Month: July 2021

Earlier this year I wrote two blogs as part of a series on the harassment and abuse hurled by gamekeepers at those of us who dare challenge and question the wildlife crime and environmental damage associated with grouse moor management (see here and here but be warned, it’s very nasty, offensive and unpleasant).

What follows is the third instalment in the series, this time written as a guest blog by Bob Berzins (@BerzinsBob) who lives in Sheffield and through fell running has come to know the nearby Peak District grouse moors only too well.

[Bob being interviewed by Chris Packham. Photo by Ruth Tingay]

Organised crime, harassment and intimidation – another day on the grouse moors

Guest blog by Bob Berzins

In December 2020, along with around 20 other people I featured in what can only be described as an online ‘Advent Calendar of Hate’ which was published by a group purporting to be a ‘grassroots moorland community’ in the north of England but who had been exposed as an astroturfing group set up by the grouse shooting industry, paying a London media agency to promote vicious, personal online attacks about anyone who had dared speak out against grouse shooting (e.g. see here).

My own profile is mainly around the Peak District-based Moorland Monitors which is an actual community, grassroots group that lawfully monitors and records what’s happening in the Pennine uplands.

In my case the abuse has continued since December 2020 in various forms, for several months.

Why the interest in me?

A consistent message from countryside interests is that local communities are 100% behind shooting. But that’s not the case at all and Moorland Monitors gives a voice to local people who are otherwise afraid to speak out on their own. There’s increasing interest from the media, local or national, to publish stories about the traps that are used, the wildlife that’s killed and also to touch on animal welfare issues. The audience here doesn’t know or care about “vermin” and they are horrified to see wildlife killed in this way. As this compassionate outlook gains traction, it exposes the lies that underpin the shooting industry.

Tapping out a message on social media isn’t really a crime is it?

Well, yes it can be. Following the Euros final, the hate spewn out on social media has been appalling. Facebook’s definition of hate speech is broad and covers “violent or dehumanising speech, harmful stereotypes, statements of inferiority, expressions of contempt, disgust or dismissal, cursing and calls for exclusion or segregation.”    

“Bob the nob”, “Please can you tell us where Bob lives”, “Looks as moronic as a few others I could mention” are just a few of the comments written about me on Facebook but the social media platform failed to delete anything after I complained.

We also have to look at the online articles which drove these comments (written by the same anonymous grouse shooting reps as the advent calendar of hate) and to consider if these constitute ‘incitement’ (to harass). Certainly the abuse started after the publication of their offensive commentaries. I’ve reported everything to the Police but they concluded that the abusive publications were within ‘Human Rights’.

Free speech is a cornerstone of our society but not if it incites hatred and violence.

Harassment escalates

The online abuse, with very obvious photos of me, soon led to the identification of my vehicle.

During lockdown earlier this year we were allowed to exercise locally with one other person. I arranged with 3 friends that we would arrive at different times on a local grouse moor, set off separately and do a timed run. This was as near as we could get to doing a race.

At the end of my run I saw 3 gamekeepers near my vehicle. I didn’t think anything of it.

However, the next day I was at home painting our kitchen and my wife answered the door to a police officer who was making allegations of damage to traps. I was called over and the first thing the officer said to me was that the farmer whose traps had been damaged wouldn’t pursue the case if I paid compensation.

My mind was racing and I could only imagine this was something to do with my run the day before, when I hadn’t seen any traps at all. I did manage to ask what evidence there was and the reply was there was no evidence apart from my car being spotted!

So I was being asked to pay compensation when there was no evidence that any traps had been damaged at all and no evidence that I’d been involved in any criminal damage. None of my friends, who had parked at the same place and who had run over the same area were contacted so it’s clear I was being targeted.

Police Professional Standards Part 1

I knew I hadn’t done anything wrong and it was obvious to me the allegation was a complete fabrication. So I complained to South Yorkshire Police Professional Standards, asking if officers had attended the scene of the alleged damage to gather evidence and requesting that the person who made the allegation be investigated for making a false report, which is the criminal offence of ‘wasting police time’ (knowingly making false reports to the police).

South Yorkshire Police have previously been involved in a similar incident of harassment and false reporting (see here) but don’t seem to have learnt anything from that.

The reply from South Yorkshire Police Professional Standards is sloppy, fails to answer my concerns and is a case study in obfuscation:

 “I can see that we received a call from the victim who was put straight throught to the crime recording bureau who determine if there are relevant lines of enquiries and will attach an OIC (officer in charge), if this is the case and on this occasion Pc XXX was allocated.”

Did the alleged ‘victim’ (the farmer) dial 101 or phone an officer direct? The spelling mistake is theirs and indicative of an unprofessional response.

“It was Pc XXX who received a VRM and continued to investigate the allegations….. It was then that you also told Pc XXX that you used the vehicle and often visited the location where the victim had allegedly seen your car. As the victim was unable to provide evidence that would prove your car had been in the area where the damage had occurred and as you had provided reasonable excuse as for your whereabouts the investigation was filed as evidential differences.”

A VRM is a car registration (but that’s not explained). This is the only piece of “evidence” and it’s not actually evidence at all because the alleged ‘victim’ (the farmer) couldn’t show my vehicle was anywhere near where the alleged damage took place.

“Pc XXX states that he/she does not believe he/she investigated a false allegation”

But there’s no evidence of any damage and no evidence that I or my vehicle were near any alleged damage! My car registration appears to have been plucked out of thin air, but of course it wasn’t and the police made no reference to the earlier online abuse I’d logged with them which would have shown what this allegation was really about.

The reply from Professional Standards continued:

“I did also ask Pc XXX regarding your complaint that he/she suggested that you should pay an amount of money to a famer, Pc XXX states that he/she explained the possible outcomes of criminal damage investigations so when he/she explained a CJU10 process he/she would have used this as an example but did not accuse or request the complainant to do this. It was purely an explanation of how a CJU10 works.”

Any the wiser? Me neither. There was a presumption of guilt, no explanation of possible outcomes and I still don’t know what a CJU10 is.

Given this is a department that oversees the professionalism of a major police force, the detail here is appalling. But it’s important to consider the bigger picture as well. A police officer knocking on the door making accusations is intimidating without doubt. This police force is happy to do that on the basis of no evidence, so who made the report and what influence do they have?

Police Professional Standards part 2 – Not Again

A week after South Yorks Police knocked on my door I had a phone call from Derbyshire Police with a virtually identical allegation.

On the day another abusive article about me was published by the same astroturfing grouse shooting industry reps who’d published the advent calendar of hate, I was on a Derbyshire grouse moor recording environmental damage caused by quad bikes. I’d set off from a busy car park but mine was the last car remaining in the afternoon. The local gamekeeper appeared, there was an altercation and as a result I made a police report for threatening/intimidating behaviour.

The officer assigned to investigate this case later justified the gamekeeper’s abusive behaviour by telling me the gamekeeper “knew” I’d damaged his snares. And once again no evidence was provided that there were any snares at all, no evidence of any damage or how that damage had occurred. But the wildlife crime officer I spoke to was certain these “traps” had been damaged when I was on the moor. This case did seem different because the officer was part of a supposedly experienced, specialist team (Derbyshire Police’s rural crime team).

I asked Derbyshire Constabulary’s Professional Standards department to consider if there was bias and collusion in this officer’s investigation. Four months on my complaint hasn’t yet been answered.

Escalation to Criminal Damage

Despite these and other incidents I kept going out on the moors and a few weeks later discovered that someone had stuck a crowbar into the bumper of my vehicle, when it was parked next to a grouse moor.

The car dealer quoted £1200 for a repair – ironic because that will be more than the value of all the snares in the Peak District. I opted for a lesser repair and of course the police had no idea who was responsible.

[Criminal damage caused to Bob’s car when parked next to a Peak District grouse moor. Photo by Bob Berzins]

Policing priorities in the Peak District

Through Freedom of Information requests, I have a redacted copy of the minutes of a May 2019 meeting between Peak District police forces and the gamekeepers of Peak District Moorland Group.

Supposedly dealing with wildlife crime, from the minutes it’s obvious the priority in this meeting was trap tampering.

The minutes document proposals for a national database of trap damage and 360 degree surveillance cameras in car parks which would just happen to put every visitor on a police database. Of course there’s no mention of similar surveillance of vulnerable raptor nests.

The Moorland Monitors group was mentioned but the detail had been redacted. There was also mention of gamekeepers getting direct access to wildlife crime officers.

To me, it seems to be a short step to bypass any evidential-based procedure to targeting individuals because gamekeepers and police apparently “know” who is guilty. 

