The RSPB and Devon & Cornwall Police are appealing for information after a sparrowhawk was shot in Devon.
[An x-ray of the shot sparrowhawk, by Westmoor Veterinary Hospital]
Map showing Tamar Foliot, near Plymouth, Devon:
From an RSPB press release issued 9 March 2020:
Devon and Cornwall Police and the RSPB are appealing for information after a protected sparrowhawk was found illegally shot near Plymouth.
The female bird was discovered alive but injured in a paddock in Tamerton Foliot, Plymouth. Seeing it was unable to fly, the finder recovered the bird and contacted the police on 2 February 2020.
The bird was x-rayed by Westmoor Veterinary Hospital in Tavistock and found to contain a shotgun pellet in its wing.
Emily Roisetter, a veterinary nurse, said: “On examination one of our vets could feel an unusual lump in its wing, which lead us to be suspicious that a pellet was present, and this was confirmed with the x-rays.”
The bird is currently being cared for at a wildlife centre.
Investigating Officer Sergeant Northmore, of the Crownhill Neighbourhood Team, said: “We would like to hear from anyone who was in the area at the time and saw or heard anything which could have been related to this incident, or has any information they think could be useful, to contact us.”
If you have any information relating to this incident, call Devon and Cornwall Police on 101 or fill in the RSPB’s confidential online reporting form here
ENDS
Raptor Persecution UK 
Good coverage in BBC Crimewatch Roadshow Live this morning.
How is licensing grouse moors going to stop all these killings?
What is the plan RSPB?
If you ever bothered to read the conditions attached to licensing you would know.
Since it hasn’t happened yet, no i wouldn’t.
But perhaps you can enlighten me. How is licensing of grouse moors going to help raptors killed elsewhere?
“Since it hasn’t happened yet, no i wouldn’t”
But some proposals have already been published. Do you refuse to read any proposals for a change in the law simply on the basis that “it hasn’t happened yet”? How does that contribute to informed debate about changes in the law?
“How is licensing of grouse moors going to help raptors killed elsewhere?”
How is ANYTHING ‘going to help raptors killed elsewhere”? It is already illegal to kill raptors. The proposed changes in grouse moor management are intended to improve, by law, the ecology of upland moors, not to stop all crime everywhere else.
‘Do you refuse to read any proposals for a change in the law simply on the basis that “it hasn’t happened yet”? How does that contribute to informed debate about changes in the law?’
Straw Man alert.
I asked a simple question.
What is the RSPB (or anyone else for that matter) doing to stop all this lowland killing?
Because clearly whatever is being done right now is not working.
I am glad you feel a solution is at hand.
“I asked a simple question.
What is the RSPB (or anyone else for that matter) doing to stop all this lowland killing?”
It is not the job of the RSPB to enforce the law: it has no legal powers to do so. It investigates wildlife crime, it reports wildlife crime, and it lobbies Government.
You seem to have gone from blaming an RSPB proposal to license driven grouse shooting to blaming the RSPB in general for ‘all this wildlife killing”.
I didn’t realise that the RSPB had the power to produce policy, manage policing , the judiciary and sentencing policy. Or os this just another casual attack on the RSPB for no reason. If you want to have a go at an NGO / charity how about choosing one that ignorantly and unscientifically demonises Sparrowhawks and Corvids to help songbirds survive?
Strange i thought the sole RSPB solution to raptor killing was to push government to introduce the licensing of driven grouse shooting. They do wonderful work in the field but i am talking about policy. Focusing on driven grouse moors appears to be their sole policy. Satellite tagging could be considered a policy but that will only work on grouse moors which have concentrated killing. It can’t work on widespread killing which the last few RPUK posts have highlighted.
Where is the policy to stop persecution off grouse moors.
I don’t think it is a controversial statement unless it is considered controversial to ask questions.
One obvious step would be to license all game bird shooting. It would a least send out a strong message to the law-breakers.
