This morning The Times ran an ‘exclusive’ on the controversial raven cull licence, headlining its article with ‘RETHINK ON RAVEN CULL AFTER OUTCRY BY CONSERVATIONISTS’:
Many on social media are heralding this as a ‘win’ for conservationists, but we’re a bit more cynical. It looks to us like SNH is trying to hoodwink everyone with a bit of savvy PR.
The article in The Times focuses mostly on the email sent to SNH by Chris Packham, but provides very little detail about SNH’s planned ‘review’ by its Scientific Advisory Committee. It does, though, use the past tense when describing the cull (‘The cull, which was planned to take place over five years….’), which suggests the cull licence has been suspended while this review takes place, but doesn’t explicitly state that the licence HAS been suspended.
Now have a look at the full statement given by SNH to The Times yesterday:
A spokesperson for Scottish Natural Heritage said:
‘We need to get a balance between species – bringing back waders from the brink, whilst still maintaining a healthy national population of ravens.
‘Given concerns about the future for local ground nesting waders, the Strathbraan Community Collaboration for Waders (SCCW), approached us in 2017 with a request for a licence which would help us understand the decline of these important species. SNH considered this request, following due process and have granted the licence, attaching clear conditions for SCCW to follow.
‘The information SCCW gather throughout the trial will contribute to the wider work for waders and will be made available to others who are also working to save these endangered birds to allow us all to learn and make progress in conserving some of our most threatened species.
‘SNH is confident about the rationale behind this licence. However, in recognition of the concerns expressed, we have asked our Scientific Advisory Committee – a group of respected external experts – to review as speedily as possible how this particular case fits with the wider work on adaptive action to save waders and to report on whether the methods agreed for this trial fit with the wider body of work underway.’
ENDS
Does it say anything about the licence being suspended while the review takes place? No, it does not. We suspect that the licence is still active and SNH has put out this statement simply to calm the critics and pretend that it’s having a ‘rethink’.
It’s also worth noting the following in the SNH statement:
‘SNH considered this request, following due process and have granted the licence,….’
If SNH had followed due process, surely the Scientific Advisory Committee would have had sight of the licence application and been consulted BEFORE the decision to issue a licence was made, no? Well apparently not, if the Scientific Advisory Committee is only now being asked to review the licence.
What the hell? Isn’t SNH the government’s statutory scientific advisory agency?
We’ve contacted SNH this morning to ask for clarification about whether the licence has been suspended during the review. The media team didn’t know and apparently will be getting back to us.
We await the response with interest.
UPDATE 12.30hrs: The SNH media team has responded. They are unable to answer this very straightforward question and have been told to ask us to put our request in writing to Mike Cantlay: chair@snh.gov.uk
We have done this.
UPDATE 17.05hrs: SNH refuses to say whether raven cull licence has been suspended (here)
Raptor Persecution UK 
Sounds like simply paying lip service to the massive reaction from the public. Pretending to give removing the licence serious consideration, in the hope that ‘all the fuss’ will die down, is an old well used ploy by those determined to get their way.
I have made my views clear to SNH in an email. I see no logic in seeing the impact of a Raven cull on wading birds when no control to measure the effectiveness of the “research” is included. What are the waders that they are trying to protect? Most of the species concerned are probably far more common and under less threat than the Ravens themselves. I will also write to see if the licence is being suspended.
The trouble with all of this is whether it officially goes ahead or not, to those who think they know right in terms of ‘controlling’ certain ‘pest’ species it will be seen as tacit approval for their illegal activities, which will continue regardless and no doubt increase on the basis of a ‘well even SNH said we could’ self-justification.
It just sends entirely the wrong signals just when there is apparent good progress in terms of exploring the regulation of shooting estates.
Wrong, wrong, wrong.
Absolutely. I strongly suspect that the NE license to kill Buzzards has increased Buzzard persecution although i admit to having no hard data to support this. There just seem to be an incredible number of Buzzard either being shot and logged in police/gov and RSPB reports. It is a pity that the public are so outraged by the killing of rare raptor species but not Buzzards so it is great to see such massive opposition to this raven cull.
Either way it is the effect of this cull on the mindset of the shooting lobby that we have to be worried about.
Is this part of an overall strategy to be able to cull all raptors? I think it is very likely.
and since the badger culling began there has been a lot more persecution of them.
Would it be reasonable to suggest that, if it should go ahead despite the objections, then alongside the cull there should be another study. One to observe the effect of removal of landscape alterations on wader numbers. Stopping burning and blocking peat drains on another equivalent site come to mind. Folk may think of more.
As SLE and the others are so fond of waders, I’m sure they will rush to take part.
Isn’t the SSCW made up of farmers and gamekeepers? How will the information they gather portray an unbiased account to inform ‘wider work for waders?’ Wide-O work for waders more like!
