A perusal of the foregoing reminiscences will show that grouse
shooting, like other sports, is very uncertain, and that really good
shooting cannot apparently be looked for in more than four seasons out
of seven, consequent on the ravages of disease.
With the exception of portions of Southern Perthshire say the district
west of Dunkeld, embracing the Breadalbane Moors, which for many years
have had comparative immunity from disease, but will have it sooner
or later, the moors of Aberdeen, Banff, Inverness, Ross, Sutherland,
and Caithness are attacked at pretty regular intervals, and an old and
experienced hand may spot the years of disease pretty well in advance.
In Sutherlandshire the recovery is rather slower than in Caithness, and
the period of good shooting rather less.
On the smaller moors on the north-east of Caithness mixed up with the
arable land there is certainly very much less disease, and when the
birds get a touch, it is called a bad breeding season; as the tenant of
a very fair moor in that district put it, "We never have disease, but
we had a season of poor shooting as the birds did not breed that year."
Of course, that meant disease.
I take it that in that district, the climate being better, the ground
carrying few birds and being sprinkled in patches mixed with arable,
that the risk of contagion is less, besides which, from the tendency of
birds to draw down from the higher to the lower grounds in the storms
of winter, the gaps caused by disease get filled up.
The same remarks will apply to Orkney, and, more favourably still,
excepting that they do not fill up from the higher ground; but in
Orkney the moors are very small, and no great quantity of grouse.
Are we to draw our conclusion from the experience of previous years,
not of one cycle, but of several.
If we are to avail ourselves of past experience, the inference derived
is that disease does run in cycles, and that it is a provision of
Providence to ensure the survival of the fittest, and thus prevent the
gradual decadence of the grouse.
It would appear that grouse shooting runs in years pretty much thus:
1st year.--Say disease; shoot down and stamp out as far as possible.
2nd year.--A jubilee; but shoot old cocks.
3rd year.--A jubilee; but shoot old cocks.
4th year.--Moderate shooting; be careful not to overdo it to the
serious detriment of the good years before you.
5th year.--} Grand shooting. Shoot down all
6th year.--} you can, and so get off all you can
7th year.--} before disease does it for you.
But if the moor be shot ever so lightly in the second and third years
it is simply killing the goose for the golden egg, your moor will not
recover its stock and give good shooting until the seventh year or the
eve of the next cycle.
The laird will say, "Eh! I shall get breeding stock from my
neighbours;" but what if his neighbours are at the same foolish game.
My own experience has been not to let a moor, excepting on lease, until
I am quite certain that it can properly afford the number of birds to
which I may limit it, and I think that I have pretty clearly shown that
it will not afford birds at all in the first and second years, perhaps
a few in the third, the killing of old cocks excepted, which should be
done by the keeper.
The present modern practice of letting moors from year to year, quite
irrespective of whether from the ravages of disease there are grouse
to afford shooting, and so leading to the destruction of the little
breeding stock that may exist, has ruined and destroyed the reputation
of many fine moors that will carry heavy stocks of birds if properly
treated.
They year after year yield little or no sport, and naturally get a bad
repute until they are again caught by disease and shelved for further
years.
* * * * *
The laird has to make up his mind to one of two options: