If you missed Channel 4 News this evening you really should watch the playback clip below – it’s hilarious.
As part of a Channel 4 News series, Jon Snow has been reporting on a new report written by some of the country’s top scientists on how climate change is affecting wildlife and how it’s likely to affect it in the future if management regimes are not adapted to address the issue.
Amongst other interviews, Snow discusses the report with Des Thompson of SNH and Allan Hodgson, an SGA member from Tomatin. Des Thompson does well and gives a sensible and concise explanation of what’s been happening and how authoritative the report is, based on the research of hundreds of scientists. Unsurprisingly, Hodgson doesn’t seem to have comprehended the whole climate change thing at all, and instead he talks about the need for “more control of protected predators“. Eh?
Hodgson’s interview technique doesn’t have the polished finish of his media-savvy colleague Alex Hogg – he looks decidedly uncomfortable throughout and what’s his right hand doing? – but he does live up to the standard of intelligence we’ve come to expect from the SGA. It was a masterstroke of Channel 4 news to invite him on.
Watch the interview available here for the next seven days. The relevant clip is called Britain’s countryside in crisis – debate.
Raptor Persecution UK 
I did watch it and could hardly believe the stupidity of the SGA representatives response. They really are repetitive dinosaurs, even their ‘uniform’ is a throw back to a bygone age, and their only answer to the climate change problem, as well as all other problems, is to kill the protected predators. Incredible!
It really is laughable at the amount of nonsense that these people so frequently utter, all based on gamekeeping myths. They are so mythological that the gamekeepers themselves are unsure of what’s real and what’s not. Let’s take Hodgson’s statement when asked what else he would like introduced (1 minute 42 seconds);
“More control on protected predators. There’s an infinite number of them apparently (mumble)..”
There’s an infinite number of them apparently? Simply by using the word infinite, he has stretched reality beyond belief. But then he uses the word “apparently”. So he doesn’t know for sure? He is merely guessing and just picks a random word to over-exaggerate (deliberately lie?) about the numbers of predators in the countryside. This is quite evident that gamekeepers have no idea whatsoever about predator numbers, predator-prey relationships and a natural balance. They are simply repeating the same outdated and unfounded shite that has been passed down since the Victorian era.
Then, when Hodgson is pushed further and Jon Snow asks “You mean badgers, all that lot?”, he comes up with the moronic response;
“Badgers…you know…they’re all…your bumblebees and things like that, all need a little bit of help. If it’s going to be climate change…” There was something else about badgers at the end of this sentence, but I can’t quite make it out due to Jon Snow interrupting.
And finally we have some truth from a gamekeeper. Regarding “benefits” to other species, Hodgson inadvertently admits that this is, in actual fact, all unintentional;
“We create a high number of game birds and there’s a sort of by-product of that…waders and other birds benefit from that.”
And while on this very subject of gamekeeping “benefitting” other species, the Birdguides website has an article about muir burning (http://www.birdguides.com/webzine/article.asp?a=3749), and it would appear that grouse moor management is actually destroying part of the food chain that these other species require. Looks like another feather in the cap for the ecologically destructive practice of grouse moor management.
I dare say the SGA’s Allan Hodgson doesn’t have the experience of speaking live on national television in the way that his chairman Alex Hogg probably does; and there are few who can match the engaging plausibility of Des Thompson in any environment. But that is frankly no excuse to question Hodgson’s intelligence or misrepresent what he said.
For unlike your parody of his contribution, he did indeed acknowledge that climate change is having an impact on the countryside and wildlife, and cited the spread of ticks onto higher ground as an example (something we should all be concerned about from a health and welfare point of view). But what he also did, quite fairly, was point out that the steep decline in some species, notably waders, is not all down to climate change.
While Des was content to limit his management prescription to adapting landscape and habitat, Allan Hodgson had the courage to say there’s a case for managing the wildlife too.
As Graham Madge of the RSPB said on the online discussion (http://www.channel4.com/news/green-pleasant-land-nature-crisis-google-hangout-video), “There are many species which are in trouble. It’s going to be a question of who is going to be most able to look after those species.” I know whose approach to management I commend most.
And where and when was the misrepresentation? In an article about climate change, it was the SGA representative that chose to speak about killing protected species, which has absolutely nothing to do with climate change.
And while we’re on the subject of species in trouble, I have to add that many species are in trouble because of the systematic persecution of predators carried out by landowners and gamekeepers on shooting estates.
The misrepresentation is in the title of this post. Hodgson manifestly did not say that the solution to climate change is to kill predators. If he had, I agree that would have been absurd.
Yes, the discussion was prompted by the scientific paper on climate change, and its ecological impact, but it seems to me to have been wholly legitimate to broaden the debate and point out that climate change is not to blame for the decline in all species. Go to Wales, for example, where the catastrophic decline in curlew and lapwing populations has got nothing to do with climate change, and a lot to do with the absence of gamekeepers. Even the RSPB is at last acknowledging that habitat management or manipulation is not always enough and that predator control may be necessary to avoid localised extinction: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1365-2664.12081/abstract; http://www.rspb.org.uk/community/ourwork/b/martinharper/archive/2013/04/18/the-conservationists-dilemma.aspx#.UW_r1TOkpKk.twitter
As regards the many species you say are in trouble due to the systematic persecution of predators on [some] shooting estates, are you talking just about raptors, or other species too? If so which?
We didn’t say that Hodgson had said the SGA’s solution to climate change was to kill predators – there are no quote marks in the title.
Let’s make this crystal clear incase anyone else mistakenly thinks we’re mis-quoting Hodgson: The title simply purveys our understanding of the SGA’s response based on Hodgson’s comments on the so-called need to remove protected predators, made during a discussion on the effect of climate change on biodiversity.
I disagree. The discussion was based on climate change and if it was legitimate to broaden the debate, then why did Hodgson not comment on any other reasons for declines? Why did he, as the gamekeeping industry so often do, put the blame on predators? It’s this oft-repeated nonsense that really annoys people. And if you listen to Hodgson’s speech, he specifically mentions protected predators. If he had wanted to alter the discussion and limited his killing fantasies to corvids or foxes (and no, I don’t agree with it), then perhaps there would not be so much anger. But in my opinion, he, and the SGA, are obviously not content with this, and they want to be able to kill every single winged predator species legally (and probably all ground-based predators as well).
And once again, when criticisms are aimed at the SGA, someone from the shooting side alters the thread onto something entirely new. On this change of subject, I don’t think there’s anything new in the RSPB report you link to, as the RSPB has carried out predator control for many years. But here we have another tactic that people find irksome, and that is you will happily quote organisations such as the RSPB when it suits you, but then rubbish other reports if they find fault with the shooting industry. You can’t have it both ways. You either accept RSPB reports as fact, or not.
And now onto your end question. Is it not enough, that through illegal killing, most shooting estates are responsible for limiting the expansion of many raptor species? Would you like to see protected predatory mammals on the list of legitimate quarry as well?
I will now ask a question of you. Do you agree that protected birds and mammals should be killed to increase grouse and pheasant stocks?
In the same way as I think it was perfectly legitimate to broaden the Channel 4 debate, so too is it reasonable for the discussion on this site to develop, without being ticked off for “altering the thread”. Incidentally, I am pleased that the concern that prompted me to chip in initially has been clarified by the moderator.
Look, Jon Snow’s discussion with Des Thompson and Allan Hodgson lasted about five minutes, which on any view is not enough to canvass all the arguments about the ecological impact of climate change. And I mean no disrespect to Hodgson, but if I had been producing the programme I’m not sure I would have had the SGA contributing to that particular feature of the series on “Britain’s countryside in crisis.” I’m no spokesman for the SGA, but I don’t think that even they would claim to be experts on the technical niceties of climate change.
Since you regard legitimate predator control as effectively persecution, or as a means of satisfying the bloodthirsty fantasies of gamekeepers, then we are probably not going to agree on anything very much.
That said, I am happy to do my best to answer your questions. I am confident that what I say will not be popular on this site, but I guess that serves me right for engaging with it. Underpinning my whole approach is the importance of science. So as regards relaxing the restrictions in relation to protected predatory mammals – badgers were referred to on the programme – I certainly see merit in undertaking some substantive research, rather than relying solely on hypothesis or anecdotal evidence, into their impact on ground nesting birds; a controlled experiment, say, in the context of the proposed cull if it goes ahead.
I am in no doubt that an experimental trial is called for as a matter of urgency in the case of pine martens and their impact on capercaillie. The RSPB’s research at Abernethy (which I warmly commend) has shown that between 30 and 50% of caper clutches are lost to pine martens. At the same time it has been established that their numbers have increased and their range expanded significantly. Against that background, it must make sense, as the majority of the relevant BAP group have agreed, that a removal trial – even a non-lethal one – is required.
As for ravens and certain raptors, I do believe there is a case for relaxing the licencing regime where it can be shown that they are in good conservation status and there are no generally satisfactory solutions that appear to be effective in the medium to long-term in addressing their impact; but only in restricted circumstances and with strict reporting obligations.
For the avoidance of doubt, I am not saying that applies in the case of the hen harrier. But as I have made clear on this site and others, I still believe it is vital for opposing stakeholders to maintain a dialogue in relation to this protracted conflict, and I haven’t given up hope that the development of a brood management scheme, as proposed by Steve Redpath, could be a useful step forward.
I wasn’t ticking you off for altering the discussion, I was merely stating a fact – and judging by past debates on this website, it does seem to be a recurring tactic employed when the shooting industry’s criminal actions and their unreasonable requests are called into question. But we can leave it at that, if you wish.
However I will agree that a five minute piece is hardly sufficient to discuss climate change, but then you really have to question Hodgson’s motives for mentioning that protected species should be killed, and in effect spreading lies about predator numbers. Why did he not just stick to the topic? His outburst had very little to do with climate change, but in my opinion it was just another ridiculously dishonest and deceitful claim. Again, I will agree that the SGA were perhaps not the best organisation to be discussing climate change, so why get involved in the first place and why put someone that was obviously uncomfortable with the situation in front of the camera? Was the urge to spread lies about predator numbers so great that they had to grasp the opportunity?
Anyway, you are correct. I do believe many of those involved in predator control do get enjoyment out of inflicting pain and suffering in animals, and I do believe it is effectively persecution. I believe in the science that dictates an effective, natural balance between predator and prey. Because a few people have a major interest in just one or two species, should not be reason enough to dictate that many species be killed in order to protect the farmed grouse or pheasant. If we are to continually follow this “kill to preserve” method, then where do we draw the line?
On the Capercaillie decline issue, I think it is disingenuous to solely concentrate on the predatory issue, especially as habitat loss, habitat deterioration and a lack of suitable habitat, human disturbance, fence collisions (not just deer fences) and weather patterns, are all major contributors to the decline. An RSPB/ITE study showed deer fence collision accounted for 32% of adult mortality in one locality. Other studies have cited that fence collisions are the major cause of mortality. There are many factors surrounding this decline, not just the predatory behaviour of a few species.
Just limiting this response to the issue of capercailllie, I am fully aware of all the contributory factors that are relevant to this iconic species’ decline. Not only do I live between Deeside and Donside, and used to see caper reasonably frequently, but I like to think I’m pretty much up to speed on the scientific research going back many, many years, including work done by RSPB, ITE and GWCT.
I’m also familiar with the millions of pounds that have been spent under the auspices of the capercaillie Life project on habitat management and the removal or marking of fences.
But despite all that investment and hard work, the population remains desperately fragile, and its range continues to contract remorselessly. In many areas (including Abernethy, incidentally), it has been all too rare that the magic number of 0.6 chicks necessary to maintain even a stable population have successfully fledged. I don’t dismiss incidentally the impact that a succession of woeful springs will unquestionably have had on breeding success.
At the same time, you cannot ignore the fact that marten numbers have increased significantly, and over a much broader range than used to be the case even 20 years ago.
I note that you support “science that dictates an effective, natural balance between predator and prey”. The trouble is that such balance as there might have been between caper and pine martens in the past simply no longer applies.
Against the background of a material change in ecological circumstances and the unequivocal evidence of heavy pine marten predation at Abernethy, it is surely worth at least investigating the subject further by way of a properly conceived trial. Bob Moss, formerly of ITE and without doubt one of our leading caper ecologists, certainly favours a removal trial. Why can’t you? The current situation is so grave that it must surely outweigh your strong feelings against gamekeepers and your concerns about the motives of “a few people [who] have a major interest in just one or two species”. Those sentiments, I suggest, simply aren’t relevant here.
You state you are fully aware of all the factors related to the decline of the Capercaillie, and I truly believe you, yet you preferred to limit the problems to predation. I have the feeling that if unprompted, you would have kept predation as being the sole problem.
Yes, the Pine Marten population has increased, but could it be that the species, after decades of heavy persecution, is now beginning to recover and repopulate areas where they once were? But instead of the usual killing manifesto, there are other options. Why not have a captive breeding programme for the Capercaillie, ensuring more young are reared each year and released, thereby increasing the population and giving more time for habitat restoration to take effect and for other improvements to take shape? If it can be achieved for Great Bustards, Common Cranes, Spoon-billed Sandpipers and a host of other species, then I’m quite sure with hard work and dedication, it will work with Capercaillie. A project such as this would also provide a few jobs, and in time, with a hopefully increasing population, provide even more jobs through eco-tourism and viewing opportunities – and the same could be said of the Pine Marten. The Speyside Wildlife viewing facility for Pine Martens must bring in many thousands of pounds for that company each year. And on that note, diversionary feeding is another option that could be trialled.
Where game birds are concerned, there always seems to be a scapegoat – for Pheasants it’s the Buzzard, for Red Grouse it’s the Hen Harrier and now for Capercaillie it’s the Pine Marten, and in my opinion it is this scapegoat mentality and the focus on killing that has to change. Hodgson brought it into the climate change discussion, you have done the same, and perhaps this is why dialogue has broken down in many situations. Instead of looking at alternative methods, the shooting community instinctively resort to the “too many predators” myth and this single-minded approach to killing.
