You forgot the biology

Well, well, well. The ‘campaign’ group You Forgot the Birds, headed up by that well known ornithological expert (ahem) Sir Ian Botham, is back.

You might remember them from last year, when they tried, unsuccessfully, to discredit the RSPB, resulting in widespread derision and the rejection of their complaints to the Charity Commission.

This time they’ve surpassed all expectations. They’re accusing the RSPB of ‘deliberately looking the other way’ while hen harriers die because they’re more interested in using the species as an ongoing ‘fundraising tool’.

This accusation is centred on the recent events in Bowland, Lancashire, where three male hen harriers, all with active nests, (un)mysteriously ‘disappeared’ (see here).

We have a copy of the group’s press release (thanks to the journalist who sent this). It reads (slightly edited) as follows:

You Forgot the Birds campaign.

The mysterious disappearance of endangered birds of prey in Lancashire has become a whodunnit with the RSPB implying that gamekeepers are to blame and the gamekeeper’s champion, Sir Ian Botham, saying that the RSPB is deliberately looking the wrong way – and has ulterior motives.

Embargo 00.01 Tuesday 19 May 2015

England’s hen harriers are close to extinction and the RSPB is too ideologically blinkered to do anything to help.  This is the view of Sir Ian Botham who is responding to the news that at the Bowland Estate in Lancashire, RSPB officials are watching abandoned eggs on hen harrier nests instead of transferring them into incubators.  The fledglings could then be released back into the wild.

“The RSPB uses hen harriers as a fundraising tool and is forever blaming gamekeepers for their low numbers” says Sir Ian Botham, “but the real culprits are the ‘sit on their hands and do nothing’ RSPB officials who keep blocking government attempts to help the birds recover.”

Under a Natural England licence the RSPB could save the eggs at Bowland.  Officials at Defra have proposed a similar scheme to increase hen harrier numbers on grouse moors but this has been obstructed by the RSPB.

“The RSPB are deckchair conservationists with binoculars who sit and watch failing nests. They campaign, they complain, they blame – but they are rubbish at conservation.  Year after year the RSPB fails to live up to its name and protect birds.  If you want to protect birds from predators you need gamekeepers not the RSPB” says Sir Ian.  Uncontrolled fox populations are a major problem for hen harriers.

His criticism came after the RSPB, without producing any evidence, blamed the disappearance of the hen harriers on wildlife crime and offered a £10,000 reward for a conviction.

Sir Ian in response is offering a £10,000 reward to the first conservation group which moves the abandoned eggs into an aviary and then releases the fledglings back into the wild.  A similar process has already successfully raised harrier numbers in France.

While there are more than 1,000 hen harriers in Scotland, in England the numbers remain pitifully low.  Last year there were only four successful nests south of the border – three of which were on grouse moors.

“No bird lover can accept this impasse.  The current situation is an embarrassment to both Defra and to Natural England and provides stark evidence that the RSPB puts ideology and fundraising far ahead of the birds it claims to protect,” says Sir Ian who is spokesman of the You Forgot The Birds campaign.

The RSPB receives more than £1m of grants from the EU and the Heritage Lottery Fund for its hen harrier programme and would risk not getting further grants if hen harrier numbers increased.

Defra officials want excess hen harrier chicks on grouse moors to be raised in aviaries so that bird numbers increase while allowing the moors to remain economic.  The highly respected Hawk and Owl Trust has offered to help implement the scheme.  However the RSPB continues to object to the plan and is putting pressure on the Trust to back down.

Contact

Ian Gregory xxxxx xxxxx

You Forgot The Birds   www.youforgotthebirds.com

Notes:

