economy

through various spinoff benefits.

Thanks to the businesses in the area

and the guests they attract.

However, rewilding advocates

argue that even more robust

job opportunities could arise

from the managing of restored ecosystems

and the resulting boost in tourism.

If you look at the land that we own

as a John Muir Trust or even

the those that are involved

in the environmental sector,

the employment base per

acre is higher than it is

in the sporting estates.

So, those are not jobs in

the sort of tourism sector.

Those are jobs in land management.

These are high quality jobs.

We've seen it on Skye

this whole kind of tourism boom,

where often many of these operators

are coming out with Skye,

Edinburgh, Glasgow, Aberdeen

coming here.

Those people are not

linked to that landscape.

They're not managing that landscape.

They're coming here now

in this supposedly devoid

landscape and they're enjoying it.

They are seeing deer.

They are seeing eagles.

They're seeing this wealth of wildlife.

They love to see the heather

in bloom on the grouse moors.

So, they're coming here now on mass

and there is a huge amount

of wealth there, agreed.

But direct jobs on the ground,

that's not the case just now.

You know what COVID showed us

and what broadband has shown us

is that people want to

live in these rural areas.

You can communicate with

the rest of your sector,

whatever that sector is.

It doesn't really matter through

broadband connections now.

And you can be living in some

of the most spectacular places

in the world.

The concept that we need to in some way

have extractive industries

based on our land

is kind of moved that part

a sort of an old paradigm

has been a big shift there.

The sporting estates in this area

is what's keeping it going.

Everything gets poured

back into the community

For jacket, waistcoat,

breaks, and a cap,

including the cloth, you are speaking

about 900 to a thousand pounds.

And we've been dependent on gamekeepers

for possibly 50 to 60% of the business.

I would fear that possibly

I couldn't stay open

without sh**ting, hunting, and fishing.

You know, the manufacturer of our g*ns

supports the community and the industry.

We obviously provide all

the sh**ting facility

that supports the local community.

That comes through in terms of supporting

the local estates with their

ammunition, with their g*ns.

And also, you know, the sh**ting

parties that come into us

are staying in the local community.

They're staying in Dunkeld.

They're eating in our restaurants.

They're drinking in our pubs.

They're bringing revenue into the economy,

into the locals pockets

at the end of the day.

To be blunt, it would

decimate the country.

It decimate the Highlands.

So, we got the fishing clients

and they tend to come in groups

of maybe between four, six, or eight.

And they'll typically

be up here for a week.

Then, you've got the stalking side.

They're gonna be in

smaller groups, you know.

We've got maybe two or four.

They're coming up here.

They're gonna spend a

lot of money on the hill

and they want comfort, and they want food,

and they wanna enjoy themselves.

They're getting away for a couple of days.

So, it's they spend good money.

If the government were to ban sh**ting,

it's gonna really make our

life a lot more difficult here.

But I feel like we are bringing back

that type of sh**ting lodge type place.

And to lose those sort of traditions

and to lose those places be a real shame.

But you're talking probably losing

30 to 40% of my revenue

within the next year.

You know, people wanna see the wildlife.

They wanna see the rich biodiversity,

but what they're not realizing

is the people on the ground,

They're the ones that are actually helping

the biodiversity here.

You know, these guys are the

important conservationists.

You know, they're the ones

that keep the wildlife

going here.

And you can drive along the roads

and the hillside, and lay-by,

are full of people in camper

vans, parking for free,

and camping right next

to the roadside for free.

You can replace it with

other forms of tourism,

but will they provide the jobs?

And that's the million dollar question.

The Isle of Muck is the

home to Gallanach Lodge,

a sporting estate born

when a laird's daughter

sought a means to remain

on her island home,

where the aristocratic model

favored her older brother's family.

Beyond summer tourism,

the sporting estate model

extended the tourism season

from September through January,

generating income for 10 families

and preserving a way

of life on the island.

All right folks, we're

gonna redraw this morning.

So, we're numbering eight, right to left.

With that look, I'll wait.

You gonna come back.

I'll come back to you.

I always get what's left.

Numbering right to left,

we'll move up two pins each drive please.

I'm gonna sh**t three drives this morning.

The island economy is

largely based around farming,

tourism, and fishing.

And what we offer, I guess,

is a sort of sporting tourism

from red stag stocking,

Billy goat stocking

on the Isle of Rum behind us here.

We're spending somewhere in the region

of about 70 to 90,000 pounds

a year just on boat charters

to either bring people from

the mainland out to the island

or to bring people from

between Muck and Rum here.

We are also using a local boat

to extract the deer

off the island as well.

The number of guests we

bring onto the island

is obviously directly

related to the number of deer

we're sh**ting.

So the more deer we sh**t,

the more people we bring onto the island,

which has a knock on

effect to Rums economy,

to the local economy there.

Without the hunting season, we

couldn't really survive here.

We need the hunting in the winter months

to get through the year.

So, we fish predominantly

lobster and langoustine

close into the shore,

around about the island,

and sell as much as we can locally.

Until we opening the lodge

and having guests all through the winter,

we now have a mark to have

local seafood and stuff

on the menu.

The thing what a lot

of people don't realize

it's not just the sh**ting.

It's all the other businesses

that are connected to that.

So, there's B&B's on the mainland.

There's the ferry transport.

It's kind of the wider impact

that people don't kind of see for here,

especially it seeing the

people getting pulled in

to help clean the lodge

and all the other things.

All those little things,

all those jobs were just,

and that would impact

probably 2,000 of the families

on the island.

I think out of something

like 1,200 applicants,

we were chosen to come

and run the tea room.

And this is now coming into

the end of our third year.

And also we get the sh**t lunches here.

So, we have the tourist in the summer.

Come near September,

again, it slows right down.

And if the lodge weren't

doing sh**t parties

through the winter up till January,

then we would probably close down.

When I was first here,

we had power in the morning

and then off all day.

And power at the nighttime

till about half past 11.

No internet apart from satellite internet.

So, it has made a heck

of a difference with Toby

setting up the hotel definitely.

They've turned it into

like a global phenomenon.

We were getting people from Sweden.

We're getting people from South Africa.

We're getting people from all over Europe

and further afield.

There's a lot of

management that's going on

to do with the sh**ting.

That we've seen lots of other birds coming

and you know, for the children

they're growing up interested in.

Even things like when they're

waiting to go beating,

you know, Hughes always

looking at the heather

and seeing what kind of

different grouses there are.

Do you know what I mean?

They're kind of, it's

another way of looking

at all the things around us, I suppose.

So, there's the financial impact,

but there's also all the

other management things

that are going on that

have a positive impact.

It's a different connection to

the environment around them.

So, they're already

connected through farming,

but this is a different angle.

So, all these stag heads

are ones that have called with the girls.

You know, I've got four daughters now

and they've all been kind

of involved and immersed

in the world that I'm in.

When we're out with the stags

and the hinds in each season,

I enjoy seeing them in between the trees.

So each bit of more of a challenge to spy

and glass across to them.

The reason why I want to be a gamekeeper

is I like being outside and

like amongst the environment.

Well, when I go to school,

they just say to me

and my sister, they go,

"Why does your dad sh**t so many deer?"

And I do, I just put

them right and just say,

"My dad shoots them in season.

He doesn't sh**t them outta season.

He has to color for each year."

And they go, "Oh, but that's so cruel.

Your dad just kills animals

for the sake of it."

And he doesn't, he has to manage them.

Yeah, I couldn't really

see him doing anything else.

I've been with him for 30 years

and it's all he's ever done

and it's all he wants to do.

He has returning guests

year after year after year

that come back.

It's not just always for the sport,

it can just be to spend a day in the hotel

or a couple of nights in the hotel

and you know, they'll

get in touch with Scott

'cause they've become friends.

The people that sort of,

they've got a place in

your heart, you know.

You're out all day on the hill

with them or maybe longer.

The girls have quite a

bit of stick at school

off certain people.

And it's hard really

sometimes to take it in

because these children at

school that take it out on them

have also got dads that are crofters

and dads that work the land themselves.

So, they'll have a go at the girls

and just say, you know,

"All your dad does is go out

and k*ll foxes," you know?

And it's hard for the girls

because they've been brought up with it.

