There was a feature on illegal raptor persecution in the Peak District National Park on the BBC’s Sunday Politics (East Midlands) programme a couple of days ago.
You can watch it on BBC iPlayer here (starts at 21:02; ends at 25:05; available for 27 days).
The film began with an interview with Tim Birch from Derbyshire Wildlife Trust, who explained that illegal raptor persecution in the Dark Peak area of the National Park is particularly bad, affecting hen harriers, goshawks and peregrines. The Derbyshire Wildlife Trust is calling for stronger enforcement action on the criminals responsible and for the introduction of vicarious liability, to hold the landowners to account.
The presenter then spoke about the recent scientific paper on hen harrier satellite data, published a couple of weeks ago. She said:
“When it comes to hen harriers a recent study by Natural England found they were ten times more likely to die if they were near or on land used for shooting. Now this study concluded that illegal persecution is having a major impact on the conservation of these birds. But not everyone agrees with the data. Duncan Thomas represents the shooting community and believes questions need to be raised“.
The camera then cut to Duncan Thomas, ex-police wildlife crime cop in the Forest of Bowland and currently the British Association for Shooting & Conservation’s (BASC) northern director. Here’s how the interview went:
Duncan Thomas: “You know, what we have to be really careful of is the data that’s coming from these tagging programmes and who controls that data. I’d like to see much more transparency in the whole tagging process for the benefit of everybody“.
Interviewer: “These wildlife charities say that there is a direct connection when it comes to the decline in birds of prey populations here in the Peak District and illegal persecution“.
Duncan Thomas: “There is a tiny amount of persecution occurring and what we have to do is to work closely with our conservation partners to eradicate that. BASC and the other shooting organisations have a zero tolerance for wildlife crime. Any body committing any crime will be expelled from the organisations, the police will remove their firearms and shotgun certificates and they won’t be able to work, you know. There is a zero tolerance for it. You know, let’s work together and take this issue forward“.
[Duncan Thomas, struggling to understand the definition of “tiny”]
Given the extensive catalogue of evidence that demonstrates the appalling level of wildlife crime in the Peak District National Park, Duncan Thomas’ refusal to acknowledge it just makes him, and BASC, look ridiculous.
That evidence dates back at least 20 years and resulted in two damning summary reports published by the RSPB: Peak Malpractice (here) and then Peak Malpractice update (here).
Then came the Peak District National Park Bird of Prey Initiative in 2011, a so-called ‘partnership’ aimed at restoring raptor populations in the Dark Peak part of the Park. This Initiative has failed to deliver on every single target since then (see here and here) and is barely hanging by a thread (here).
Then last year a scientific paper published in the journal British Birds comprehensively linked the illegal killing of raptors with areas of land managed for driven grouse shooting in the National Park (see here). Here is a map from that paper showing the number of raptor persecution incidents against the backdrop of grouse moors (burned heather).
To suggest that the scale of raptor persecution in the Peak District is a “tiny amount“, even though it’s been shown repeatedly, for many years, to be having population-level effects on hen harriers, goshawks and peregrines, is either fatuously ignorant or wilfully blind.
Instead of acknowledging these widespread crimes, Duncan Thomas instead focused on trying to undermine the hen harrier satellite tag data which were collected by a Government agency, analysed by international scientists and published in an exceptionally high quality journal!
And it’s simply not true that the shooting organisations operate a zero tolerance policy for wildlife crime. If only they did, this issue would be resolved very quickly! For example, not one of them published a statement to condemn the shooting of Marsh harriers at a nest on Denton Moor nor issue an appeal for information to identify the armed men dressed as gamekeepers (here).
Instead, what we see repeatedly are shooting organisation representatives sneering and ridiculing the RSPB when covert video evidence has been ruled inadmissible in prosecutions for alleged raptor crime (Duncan Thomas has a track record of this – e.g. here), we see high-end barristers (often of QC status) brought in to defend the accused (who pays the legal fees, because they’ll be beyond the gamekeeper’s pocket?), and instead of expulsions from shooting organisations following a successful conviction we see statements of support (e.g. here).
On top of all that, we understand that BASC is accepting funds from several people who are also involved in the management of a number of estates notorious for both confirmed and alleged wildlife crimes. We’ll be exploring that relationship, also shared with GWCT, in another blog.
Does any of that look like zero tolerance to you?
Oh, and Duncan, about your idea of “working together“. That won’t happen when BASC and its fellow raptor persecution apologists boycott a meeting designed to, er, work together to tackle illegal raptor persecution.
[Photo of a short-eared owl that was found shot in the Peak District National Park last year. A shot tawny owl was found stuffed in a drystone wall not far away. Photo via RSPB]
Raptor Persecution UK 
Interesting that he talks about transparency – we can see straight through him. Imagine having someone such as this as a WCO on your patch. Doesn’t bear thinking about.
They are all singing from the same hymn sheet on that one – you wonder what the ulterior motive is
Spent much of his time in Bowland trying, on the grounds of conservation, to restrict access to schedule One nests sites by the very people who normally monitored them, threatening raptor workers with legal action, ignoring some very strange incidents at nest sites and out shooting with his pals.
From his own Facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=1870806356288959&set=a.444943285541947&type=3&theater
And even apostrophes are not safe with him, it seems from this Facebook post.
I think we need to make a distinction between being “in denial”, and denying the extent of raptor persecution. “In denial” is a psychological term where someone is unable to acknowledge an uncomfortable truth. In other words, this person genuinely believes their false view. Whereas publicly denying something for propaganda reasons i.e. that person knows their statement to be untrue, but pretends to believe if for PR strategy reasons, is something entirely different.
A good example of the latter type of denial, is climate change denial by the fossil fuel industry. We now know from leaked documents that Exxon’s own scientists told them climate change was real in the 1970s, and yet carried on publicly questioning the evidence for climate change for decades after. Shell did a similar thing, except it was in the 1980s that their own scientists told them that climate change was real and happening. Likewise we know that earlier on the tobacco companies did the same thing and used the same tactics. Their own internal reports showed that smoking was highly addictive and led to lung cancer, whilst publicly they denied this was the case.
The strategy for doing this is clear. As long as vested interests can create doubt about the harm their activity is causing, they can head off attempts for the government to clamp down on their harmful activity, by pretending the harm isn’t real, and creating doubt about it. They know the moment the truth of the harm, and it’s scale is acknowledged, that the government will have to clamp down on them, because of public anger and a public backlash (this scares politicians into action, as they don’t want the public to perceive them as crookedly covering up for something the public disapproves of).
It is absolutely unbelievable, and lacking all credibility that shooting interests do not really understand the scale of illegal raptor persecution, is because it is being done at their behest. Yes, some individual shooters may turn a blind eye to the evidence, because they don’t want to think about what his happening. However, it’s unbelievable that those responsible for running shoots and industry spokespeople are unaware of the scale of the problem. Therefore this is not real denial, but pretend denial. It essentially tells us that we can’t believe a word these people say. However, of course they are not really trying to win the argument with conservationists, because they know that argument is lost. This false denial is for the uninformed public who are not aware of the evidence.
It doesn’t look like zero tolerance to me. It looks like extreme confidence in their ability to conceal the truth.
The fact that he was once the wildlife police officer for Bowland says it all.
He is a xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx and and brings the entire police force into disrepute.
A truly odious individual, and it speaks volumes about BASC’s attitude to illegal raptor persecution that he is their regional representative. As long as shooting organisations behave like this, and have employees like this, then they will continue to be part of the problem, and shooters will only have themselves to blame when governments take long over-due action to control shooting properly (be that licencing, or banning certain types of it).
‘A truly odious individual’ – spot on. My brother’s a policeman, it disgusts me that Duncan Thomas was one…..well technically.
Given his pisspoor record as a wildlife crime hobby bobby it was galling that he lacked the integrity to remain in his post sucking on the teat of the public purse for as long as he did. His limited skillset is far better suited to his current conservation-signalling role gammoning it up for the cameras like he’s auditioning to be the spokesperson for a new type of gout medication.