  1. The Scottish hen harrier population is 505 territorial pairs (Hayhow et al. 2010)
  2. The grouse industry suspects that the RSPB’s offer of a £10,000 reward over the Bowland Estate hen harriers is an attempt to deflect responsibility away from its failure to protect birds on land that it controls.
  3. The RSPB has not produced any evidence that the birds are dead. Nor has it explained why it thinks that they have not been taken by predators e.g. eagle owls, peregrine falcons or goshawks.
  4. If a gamekeeper was responsible for the birds disappearing then how was this not detected by the RSPB’s extensive network of people and remote cameras in Bowland?
  5. The RSPB has ‘previous’ for playing media games with hen harriers: for more than six months it delayed reporting the deaths of two hen harriers at a wind farm. (The RSPB campaigns for wind farms and has even built a turbine at its headquarters.)
  6. At Bowland a Natural England Licence would allow conservationists to use portable incubators, dummy eggs (in case the parents return) and supplementary feeding (to encourage females to remain when their partners have abandoned a nest). If the fledged birds were returned to the place where the eggs were taken from there would be no breach of IUCN guidelines.
  7. The You Forgot The Birds Campaign thinks that the RSPB is fearful that if it reverses its position on the Defra scheme, the resulting growth in hen harrier numbers would show how its years of opposition have been hugely damaging for this endangered species.
  8. The RSPB’s claim that unrestricted hen harrier numbers can co-exist with grouse moors is proving unfounded at the Langholm Project in Scotland.  This longstanding experiment, which is partly funded by the RSPB, uses “diversionary feeding” of hen harriers in an attempt to reduce their predation of grouse.  However grouse numbers on the moor remain so poor that there has not been one day’s shooting in seven years – this is not economically viable.
  9. The You Forgot The Birds Campaign is funded by the British grouse industry.

END

It’s hard to know where to begin, and to be honest, we can’t really be arsed to go through it sentence by sentence, but there are two points that are worthy of some attention.

1. The two hen harrier nests (with their eggs) were abandoned by the females at some point between 30th April (when both males ‘disappeared’) and 6th May, when the RSPB announced the news. Botham’s press release was embargoed until today (19th May). Botham is offering £10K to any conservation organisation who will take the eggs, incubate them, and then release the subsequent fledglings. It’s not clear how he thinks that eggs containing embryos that have been dead for between 13-19 days can now be successfully incubated. It’s biologically impossible.

He may well argue that had the RSPB intervened when the nests were first abandoned, the eggs could have been saved. Well, that’s potentially a biological possibility, although this scenario doesn’t take in to account the difficulty of knowing precisely when the nests were abandoned, and thus when to intervene. The nests were being closely observed and the people watching the nests will have seen the females leave. But at that stage, they wouldn’t have known whether the females had left temporarily (to find food for themselves in the absence of their male partners) and were coming back, or whether they’d abandoned the nests for good. Intervening at that early stage and removing the eggs could have been disastrous, not to mention illegal. By the time the nest observers realised the females weren’t returning, the eggs would have chilled and the embryos would already be dead.

However, that’s not what he’s arguing. His press statement is clearly written in the present tense – he seriously thinks that the eggs will still be viable, two weeks after they were abandoned. He’s either a deeply religious man with faith in the concept of resurrection (£10 grand for a miracle rebirth – what a bargain), or his understanding of biological principles is as strong as his Twitter account password. Perhaps he should change his nickname from Beefy to Mincey, as in ‘thick as….’

2. The second point worthy of mention is the final sentence in the ‘notes’ section of the press release:

The You Forgot The Birds Campaign is funded by the British grouse industry‘.

How interesting. But what is meant by ‘the British grouse industry’? A few individuals with a vested interest in grouse shooting, or an organisational body that represents those who own grouse moors? Mark Avery has attempted to find out the answer to that (here).

Whoever or whatever the ‘British grouse industry’ is, we owe them a debt of gratitude for choosing Mincey Botham as their spokesperson.

Article about this story in today’s Telegraph here.

Response from RSPB Conservation Director Martin Harper here

Henry’s Tour day 30: Abbeystead Estate, Bowland

Mon 18 May Copy

Henry’s in Bowland, Lancashire, pondering whether he should visit the Abbeystead Estate.

The vast Abbeystead Estate is owned by trusts on behalf of Gerald Grosvenor, the 6th Duke of Westminster (another former vice president of the Game Conservancy Trust [now GWCT]).

Eleven years ago, Abbeystead Estate was one of several grouse-shooting estates that refused to sign a pledge to accept laws protecting the hen harrier. Abbeystead’s Estate Manager gave the following explanation:

The Abbeystead estate’s view is that we already had the English Nature hen harrier recovery unit running for two or three years and we had been very supportive. Our police came to see us with this declaration to sign, which I was not going to do. We thought the whole thing very heavy-handed” (see here).

Martyn Howat, the then chairman of English Nature’s hen harrier recovery project, said: “On the Bowland fells, English Nature have a good relationship with the gamekeepers and managers of privately owned grouse moors, particularly the Duke of Westminster’s estate“.

For an eye-opening example of the good relationship between English Nature (now Natural England) and the Abbeystead Estate, here is a fascinating read.

Talking of Martyn Howat, that name rings a bell. Ah yes, here he is.

£1K reward offered after peregrine shot dead

The RSPB is offering a £1,000 reward for information leading to the conviction of the person who shot a peregrine earlier this month.