They've seen it.

They go out with Scott onto the hill

and they'll be there with him, you know,

while Scott uses a firearm to, you know,

to call the beast.

So, they'll see it from

as soon as it's shot

to actually being cooked

and put on a plate in front

of them and they eat it.

They love it because they

know where it comes from.

There's so many kids at their

school that don't even know

where a piece of meat comes from.

They're just so used to seeing it

in a cellophane wrapper

at the supermarket.

A wee boy look.

We staggy.

Ah, clan, the Mackenzie's

intrinsically linked

to the red deer.

So, I've always thought it's nice for us

to say something like that

and it's not a done thing

in the Gaelic world.

There's never any, you know,

it's our little link

to our ancestors past.

The red deer or the red stag

is the most iconic symbol

of the Scottish Highlands.

But today, they're under the g*n.

Red deer in Scotland

have become a dilemma.

Favorited for stalking by sportsmen

and sightings of the monarch of the glen

are desired by tourist.

Those within the rewilding effort

have put crosshairs on

this iconic species.

Red deer are woody browsers

during the winter months

and can cause significant damage

if they're concentrated onto an area

filled with young tree plantings.

No one really knows how

many deer exist on the land

nor can they agree on how many

or how few need to be culled

to allow for healthy ecosystems.

Each side has put up their battle lines,

but the government has

budgeted 30 million pounds

to hire contractors to k*ll

deer over the next year.

So, we have a situation

where the grazing pressure,

primarily through red deer and sheep,

is preventing the regeneration

of the woodland habitats.

And not only woodland,

but habitats in general.

And it's keeping them in a

suppressed, degraded situation.

I think it's often

portrayed that red deer

are naturally a woodland animal.

I think that helps push

this kind of narrative

of huge woodland expansion.

Deer are a woodland animal.

They're not meant to

live in the open hill.

And give them a wood,

they'll head into the wood.

That's where they wanna live.

So, the big challenge today

is to get numbers down

to more sustainable levels,

so that plant communities

and other wildlife

communities can flourish.

But also to get them back

into their native habitat,

which is woodland.

There's been no trees

over most of the highlands

for 2,000 years.

If the deer survive that,

you can't tell me they're woodland animals

because they're not living in woodlands.

But if you are in a wet,

cold, stormy climate and snowy

and you want shelter, where

the first place you go to

is trees.

They have a wide ecological altitude.

Like wolves, in fact, they can

be woodland or open ground.

And if they're eating more

nutritious vegetation,

they're bound to be

bigger and more robust,

especially if you've keep

the populations very low

by sh**ting or hunting.

So, deer management

is one of these things

where people view it as sh**ting deer.

For about six months of the year,

that is part and parcel of what we do.

It's not a matter of having

a kind of key number of deer

that we're aiming for the area.

It's we're looking at

impact that they're having

and making our management

choices based on that.

There are parts of the highlands

where, yeah, potentially

you've got too many deer.

There's also large parts of the highlands

where you don't have enough deer.

There's bits and pieces

of historic Gaelic culture

that were here, the original

sort of indigenous people

that were here.

Deer gave them food,

and clothing, and heat,

and like all sorts of valuable

between human beings and deer

going way back to the stone age.

The problem, if indeed you

perceive it to be a problem,

is the deer, the number of deer.

So, the way that the Scottish landscape

has been managed for

the last 150, 200 years,

generally speaking to paraphrase,

is to maximize the number of deer.

So if your objective is sport sh**ting,

then you may wish to have

higher numbers of deer.

If your objective is to

let nature have its freedom

and for lots of species to benefit,

rather than just a single species,

then the chances are you'll

want deer to lower density.

You know, the ideal density

for an area like this

to get the trees to grow

is probably two deer per square kilometer.

That's what you're gonna aim for.

To manage two deer per square kilometer,

you are hitting them

really hard all the time.

If deer stalking is part

of your income for the estate

and, you know, stags are of a big income

and support many jobs, then

you that you want to lessen

the winter mortality that you have.

So, those estates that feed

stags are feeding the stags

to help 'em see through the winter.

It could be argued that

we should just leave them

and what happens is what happens,

but it's a business like any other.

You want stags for next year,

you've got to look after 'em.

You've got to take care of your animals.

We're now in a phase

where we're seeing how we manage red deer,

not as just an environmental issue,

not just as a an issue

to do a quarry species,

but as a component of a wider ecosystem

and that's a positive development.

You put manure in your

garden or farmers did

because it's rich in nutrients.

Now if you think on the

wide landscape scale,

then all the deer and even the sheep

are actually breaking

down the plant material

excreting in that dung and

that's fertilizing the ground.

If you reduce deer numbers or

graze the animals generally,

you reduce fertility

of the whole landscape.

On lots of the property

that we have, it is red deer.

That's the problem.

It's not roe deer. It's not hares.

It's red deer.

There are areas in our ground

too where sheep of the problem

and unless we manage the sheep

and work well with the

crafters whose sheep they are,

then we're not, just

k*lling the deer by itself

isn't gonna solve the problem.

We're gotta manage the

sheep issue as well.

We know the deer are

really, really important.

I mean, look at them.

Every bottle of whiskey

that gets sold to America

each year's gotta stag on it.

Of course, like this

is our national brand.

This is what we're about.

It sets all kinds of

strange questions running

when we start to say,

"Actually, we hate deer now.

We don't want deer. These

spaces aren't for deer."

Deer are part of us and in

large part, we're part of them.

The intense management of red deer

has spurred entrepreneurs

to develop businesses

capitalizing on providing

sustainable healthy meat

to the broader public throughout the UK.

Animals being shot,

they go from being a deer to being venison

and of course, categorize

into variety of different specifications

and depending on the species.

So, we will supply

around two and a half thousand

stores nationwide daily

with specifications such as

burgers, sausages, steaks

ready for you to cook.

This is a wild animal.

This is a product that is as God intended

is out there for a reason.

And we are making it available to you

who is looking for an alternative,

but perhaps also looking for alternative

from a healthier point of view.

It is proven to be a healthier protein

than most other proteins

that we can get our hands on.

And that food product must be looked after

just as well, if not even better,

than a cow produced in the

field going through an abattoir.

The specter of

conflict looms in Scotland,

particularly on the Assynt Peninsula,

where the John Muir Trust

finds itself at odds

with neighbors to managing

the deer population.

Are humans across the globe predisposed

to manage our natural assets

in a way that's sustainable?

You know, sadly, I think

there's too many examples

of where we're not predisposed

to manage it sustainably.

So, the Assynt Peninsula

is about 18,000 hectares.

So, that's about 45,000 acres.

About 2,000 hectares of that is woodland

and most of that is native woodland.

And the majority of the landscape

is dominated by blanket

bogue, and wet heath,

and monte, and habitats.

And you know, it doesn't really

sustain very many animals.

One of the sources

of income for the trust

was stalking,

where people would come

in and pay to stalk stags.

That in turn, allowed people to come in

and spend money locally

for accommodation,

buying things from shops.

And it still remains very important

that we have a sufficiency of deer

to allow us to continue doing that.

As far as I understand,

there was a change in the

direction of the John Muir Trust

in relation to the number of deer

which they would tolerate on Quinag.

They pulled outta the

deer management group,

so I understand because

they didn't like the way

that the rest of the people

in the group were behaving.

For the last 15 years,

John Muir Trust have

seriously misrepresented

the state of the environment

here on the Assynt Peninsula.

The collaborative

approach wasn't working

and the deer numbers

were actually going up.

The group had agreed to reduce the numbers

and that was the target,

but the numbers weren't going down.

The numbers were going the other way.

It's not about deer per square kilometer.

So if you take in the

top of those mountains,

deer can't eat stone.

So, you have to exclude all that area

as part of your per

square kilometer figure.

And then, what you realize

is actually the deer density

is probably much higher.

They're trying to campaign

to change the way we

manage deer in Scotland.

And they do that by creating a noise.

And they think that at

the creating a noise,

then politicians will be on their side.

The concern

seems to be of red deer

eating young trees,

which may or may not exist

on the Quinag Estate.

But on the neighboring Ardvar

Estate, keeper Michael Ross

shows us how trees are coexisting

and flourishing with deer.