I actually mentioned Thomas to my brother when we went out for a drink on Saturday. He made some interesting points about how wildlife crime is logged and dealt with – room for improvement!
Dear old Duncan Thomas, hasn’t changed his views at all since he was the oaf in blue, protecting all the shooters and keepers in Bowland, Oops sorry for shooters read wildlife. How transparent does he want sat tag information to be– you describe it perfectly well. I suspect from Duncan and his pals point of view they want it so transparent its not seen at all!! they do not understand the phrase scientifically unbiased and therefore completely valid! Steb1 has the right of it he knows that his denial of widespread raptor persecution is untrue and it is to keep the folk who know little of the truth this, erm — knowing little of the truth of this! There’s a special specific word for these people ****s, suffice it to say we do not believe you, just a tiny amount Duncan, you have no credibility ( for me you never did, even as a cop!). All the science and evidence indicates the complete opposite of what you asserted!! If BASC really want to be seen as credible realists in this they need to be rid of ” delirium tremens”
Why do the BBC give these people a platform! when discussing car crime, housebreaking or any other bloody offences they do not give equal time to representatives of or apologists for the criminals.
Paul, the reason the BBC give people like this coverage on what is a straightforward case of criminality is that they are afraid of being sued by the shooting lobby’s powerful lawyers. I have seen programmes with strong evidence about persecution being watered down for just that reason – and that leads to the BBC giving the dark side the right of reply. If youve got the money you can buy yourself out of trouble..very sad to have to say this but the justice system is itself part of the problem. [with apologies to the good guys in our justice system, it must be hell for you].
yes Dave but if you just present the scientific proof of persecution its like giving the climate change deniers a platform and even the BEEB has stopped doing that. But then every time I see that fat red face of DT I have an almost, fortunately almost uncontrollable urge to punch it very hard, I find him utterly intolerable and di even when he was a cop( we met several times).
I’m reminded of another BBC journalist’s advice on reporting (I wish I could remember who it was):
“When asked to report on whether it’s raining or not, you don’t get someone in to tell you it is raining and someone else to tell you it’s not … and get them to argue about it. You stick your hand out of the bloody window.”
Absolutely. Terrible lead in to the interview ‘But not everyone agrees with the data. ‘ Followed up by pathetically weak soft ball questions. It isn’t what ‘These wildlife charities say’ it is science. He should have been asked where was his science to discredit it.
And we wonder why the pubic don’t understand the problem.
And this spin doctor (although that is just a euphemism i prefer another description) was wildlife crime officer for Forest of Bowland!
I’m afraid we all know people like Duncan. A lifetime of denial because it suits his lifestyle and close country connections. We all understandably and rightly target the estates who fund this criminal activity, but will we EVER change the attitudes of the Duncans in our midst?
If being a wildlife crime police officer in Bowland didn’t enlighten him i think it is pretty safe to say nothing will.
Excellent RPUK blog. Journalism at its best.
What was Duncan’s success rate while he was a wildlife crime officer ? He seems to have been very close to the shooting community even as a crime officer. Is that still the case today for WCOs in the contentious areas ?
I remember this guy well when he was in Bowland, how he got the job as wildlife crime officer only the devil knows. He is completely biased and shooting through and through and nobody should believe a word he says. Now he is with basc so perhaps that tells us more about them than him but he is a complete clown so when he gets sacked he should be able to get a job with the circus
In hindsight wouldn’t it make sense to question if his former position and how he carried it out might just have contributed to the present situation.
DT said – ‘BASC and the other shooting organisations have a zero tolerance for wildlife crime. Any body committing any crime will be expelled from the organisations,’
Does this happen much?
If anyone is wondering how someone like Duncan Thomas got a job as a Wildlife Crimes Officer just have a look at the current recruitment advert for a WCO: essentially they suggest a suitable candidate will be a young farmer or a gamekeeper. You could not make it up!
I meant to say Leicestershire Police: who have a less than stellar record when it comes to policing illegal fox hunting and the associated violence from hunt supporters.