A Criminal Network

It’s clear to me that the range and geographical spread of abusive incidents indicates a number of people are involved who are communicating and sharing information with the aim of harassment, intimidation and criminal damage.

That’s my definition of organised crime – a term often used to describe the widespread raptor persecution we all know about – and that crime has now escalated to targeting anyone who objects to the shooting industry.

ENDS

  

An article from FarmingUK last week:

Demand for land for natural capital and rewilding is boosting the market for Scottish estates, according to rural property consultancy Galbraith.

The increased variety of motivations for acquiring an upland estate has stimulated the market further which was already benefiting from the booming forestry sector.

The firm says it has sold and bought estates valued in excess of £50 million over the last two years.

Demand outstrips supply by a considerable margin, as only around 15 estates will change hands in a typical year.

Average prices are increasing, alongside significant premiums being paid for hill farms and planting land.

Emma Chalmers, Partner of Galbraith said: “The interesting change is there is now a range of buyers with a variety of interests.

“No longer are the buyers just interested in the more traditional sports of grouse shooting, stalking, fishing and low ground shooting.”

The sales of Glenlochay Estate in Stirlingshire and Auchavan Estate in Angus, sold in 2019 and 2020 respectively, both prompted a number of natural capital buyers to come forward alongside those who were primarily interested in traditional pursuits.

However, the sale of Kinrara Estate earlier this year saw the majority of potential buyers with interests in woodland creation and natural capital above all else.

Ms Chalmers said: “This was further experienced when a stock farm was marketed and sold privately, also earlier this year, with a natural capital buyer secured. Thus, demonstrating the changing nature of the market.”

Galbraith reports that buyers include corporations, institutions and investment houses, as well as private individuals with a variety of motivations and interests.

Private sales have increased considerably as a percentage of the overall market.

Ms Chalmers continued: “The Scottish estate has always been sought after, formerly principally driven by interest in traditional sports, together with the desire to ‘get away from it all.

“Demand has always outstripped supply, with only about 10 to 15 estates offered for sale each year, either privately or on the open market.

“However, we are seeing with the accelerating understanding of climate change, growing desire to offset carbon usage, both personally and by business, the need to be more visibly green or indeed by some to meet their net zero targets.”

The traditional estate, together with the hill and stock farms, are attracting increased interest from this new natural capital purchaser, she said.

Some buyers look to plant well designed productive forests, others native woodlands or indeed a diverse mixture of both, with the newer peatland restoration also now coming into the mix.

“However Natural Capital isn’t meaning the ceasing of the traditional sports as there are many buyers who look to retain some or all of the sport whilst introducing or expanding natural capital elements,” Ms Chalmers said.

“Now, we have demand from buyers motivated by woodland creation, habitat restoration, traditional sports, together with other opportunities with the potential to generate an income such as installing a hydro scheme, wind turbines or perhaps creating a distillery, holiday lets or a wedding venue.

Land is being acquired by businesses to offset carbon emissions whilst providing a financial return from other parts of the estate.”

The average price for a Scottish estate continues to rise. Hill ground, until recently priced in the region of £600 to £800 per acre, can now see that figure more than double, particularly where natural capital potential exists.

With increased demand and more closing dates this has successfully helped drive sale prices to their maximum achievable level.

ENDS

Press release from Wild Justice and lawyers Leigh Day (16th July 2021)

Wild Justice issues legal challenge to new rules on burning of peatland

A legal challenge to new rules governing the burning of heather and grass on peatlands in England has been issued, claiming they are unlawful and unenforceable.  

Environmental group Wild Justice, represented by law firm Leigh Day, has applied for a judicial review of The Heather and Grass etc Burning (England) Regulations 2021, arguing that they are not only unenforceable, but create a façade of effectiveness, preventing urgent and far-reaching legislation addressing climate change and biodiversity loss from being introduced.  

Wild Justice, led by Chris Packham CBE, Dr Ruth Tingay and Dr Mark Avery, say the Regulations introduced in May this year need to be much stricter to ensure they can be enforced effectively. The Regulations were introduced after previous voluntary measures aimed at halting the burning of blanket bogs failed. The Government has a responsibility to protect blanket bog under the Conservation and Species Regulations 2017, which require the restoration of the habitat to “favourable conservation status”.  

The Burning Regulations 2021 are fatally flawed in two ways. They only prohibit the burning of heather, rough grass, bracken and gorse on peat deeper than 40cms – but there is no map to identify where such peat exists and therefore no means of properly enforcing the new rules. The new Regulations also only prevent the burning on Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) that are also designated as Special Areas of Conservation and Special Protection Areas, which amounts to a ban on only 40 per cent of all blanket bog in England.  