For a “community” group they dont seem keen on helping people find out about them so we can join the community and collaborate with them.
No website or any mention I can see outside of referencing to the culling.
Odd really. I thought they would have a website pushing the long list of other things they are doing to help the waders.
Whats uglier. Muirburn or astroturf?
Tried to send e-mail SNH but it wont send. Hope it is because they are inundated with people asking for yes or no answer to question of revoking licence. will try again later
It’s quite clear that SNH are just playing for time to enable a significant cull to take place before any review.
Do we know who the “respected external experts” are?
Details of membership of the Scientific Advisory Committee are given here:
https://www.nature.scot/about-snh/who-we-are/scientific-advisory-committee/sac-members
Many thanks for that. I have read the CVs of the group and am greatly reassured by their knowledge and range of expertise. I hope that they are given adequate time for their review and that SNH will publish their report in full.
Respected external experts that can offer unbiased opinions:
1. Gamekeepers, undoubtedly! They know everything about things that they believe spoil their outstanding production records.
Any scientific reports are, of course, biased against the killing industry.
2. Estate owners, that would not sully their record by putting profit before conservation (oh! as long as it was only about conserving things they want to kill).
The answer as I see the conservation of waders is down to insufficient nesting sites in thick enough ground cover instead of heather so short nothing can hide.
I am not biased but have good reason to be!
Doug
Maybe they just didn’t have to answer your question because you are not the ‘media’…
What an extraordinary comment, Steve. Has the phenomenom of social media passed you by in the offices of Countryman’s Weekly?
Fortunately the editors of several national newspapers don’t share your, er, self-important elitism and were prepared to run articles on this subject even though the news was broken by, er, us.
Oh and by the way, SNH is accountable to every single tax payer that funds its operations, whatever job those tax payers happen to have.
So everyone’s a journalist now? I think you’ll find many press offices won’t answer questions unless you are an accredited, bona fide journalist. Already seen how bad you are at the law on reporting ongoing court cases. Do get a copy of McNae’s Essential Law for Journalists, you’ll find it very useful. Newspapers have run stories on the raven cull simply because it is a ‘news’ story. However, they will have checked the ‘facts’ for themselves (hopefully) instead of relying on your somewhat unbalanced viewpoint. That’s what trained journalist do.
Take journalism advice from the assistant editor of Countryman’s Weekly?
Ha! Thanks, you’ve brightened up a dank Friday afternoon….
My wife and I have just returned home from a bird-watching holiday in the Highlands and were unaware of the Raven cull story.
BUT – we did notice a complete absence of Ravens in many areas of Badenoch & Strathspey where we usually see plenty of Ravens. A total absence of any in the Findhorn Valley – where we have previously watched Raven.
Has the cull started ‘unofficially’ or are some game-keepers stepping up their killing in anticipation of a “free hand”?
Regarding your 12.30 update. How extraordinary. Is the media team in a huff and trying to embarrass its own board?
To be fair to the media team, they did try to get an answer for us but were told to tell us to write to Mike Cantlay.
Well, I supose they couln’t just make up the answer, but fancy SNH being without a line to take on the key question? That’ll make Ministers love them! Trouble is, as per your later post, it does seem likely that the licence has not been suspended, so more work to be done.
Indeed!…we will need to wait & see! Would be interested to hear from Scottish Wildlife Trust on their views on what’s been happening….
________________________________
How can SNH, or indeed anyone, trust a group like the “Strathbraan Community Collaboration for Waders (SCCW)”, made up of individuals and shooting organisations who are known Raven haters, to produce reliable and objective results? The idea of gamekeepers, the Moorland Association, etc.. having even a basic understanding of the scientific methodology (or integrity) required beggars belief. Would we trust fox hunters to provide trustworthy research into whether the fox merits classification as vermin? Or ask the Flat Earth Society to decide whether the Earth is spherical or not? My suspicion is that they will employ scientific consultants who have already sold their souls to the game shooting lobby, like xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxxxxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx. The utter naivety of SNH in having the wool pulled over their eyes by this fake wader study group (SCCW) is mind blowing, and the widespread remark that SNH is not fit for purpose needs to be taken seriously. The very strange, almost counter culture that has developed so markedly within SNH over the past decade or more has generated a huge amount of distrust among conservationists, the very people to whom SNH should be listening sympathetically. A further tragic aspect is the disquiet being caused to honest and decent employees of SNH, and the inevitable recruitment of an increasing number of candidates who are, let’s say, not quite up to the job. Personally I now feel little but cynicism, and imagine that such feelings will be even more widespread following this Raven cull fiasco. It’s all very sad, and does not bode well for the future as SNH’s reputation has been seriously blighted. If the Perthshire Raven cull is allowed to proceed, who knows how many other fake groups will seek to extend this mad policy nationally?