If, through climate change, the Ptarmigan goes the same way, it will be interesting to see which predator will get the blame for its decline.
I’m not scapegoating the pine marten; I’m merely pointing out that there’s a lot of persuasive evidence regarding its increasing impact on the declining caper population. And that evidence needs to be tested more rigorously. Furthermore, as I said originally, it could be a non-lethal removal trial.
Besides, it’s not just me and “the shooting community” that support such a trial. I wonder if it’s really wise to ignore the advice of the relevant BAP group, which includes SNH, the Forestry Commission, Cairngorms National Park, GWCT and Dr Capercaillie himself, Robert Moss, all of whom believe that such a trial is called for.
Talking about a “killing manifesto”, how do you feel about the thousands of deer that have been killed at Abernethy over the past 20 years or so in the interests of habitat regeneration? And do you oppose the fox and corvid control that the RSPB undertake there, based on sound science?
As for the ptarmigan, yes, there is evidence that it is being driven onto yet higher ground due to climate change, though there is still a sustainable population at the moment. If there is indeed a marked decline in the future, then we will have to consider the appropriate management options. Increased predator control could well be part of the solution, but that’s not the same as blaming predators for their decline.
Yes, there’s evidence that Pine Martens take Capercaillie clutches, something that they have done for millennia, but there are many other factors limiting breeding success, so concentrating on the Pine Marten as the problem is making it a scapegoat.
At no stage in my discussion did I ever suggest that it was just you and the shooting community that supported the Pine Marten trial. Go back and read the relevant paragraphs again and please stop distorting my comments.
And once again, we have someone from the pro-shooting camp that has to bring in the topic of the RSPB carrying out predator control. Why is that people such as yourself always think that anyone opposed to shooting must blindly follow the RSPB. I agree with some of the RSPBs work, I disagree with other aspects, so yes, I am opposed to deer culling. As far as I am concerned, the reintroduction of the top predators should be the only method used to control the deer population, and until that day we will remain culturally incomplete. And yes, I oppose fox and corvid control as well. Looking at habitat, habitat quality, disturbance, unnatural mortality and other factors, alongside the already suggested captive breeding programmes, should be the way forward for the Capercaillie. Compared to the other problems and the possible remedies, predator control could be seen as the easy option and is hardly based on “sound science” as you suggest. Yes, you can kill predators, but you are only masking the problem and creating an unbalanced system that is of limited use. Farmed grouse moors are a perfect example of that.
And where do we draw the line? Not content with having Cormorants and Goosanders on the list, there are already some fisheries that want Osprey numbers reduced. Should that be allowed to happen? And what about invertebrates? There are a number of rare and scarce invertebrates in this land, so should Buglife and Butterfly Conservation be able to cull anything they deem to be detrimental to the future survival of these populations?
And finally, on the suggested Ptarmigan scenario, I merely asked which species would get the blame for its decline. Nothing more, nothing less, but surprise surprise, you managed to mention predator control again!
Well, as a grouse moor owner in a region that had zero successful hen harrier nests last year, even though you told us last week on Twitter that you have a so-called ‘healthy balance’ of HH on your land, it’s hardly surprising to learn that you’d commend the SGA’s management approach, is it?
Allan Hodgson and the gamekeepers are right. The real problem is too many birds of prey. That’s why we’re seeing the declines in farmland birds. And hedgehogs. And butterflies. And wildflower meadows. And invertebrates across the board. I didn’t know golden eagles ate so many butterflies, but then I’m an ignorant townie (I live in a rural village, but don’t own a gun or a 4×4 so think I still fail to qualify as being country folk). I should have known the solution to preserving biodiversity was to shoot more stuff. At least pheasants still seem to be doing well. Couldn’t be that this omnivorous, omnipresent alien species is causing any problems in our countryside though could it?
Hard to believe it’s taken until now to understand the connection between rising buzzard population and rising CO2. You look at the graph over last 30 years. Uncanny. Obvious next step is to commission a trial cull of various raptors. I would expect 10 eagles could reduce CO2 by 2ppm. Buzzards, being smaller, you’d probably need about 50 of them. Perhaps Richard Benyon could organise this vital research. Though finding hen harriers could be tricky in his neck of the woods. Maybe a role here for the SGA?
As for ‘what’s his right hand doing?’ – could it be holding the microphone?
Maybe we are all wrong, the latest edition of the SNH magazine has nothing but praise for the Gamekeepers, they are the true guardians of our countryside helping to save all of our wildlife, off course they have to ‘manage’ a few of those pesky predators, but that is only so as to help all other wildlife.
The main article was written by Kenneth Stephen PR man for SGA so it would be biased, more worrying though is the editorial.
What none of these people will answer is, why are our Red Kites on the Black Isle doing so badly when compared to their counterparts in the Chilterns? The only difference is the Gamekeepers and driven grouse moors!