Moorland Association’s brood meddling press release amounts to abuse of process

Whichever way you look at it, the Moorland Association’s press release on hen harrier brood meddling amounts to an abuse of process.

First of all there’s the abuse of process in terms of the internal governance of the brood meddling project. We know, from the formal brood meddling project plan, that there’s a Project Board whose responsibilities include:

(a) ensuring that reporting from the project team is timely and acted upon;

(b) to oversee project external communications

We now know that the Moorland Association released its press release on Sunday without the knowledge and consent of project partner Natural England. How do we know this? Because Tony Juniper stated as much in a tweet yesterday:

Not only that, but we’ve also been informed via another source that the satellite tag data released by the Moorland Association was incorrect – apparently one of those harriers had not travelled to southern Ireland at all, but the Moorland Association had simply misunderstood / misinterpreted the data!

Now, the issue of whether the Moorland Association, or anyone else connected to an industry that’s been identified as being responsible for the mass illegal killing of hen harriers, should have access to hen harrier satellite tag data is a topic for another time (for the record – no, of course they bloody shouldn’t for what should be plainly obvious reasons) but the abuse of process from an internal (Project Board) perspective is quite clear. At least one of the Project Board team (Natural England) was excluded from the decision to publish, let alone what to publish.

Will the Moorland Association suffer any consequences/sanctions for this abuse of process, let alone leaving the Project Board’s credibility and integrity in pieces? Probably not.

A far more serious apparent abuse of process is the external one. That is, the suspicious disappearances of two satellite-tagged hen harriers are currently the subject of live police investigations and yet the Moorland Association chose to publish the information WITHOUT THE PRIOR KNOWLEDGE OR CONSENT OF THE POLICE. It was also published before the police had conducted any land searches at the locations of the tags’ last known fixes as part of the investigation. We know this from a conversation we had yesterday with Police Supt Nick Lyall.

That is absolutely outrageous and wholly unacceptable. It could also potentially be a criminal offence and have jeopardised the police investigation by alerting any suspect and providing them with an opportunity to remove evidence and clean up their tracks before the police arrive.

Amanda Anderson, Director of the Moorland Association, can’t claim ignorance on this issue. As a long-term member of the RPPDG, and a frequent critic of the RSPB’s role in police investigations, the Moorland Association knows the police-led investigative process very well.

For those who don’t know the process, here’s what happens when we suspect something has happened to one of our satellite-tagged golden eagles:

1. First of all there’s a detailed discussion and analysis of the eagle’s recent movements and satellite tag data undertaken by a group of researchers who are recognised international experts in this field and have extensive experience of golden eagle ecology and satellite tag functioning.
2. Immediate contact is made with the National Wildlife Crime Unit (NWCU) to provide them with an early warning heads up. Tag data are shared with the NWCU, in confidence, and the NWCU is fully appraised of the analysis to date.
3. The NWCU carries out its own analysis of the tag data and puts together its own confidential intelligence package about the tag’s last known location.
4. The NWCU and the tag owner decide an appropriate course of action, e.g. no action required because the circumstances aren’t suspicious; or wait for a bit longer (depending on the tag type and the data duty cycle etc) before deciding a further course of action; or agree that the researchers can go and retrieve the corpse and submit for a post mortem if the circumstances don’t indicate anything suspicious; or agree that the police will either go and retrieve the corpse (assuming there is one and the circumstances look suspicious) or agree the police will go and conduct a detailed search of the tag’s last known location if the circumstances suggest any hint of suspicious activity.
5. Any subsequent media statements are made only after discussion and agreement between the police and the tag operator.

This is the protocol we follow for our satellite-tagged golden eagles and we’re also aware it’s the same protocol the RSPB follows for their satellite-tagged hen harriers. Contrary to the myths, lies and slurs constantly churned out by the Scottish Gamekeepers Association and Scottish Land and Estates et al, we have worked hard to build up a mutually trusting working relationship with the NWCU (helped enormously, it has to be said, by the new head of unit, Chief Inspector Lou Hubble) and this protocol is working exceptionally well. Indeed, we’ve been using it this very week.

[Chief Inspector Lou Hubble, head of the National Wildlife Crime Unit (NWCU) at a satellite tag workshop in North Yorkshire earlier this year. Photo by Ruth Tingay]

We’ll be commenting at length, in the near future, about the SGA’s recent petition to the Scottish Parliament calling for the police to be ‘allowed access’ to sat tag data – those morons at the SGA are obviously oblivious to the fact the police already have access and not only do they have access, several of them are now trained to comprehend and interpret the complex array of engineering and locational data of different tag types.

So, in light of this protocol that we all have to adhere to (and when I say ‘have to adhere to’ we do so voluntarily and willingly because it’s working well and why wouldn’t we want to help the police to investigate crimes against our raptors?!), we fully expect other satellite-tagging projects to also have to adhere.

Does it look like the Moorland Association has adhered?

No, it doesn’t because clearly they haven’t.

The question now is, what sanction, if any, will the Moorland Association face for such blatant abuse of process?