The dead bird was discovered at an undisclosed location in north Staffordshire on 7th May 2015. The exact location hasn’t been revealed, to protect other birds that may be nesting near by.

Staffordshire Police are also appealing for information (Tel: 101 and cite Incident Number 200).

Article in the Stoke Sentinel here

Peregrine photo by Martin Eager

Henry’s Tour Day 29: occupying another grouse butt

Fri 15 May Copy

Henry’s still in the Yorkshire Dales National Park and today he visited the Grinton Estate in Swaledale as his search for a potential mate continues.

Apparently HRH Prince Charles has shot grouse here.

The Grinton Estate is owned by Lord Peel, a former President of the Game Conservancy Trust (now known as GWCT).

In 2001, Willie Peel was quoted in a Telegraph article: “I say, let’s have more hen harriers, but we want the freedom to control them so that they don’t decimate the grouse“.

No hen harriers were to be seen on Henry’s visit. In fact no raptors were seen. But there were plenty of grouse shooting butts to mess around in.

Henry left a nice gift in one of them.

SSPCA investigations lead to two poisoning convictions

sspca logo 2Eight and half months after the close of the public consultation on whether the SSPCA’s investigatory powers should be increased (see here) and we’re still waiting for a decision from Environment Minister Dr Aileen McLeod.

Regular blog readers may recall that those against an increase of powers included Police Scotland and many organisations with vested interests in game shooting. They gave a variety of reasons for their opposition, which can be read here. They include issues about ‘accountability’ and ‘lack of training and competence’, amongst others.

Interesting, then, that in the last couple of months, criminal investigations led by the SSPCA have resulted in the conviction of two poisoners. In both cases, the poisoners had targeted cats by laying poisoned baits laced with antifreeze (see here and here).

Apart from the obvious point that cats are not raptors, what is so different about the principle of investigating cat poisoning crimes and raptor poisoning crimes? The principles seem pretty similar – somebody deliberately laces bait with poison and then deliberately lays it out to target an animal. The investigators need to identify who laid out the poisoned baits and thus who was responsible for the crime.

The Crown Office didn’t seem to have any issue with the standard of investigation in the two cat poisoning crimes, otherwise they wouldn’t have decided to prosecute.

The Sheriffs didn’t seem to have any issue with the standard of investigation in the two cat poisoning crimes, otherwise they wouldn’t have convicted the offenders.

The main difference between cat poisoning crimes and raptor poisoning crimes is the politics. One offence typically involves ordinary members of the public (as far as cat poisoners can be described as ‘ordinary’), while the other offence typically involves those associated with game shooting.

Interesting, isn’t it?

Police launch raptor crime awareness campaigns in Scotland, England & Wales

Police forces in England, Wales and Scotland have recently launched poster campaigns to raise awareness of crimes against birds of prey.

A couple of days ago, North Yorkshire Police announced their campaign against the illegal poisoning of raptors. They’ve produced a poster that will be distributed in rural areas including the Yorkshire Dales and the North York Moors; both of these areas are dominated by driven grouse moors and both areas are well known as raptor persecution hotspots. The posters will be displayed in National Park Centres and on parish council notice boards.

North York Police poisoning poster May 2015

Earlier this month, North Wales Police launched a campaign called Operation Raptor, aimed at targeting raptor poisoners in their region. This follows the poisoning of five peregrines last year and a suspected buzzard poisoning incident this year. The main peregrine poisoning suspects in the region are usually pigeon fanciers/racers.

Police Scotland launched their wildlife crime campaign in March (in collaboration with PAW Scotland), which involves raising awareness of all six national wildlife crime priorities, including raptor persecution.

These publicity campaigns are good to see. Excellent, in fact. However, the most important facet of tackling wildlife crime is not raising awareness (as important as that is), but what the police actually do in response to a reported wildlife crime. A recently published report on wildlife crime enforcement in Scotland revealed a catalogue of failures, including poor follow-up investigations and sometimes no follow-up at all (see here).

We’re watching with interest to see just how long it takes Police Scotland to publicise a number of raptor persecution crimes that have taken place within the last 12 months, especially those involving the use of banned poisons that have killed raptors on or very close to sporting estates with long histories of such crimes.

Henry’s tour: day 28

Weds 13 May  Copy

After visiting the grouse moors of Swinton Estate, Henry paid a visit to the estate’s luxury hotel, Swinton Park, in Masham.

The Swinton Park Hotel was the venue for one of GWCT’s dinner auctions in November last year (see here). What an interesting choice of venue for the GWCT.