There's a good number of

deer on the Ardvar Estate

that live in here because of the shelter.

And now, we've got this,

but we've got this throughout the estate.

You can see how the woodland works here.

Once you get in the bogey grin,

it starts to peat right.

And you can see that in there

once it gets the boat

mill, ridge there too.

Yeah.

So, deer and forest can coexist?

At a loose hill, yeah.

They're a forest animal.

They have every right to be in here.

You mentioned something

though that some of the stags,

those royal stags that you'd

see year after year after year,

you haven't seen them anymore.

Well, stags are bad on Ardvar.

They didn't come back this year.

It's not something you

get many off up here.

We don't have many royals really.

So, there's a few of them,

was a few of them on Ardvar,

but we seem to be missing

them, not coming back,

after the rat in October.

They usually come back

to Ardvar for the winter

and they haven't returned.

So, they've obviously

been caught up in this.

So, you think they were taken out

by the John Muir Trust.

Caught, they would've

been caught up in the...

If you're missing one or two,

fair enough, that happens,

but not when you're missing

quite a few numbers.

Us for ourselves, you cull the

deer to look after the deer.

So, you're gonna take out the worst ones.

But it seems to be across the board,

they just sh**t what's in front of them

and then, sickening.

After withdrawing from

the Deer Working Group,

the John Muir Trust filed for a permit

with Nature Scot to

conduct night sh**ting.

Amidst tensions with the neighbors,

Balharry expressed a drastic stance

stating he would k*ll every deer he could.

The John Muir Trust are not stalking.

They're not stalking the deer.

They're k*lling the deer.

Because as anyone who lives in

this part of the world knows,

it's very, very easy

to sh**t deer at night.

They don't run when there are

bright lights shone on them.

Generally, they stand still.

What has made people very angry of late

is that there are reports of animals

being found outside of Quinag

having been shot but not k*lled.

In the dark, if you hit but don't k*ll,

it's very difficult to track an animal.

One of the two stalkers

who is doing the nighttime sh**ting

is the chief executive

officer of JMT himself,

Mr. Balharry.

Now, you would think

that the role of a chief executive officer

is quite an important one in a business

as big as the John Muir Trust,

but the fact that he can

spend hours off his life

driving from where he lives south of here,

a couple of hours in the middle of winter

to come up and sh**t deer,

not stop deer, but sh**t deer,

seems to me that there's a,

there may be a problem with him

as well as a problem with Nature Scot.

We are what we thought

the Scottish government

would like us to be.

In relation to deer in particular,

they seem, in a strange way,

hell bent on destroying us.

The sporting estates

roundabout are anxious.

We've gotta work that

situation with them to say,

"Look, you know, our

intent is to k*ll more deer

and we will," but we're

trying to work with them

to find a solution to the deer

that are crossing the road.

So, we're aiming to get down to a density

of about sort of two to four

deer per square kilometer

across the estate.

But what is the

total number of deer though?

Just now?

Before now,

I mean, you guys shot, you

know how many deer you shot.

I mean you have to report

that to the government.

Yeah, no, I do. So I'm saying-

So, how many

deer did you guys sh**t?

Well, that's what I'm

saying it's about a hundred.

And so, we manage lots of estates.

I don't carry the exact

numbers round in my head.

I could get them for you in a second.

Less than 150,

but I mean the numbers is a,

it's to debate the numbers

is to miss the point entirely.

It's about getting the habitat

and getting the trees to grow.

So, whatever numbers of

deer need to be culled

to get the trees to grow,

that's what we'll do.

A hundred,

less than 150 were taken.

Did you take all the

deer off of the estate

or you know, 50%, 20%, 10%?

- Most of

- I'm just

trying to get some sort of idea

of what really was there.

What propagated you guys

to get these permits?

What was the motivation?

I know it's to get deer densities

down, I understand that,

but there had to be

something that triggers like,

"Hey, we're seeing X amount of

deer here we need to remove."

And how do you determine how many deer

you need to remove there at Quinag?

Um,

so you get the authorizations

for sh**ting deer outta season.

Come on the back of an argument that says,

"Is it necessary to prevent damage?"