“Focusing on driven grouse moors appears to be their sole policy.”
So why has the RSPB launched a membership consultation on game shooting as a whole?
This is the only example of which i can think of where the RSPB are failing; their soft touch to raptor persecution. There doesn’t seem to be a plan to lobby government in a way which will work for all perescution. That is there job is it not? Lobby government and influencing government decision making.
[That and their withdrawal of a cheaper membership rate for unemployed and pensioners.]
Other than that the RSPB are exemplary. On every fight to save endangered species they are at the forefront or involved.
Do i have to add that every-time i ask a question of the RSPB. Does their excellent work prohibit me from criticising them?
“the only example of which i can think of where the RSPB are failing; their soft touch to raptor persecution.”
So, why does the RSPB bother to have an investigations team?
I thought i was clear in criticising the policy making (or lack of) only, not fieldwork.
Their fieldwork and investigating is exemplary and so is their crime reporting.
Is it OK to ask questions about policy?
It was a very simple question what is the RSPB plan to stop raptor persecution away from grouse moors.
Surely if you have a plan to combat wildlife crime on grouse moors there should be also be a plan to do the same elsewhere? I don’t see why that question appears to be crossing some kind of line and why you seems to be offended by it.
If we were talking aboout a very short time frame i might accept that OK first go for the worst offenders by banning driven grouse moors and then deal with the others afterwards but licensing is really in for the very long haul.
“It was a very simple question what is the RSPB plan to stop raptor persecution away from grouse moors”
As I have already reported, and before you posted the above comment, the RSPB are currently consulting their membership on all game shooting.
It is still not the responsibility of the RSPB to enforce the law. What you should be asking is what is the Police plan to stop raptor persecution away from grouse moors.
I don’t think licensing will stop the slaughter, only a total ban would have a major effect. Although rogues will still chance shooting or poisoning BOP even if that came into law.
The time has come for the RSPB to take a strong stance on this, but ultimately any plan they may or may not have will not be their decision, that is down to respective governments.
“I don’t think licensing will stop the slaughter, only a total ban would have a major effect’
But a breach of the conditions leads to a ban. So, what is the difference?
It would be temporary. Quotes published in the media have been very short term and it would only be on [driven] grouse moors. If it were a permanent ban that would be alter the equation quite a bit but does anyone seriously think that is going to happen?
This Sparrowhawk and several other killings this year published on RPUK have been away from driven grouse moors and possibly involved, in at least one case, pigeon people.
On driven grouse moors, which appears to be what you are referring to, Mark Avery and RPUK have blogged thousands of times about licensing v ban and we will be hearing about it again in the upcoming debate.
Raptor killing has been illegal throughout my whole lifetime and licensing of grouse moors would mean that will include up to my death. I shall have someone carve it onto my headstone, ‘I told you they were ill’.
“It would be temporary.”
That would depend entirely on predators being allowed to achieved their natural density, as designated by independent ecologists. If driven grouse shooting can co-exist with an ecologically balanced environment, including all the water and burning issues, then on what grounds should it be forbidden?
No one seriously thinks driven grouse shooting CAN co-exist with an ecologically balanced environment, including all the water and burning issues, but shooters often claim they do no harm. Licensing is a way of controlling their behaviour while ensuring the environment recovers.
On a moral standpoint I would ban all shooting. But not everyone has those morals. I think licensing would work, and driven grouse shooting would fail. But that still allows walked-up shooting. Even Mark Avery has campaigned for a ban on driven grouse shooting ONLY (not walked-up).
Please be aware that the RSPB are consulting their members on ALL game shooting. You should be contributing to that!
Your question was ‘But a breach of the conditions leads to a ban. So, what is the difference?’.
My reply was ‘It (a ban) would be temporary.’
‘You should be contributing to that!’
What makes you think i haven’t?
How is telling people what they should do, working out?
‘If….’