Eggs stolen from Marsh Harrier nest in Norfolk

Norfolk Constabulary is appealing for information following the theft of eggs from a Marsh Harrier nest in Guist, near Fakenham, Norfolk.

The theft is believed to have taken place on Sunday 10th May.

Norfolk Constabulary press release here

Nigel Pickover, editor of the Eastern Daily Press, says the newspaper is offering a £1K reward for information leading to a conviction (see here).

Marsh Harrier photo by Robert Pickett

(Mis)understanding predation

Imagine, if you will, a future government policy for raptor ‘control’ based on the biased, uninformed and unscientific opinion of someone like Robin Page.

‘Ah, that’d never happen’, you might say. ‘Government policy on biodiversity and species protection has to be based on peer-reviewed scientific evidence, not on the prejudices of those with a vested interest in game shooting, right?’

Well, not necessarily.

Moorland Forum logo - Copy

A new ‘study’ being carried out by Scotland’s Moorland Forum is seeking to use such prejudicial opinions to inform the debate around predator-prey interactions, which will lead, inevitably, to further calls for licences to ‘control’ (kill) raptors, particularly buzzards.

Certain members of the Moorland Forum have been pushing for licences to kill raptors for over a decade (because of the perceived impact of raptors on game birds such as pheasants and red grouse), although so far with little success. This time they’ve changed tactics. Instead of focusing on the (perceived) impact of raptors on game birds, they’re also looking to see whether they can make a case against raptors for their (perceived) impact on certain species of wader.

The ‘study’ has been named ‘Understanding Predation’ (see web page here) and it will combine a review of the scientific literature relating to predator-prey relationships, as well as the opinions of ‘stakeholders’. Incredibly, these opinions are to be given the same weight in this ‘study’ as the scientific evidence. Personal opinions are usually termed ‘anecdotal evidence’ and definitely not ‘scientific evidence’, and for very good reason. But apparently in this ‘study’ opinions are to be referred to as ‘local ecological knowledge’ – perhaps as a way to make them sound more scientifically credible. It doesn’t wash. Anecdotal evidence can be useful, no doubt about that, but to give it the same measure of importance and usefulness as peer-reviewed science is just laughable.

As an example, have a look at the comments that have been made on the Understanding Predation blog (see here). Each of these comments will apparently be used as part of the ‘study’. Apart from one or two exceptions, the majority of the comments made so far are by gamekeepers – some of them prominent members of the Scottish Gamekeepers’ Association. Seriously, have a read and see the ‘quality’ of the comments that are going to be used to inform this ‘study’. If Robin Page chooses to post his ridiculously flawed article as a comment, then that, too, will be used as part of the study’s result.

There’s also a questionnaire for participants to fill in (see here). We have serious issues with the design of this questionnaire, not least because the questions are leading and inherently devised to place predation as an issue of concern. There’s also plenty of potential for the person filling in the questionnaire to lie. Information is sought about the individual’s interests, occupation and experience. What’s to stop gamekeepers filling this in, claiming to be scientists or claiming to be staff members of prominent conservation organisations, in order to create an illusion that conservationists are concerned about the supposed negative impact of raptors on other bird species?

It’s interesting to look down the list of organisations that have been invited to participate in this ‘study’. The usual suspects are all there, including Songbird Survival. We wonder whether they will be highlighting the results of a study they funded that found no evidence that an increase in predators was associated with large scale population declines in songbirds (see here).

The ‘study’ apparently welcomes input from members of the public so we’d encourage you to participate, either by adding a comment to the project’s blog (here) and/or filling in the questionnaire (here). We’d also encourage you to highlight any concerns you have about the study design – make sure the organisers are aware of your views, either via the comment boxes on the questionnaire or via the project blog.

Robin Page’s anti-raptor rhetoric torn to shreds

In response to Robin Page’s idiotic rant against raptors that was published in the Daily Mail yesterday (see here), the Guardian has published a cracking retort.

When Page (Boring Ape) was asked why he hadn’t cited any scientific evidence to support his claim that raptors are causing population declines in other avian species, he said: “I don’t want to, why should I?“.

It’s a shame the grouse-moor-owning editor of the Daily Mail didn’t ask him the same question before deciding to publish.

The article in the Guardian, written by Karl Mathiesen, includes comments from Ben Sheldon (Professor of Field Ornithology, Oxford University), Jeff Knott (Head of Nature Policy, RSPB), Chris Packham and Mark Avery.

Well worth a read.

Guardian article here.