Damage to what? Damage to

trees that are growing.

If you control deer in the

seasons, then that's fine.

You can prevent the damage in season,

but then the new growth

will simply get browsed off

in the wintertime, unless you

continue to sh**t the deer.

So that's it, that's the logic

for getting an out season sh**ting.

It means that you are unable

to protect your habitats,

because there are deer on the ground

in the out of season period.

The deer

that you did harvest,

did you guys leave the

carcasses on the hill

or were they sold?

Majority of them were

taken off the hill.

Actually leaving carcasses on the hill

is quite a good thing to do.

Rather than them being

left as a result of death

by starvation, or malnutrition,

or just inability to access shelter.

These ones are humanely

shot and then left.

And, you know, other

animals can then benefit

from the carcasses.

Scottish law

allows for hostile buyouts

by the community of

neighboring landowners,

if the landowner in question

is running an estate

to the detriment of its neighbors.

It is possible to mount

what would be a hostile

buyout of that estate

simply in order to eliminate

the social problem,

which they're causing.

But I think that there

are enough local people

so enraged at what's been going on

that I don't think it

would be very difficult

to form such a community group.

David, the Assynt Crofters' Trust

regards the deer as an asset,

utilizing them for food, stalking jobs,

and promoting tourism as

the tourists need lodging

and meals on the peninsula.

The Assynt Crofters' Trust

is a kind of a peculiar model.

It was, as you say, one of the first ones,

but it's not exactly a

community ownership model.

It's a group of crofters

who own the landlord's

interest in their land.

And for them to exercise

or for that bit of

legislation to be exercised,

it would have to be the community.

And, you know, ideally if the community

were able to manage in

perpetuity that area of land

for its natural assets,

that would be a phenomenal

outcome to aim for.

I'm reading in the

paper, they're discussing

enacting the clause and the law.

So, how do you respond?

Well, so it's fine.

So the first thing we would sort of say

is, well, let's speak to the community

and let's see what their

land use objectives are.

What it boils down to

is that you've got one

group of private interests,

the landlord's interest

in a crofting estate,

wanting at the moment to buy the asset

of another private individual.

So, there's two property

rights that are at stake there

and neither of those property rights

represents a geographic community.

It can work if there's a

genuine community thing there

that shows it's detrimental,

but I think it can only work

if the owners wanted to sell.

It's not, you can't sort

of force the sale with it.

People assumed that

legislation would only be used

against private owners.

No one envisaged that that legislation

would be used against

an environmental group.

It's a nuclear option in lots of ways.

I'm in Strathglass in

the Scottish Highlands

and all around me is wildfire.

This wildfire burned over

the last seven or eight days

and it is the largest wildfire

to ever occur in the United Kingdom.

It started about three miles over there,

three and a half miles.

And it burned initially towards Cannich,

and then it kind of settled a wee bit

or at least it seemed that way.

And then, yeah, then it

started coming towards us

and the day it hit here

was the day it just,

it was tearing all over the place.

You know, the helicopter was on site,

the Forestry Commission,

RSPB, the Fire Service,

everyone was trying their absolute best,

but they couldn't sh**t

water at it from in front.

It was coming too fast, too hot.

You know, it was along the top of this

or the side of this ridge here.

That was the time where

the gamekeepers turned up

and started lighting fires this way.

And the two fires sort of came together

and they completely turned it.

In fact, you can see the furthest west

and extent of the fire

over there on my ridge.

I mean they literally

made it do 90 degrees.

It was kind of like the

weirdest thing, you know.

Here we were firing water

at absolutely everything.

Another dude stand up

and set fire to stuff

and that's actually what saved it

from being an awful lot worse.

I'm not saying the helicopters

wouldn't have caught it,

but it was just the fire

could have just forked,

could have gone in all sorts

of different directions

and none of the people on the ground

could do anything about it.

They couldn't get near it.

Ultimately, the gamekeepers

just controlled.

They sort of corralled it

and just stopped it from spreading.

That skill, experience, knowledge,

specialist stuff, the gamekeepers

had a significant positive

impact on the outcome.

No question about it.

I mean, this fire happened

in large part on ground

that was vegetated heavily.

You know, we're a non-sporting estate.

We don't burn.

I mean the temptation,

I guess, from people

who are opposed to

conservation, rewilding,

whatever you wanna call it

is to say that we made

life worse for ourselves

by having all this ground cover.

There's no getting away from it.

We're increasing the fuel

burden on the ground.

There's no way to get away from that.

That is happening.

There is more to burn

on a rewild landscape

than there is on on the opposite.

I think it's a fact we're

gonna have more fires.

That's a fact. We are not prepared.

We are fundamentally

unprepared at the moment,

unless you're on a sporting

estate, for example,

which manages a mosaic of burnt habitat

for different purposes.

To me, it's bringing in an expert.

Somebody like the keepers who

are here fighting this fire,

bring them in and say,

"What can I do to limit my chances

of experiencing this again?"

Intensive grouse moor management

backed by scientific evidence

yields positive outcomes for nature.

However, running such

operations incurs annual costs

in the hundreds of thousands of pounds,

making ownership of

privilege for the wealthy.

Simply put, conservation requires funding.

Dee Ward of Rottal Estate

stands out as a landowner

who embraces common sense

solutions, managing the lands

to benefit nature while

permitting limited ground sh**ting

Come to my estate,

let's see how much wildlife we have.

Let's assess all these things.

Let's go to another place.

You pick a state of your

choice in the uplands

that does the same thing that I do.

It's upland. It's not a lowlander estate.

It's not full of trees.

It's upland.

And let's see what wildlife they have

and let's have a reason

debate about it because I bet,

and I'll say it now, I bet

that I will have more wildlife

than any other estate you could show me

that doesn't sh**t grouse.

I think these things

should be based on facts,

not on emotion.

All these gullies

where the rivers or the the streams run,

the watercourse run, have

very few trees in them.

Down below, we've got trees

planted along the watercourse.

The aim is that they will

get big and shade the water.

And one of the aims is that

we improve the water quality

by keeping it cool and we

keep the river health high

'cause it doesn't really

affect the grouse,

but it does improve the water quality.

And to be honest, when I got here,

I didn't know that was a thing to do,

but you learn as you experience things.

We are trying to create this

balance between the uplands

and where that merges

into the lower ground,

where the rivers are at

the bottom of the valley.

You've got the bottom

where you have the pasture.

You have wetland.

You have good habitat for

waders, things like that.

We then have a sort of middle section,

which is native tree planting

and some natural regeneration.

And then the top is moorland,

heather, grasses, and so on.

And the peat is like a

big sponge basically.

So, what we're trying to do

is restore that peat with a view that,

one, it's good for

wildlife and biodiversity.

Two, it stops carbon

emitting into the atmosphere.

But three and most importantly to me

is it captures that water as a big sponge

and it sits there rather

than create flooding

'cause as soon as we create flooding,

we damage our ecosystem.

For Alex Jenkins and his family,

his dream job as the head

keeper at Edinglassie

has come to an end.

Let me give you a boozy.

There we go.

Thanks, Pam. Thank you.

It's been a pleasure, Alex.

I wish you all the best

in everything you do.

Yeah, thank you.

I'm going to cry.

I hate saying goodbye to people I know.

I worry about the

viability of the industry

if we keep getting attacked

the way we're being attacked.

It's the pressure of

constantly having to fight

for our survival that I

have found quite tiresome.

I've been quite politically involved

certainly for the last

10 years of my career.

And every turn, we're having

a fight for our way of life.

I just, I feel it's almost

like death by a thousand cuts.

I've two young children,

both are primary age.

As a job going to the hill every day

and working with of wildlife,

I mean it's so rewarding

and it's been a fantastic

place for my kids to grow up.

It impacts on my family life quite a lot.

You know, there's constant

political lobbying,

just fighting for our future.

And I think it's certainly a factor

in the decision that I've made

as while my kids are young,

I'd certainly like the opportunity

to spend more time with 'em

and not have that constant worry

of where we will be in 10 years time,

if I'm still gonna have a job.

Leaving Edinglassie is

gonna be really quite hard.

We've really loved our time here.

We haven't taken this decision lightly.

I mean this has been Alex's

whole working career,

has been based around gamekeeping.

The job has changed

for Alex over the years

in such a short time.

There's been so many changes

to the keeper in world

and it just gets tougher and tougher.

It takes a lot of time

away from the family

and we've realized over

the last year or two

that life's too short.

The countryside is what it is today

because of the keepers,

the way people enjoy taking

a tour over the hills,

enjoying, you know, the

heather and the patches.

And they won't see that

when the keepers are gone

'cause there's no one there

to maintain and manage it.

I think Alex has left industry

because like a lot of the rest of us,

we've been gradually getting worn down

by legislation, rules, regulations

just scrutinized every little thing we do.

It just becomes too much.

I mean, you're almost

demonized for being a keeper.

Unfortunately, we do have situations

where there are suicides.

There is more than one

a week in the country

who take their own lives in rural jobs,

more than one a week.

The straw that broke

the camel's back for me

would've been the way the ban

on sh**ting mountain hares

was pushed through as a Stage 3 amendment

through the parliament.

And I just thought to myself, you know,

there's them in a heartbeat.

And I mean, the whole thing

probably took 15 minutes

in parliament, but it just legislated

half of my sporting cult

for the year just vanished.

I mean, it was quite an

inconsequential decision to be MSPs

who made that decision,

but to us up here, it was massive.

And the way it went through, I thought,

"Well if they've done this once,

they've got a mechanism to do it again.

and there's some big fights to be fought."

All the votes in Scotland

are in the Central Belt.

I mean, it's a widely known fact.

Most of the voting population

is between Moscow and Edinburgh.

There's not enough of us

involved in this industry.

There's not enough of us living

in these remote clans to really matter.

But the Scottish government

just doesn't seem to care.

I mean, that's increasingly obvious

with every new bit of

legislation that comes through,

what disregard they have for

what happens in these hills.

Yeah.

Change is something that human beings

don't necessarily welcome easily.

We're not comfortable with

it, but change is inevitable.

And I think in some

cases, it's desirable too.

So, it is true to say

that what you might term

traditional land uses,

and by that I mean sheep farming,

grouse sh**ting, upland

deer stalking, et cetera,

they are under pressure.

They are under scrutiny.

And in some cases, they

are being phased out.

I don't believe

and I see absolutely no

evidence for this notion

that rewilding automatically

leads to de-peopling.

There's no evidence of that whatsoever.

So if you go, for

example, up to Glenfeshie,

which is just a few miles from here,

there are more people living

and working in that landscape

than there have been for

the last 20, 30 years.

Still the same dear

stalkers, land managers,

but you've also got fencing contractors.

You've got peatland restoration experts.

You've got scientists,

researchers, tourism operators,

hospitality providers.

All of these businesses

in one way or another

are a reflection of the landscape

that is in recovery or

rewilding, if you like.

I understand the fear,

but I don't think there's

any serious foundation in it.

I can somewhat relate to the sadness

and the anguish of how

those individuals may feel.

'cause my background is I'm from Zimbabwe

and my father was a farmer out there

and a lot of the white farmers

were removed from their land.

And it's not something that

I would want the people here

to ever experience

Currently where we are

and it's pretty much

agreed that we give nature

a foothold, a boost up.

And we allow nature to

kind of then kind of work

with what we're doing, because

we are part of the landscape.

There's no denying that we are part of it

from year to where we are now.

And it's our involvement

has gone up and down

over thousands of years

with the landscapes that we live in.

So yeah, we mustn't go down the road

of having another highland

clearance, if you like.

In the heart of Scotland,

a silent battle rages

and the very essence of the

highlands is under threat.

As rural guardians, keepers, gillies,

and stalkers are edged out

of their ancestral lands.

Conservation is wisdom in action.

Keepers of the unsung heroes,

custodians of the land,

but it's time for a new chapter

where their knowledge

protects not just the game

but entire ecosystems.

Rewilders and land stewards,

those keepers seek the same end,

a thriving, vibrant landscape,

yet history's weight drags them apart.

It's a struggle reminiscent

of the Highland Clearances,

a cultural genocide in slow motion.

What legacy will they

leave for the future?

It's a question echoing through the glens,

waiting for an answer.