The UK’s peat habitats are wetland landscapes where it is estimated there are over three billion tonnes of carbon stored. They have a unique biodiversity recognised as habitats of national and international significance. The UK’s upland blanket bogs are a globally rare habitat.  

However, vegetation on upland peat soils is set alight at regular intervals, to promote the growth of young heather shoots to feed Red Grouse for the shooting industry. The practice damages the habitat, reduces peat accumulation, and releases around 260,000 tonnes of CO2 every year. 

[A grouse moor set alight in northern England. Photo by Ruth Tingay]

On 24 June 2021, the Climate Change Committee’s latest progress reports were laid before Parliament. The Report criticised the Burning Regulations for only preventing rotational burning on protected peatlands, highlighting that a partial ban was less ambitious than it had recommended. The Report includes a priority recommendation that this be “addressed quickly as delayed action now puts future targets at risk given the time profile of carbon sequestration” and that the Government: “Introduce legislation to … [e]xtend the ban on rotational burning of peat from certain protected upland bog sites to all peatland before the start of the burn season in 2021.”   Wild Justice’s grounds for claim are:  

• Unlawfulness arising from the Burning Regulations frustrating their own purpose: The Regulations do not include a map, without which they are unenforceable. The failure to publish or refer to a map is unlawful;
• Demonstrable flaw in the reasoning or serious logical error in the reasoning leading to the making of the Burning Regulations: there is no rationale for limiting the location of areas affected by the Regulations;
• Breaches of the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017: failure to take appropriate steps to avoid deterioration of natural habitats and disturbance of species;
• Failure to take into account a material consideration, namely the imperative for early and swift action under the Climate Change Act 2008 (“CCA”) and the Paris Agreement.

Wild Justice said: ‘There’s a climate crisis and a biodiversity crisis, and this type of burning adds to both.  Instead of acting decisively, DEFRA is fiddling while the uplands burn‘.

Leigh Day solicitor Carol Day said: “Our client strongly supports effective action by the Secretary of State to protect peatland, including through enforceable legislation regulating the burning of blanket bogs, given their crucial importance as a habitat and in sequestering carbon. But in falling so far short of what is needed, these Regulations create a façade of effectiveness preventing real progress from being made. Wild Justice hopes that bringing this challenge, along with the call from the Climate Change Committee for urgent action, will prompt the Government to plug the gaps in these Regulations.”  

ENDS

For more updates on this case and other Wild Justice activities, please sign up to the free newsletter here

On 28th May 2021 campaign group Wild Justice published a blog about what it considered to be alleged breaches of the English General Licences, based on an article that was published in the Shooting Times in February 2021, where a bloke claimed to have gone out with his gun apparently to see whether he could shoot/kill ten species in ten hours.

A few days after publication, Wild Justice took down its blog post, temporarily.

Today, the blog post has been re-posted, in its original format – see here.

Two further blog posts on this matter have also been published by Wild Justice today, providing the reader with some updates, and these should be read in conjunction with the first blog. These two additional blogs are titled:

The Shooting Times and the General Licences (here)

and

A letter to the Shooting Times (here)

Here is a picture of a freezer. If you’ve read Wild Justice’s three blog posts on this matter you’ll understand the context. If you’ve been around on this blog for long enough, and read some of the far-fetched allegations made over the years about me and my colleagues supposedly perverting the course of justice by planting evidence to frame law-abiding shooting estates, you’ll probably also appreciate and enjoy the supreme irony. I know I am!

Earlier this year the Aberdeenshire brewery and pub chain BrewDog bought the Kinrara Estate on Speyside for an estimated £7.5M and announced some pretty grand plans to take this former grouse moor and pheasant shoot and transform it as part of the ‘single biggest native woodland establishment and peatland restoration project ever carried out in the UK‘.

BrewDog’s purchase is apparently motivated by ‘becoming the world’s first carbon negative beer business‘ with a claim that, ‘as well as over £50m of investments in reducing our environmental impact, we are also removing twice as much carbon as we emit every year, forever‘.

You can read BrewDog founder and CEO James Watt’s announcement, made in March 2021 on LinkedIn, here. Judging by the accompanying photograph, it’s not hard to see why they’ve called this The Lost Forest project:

The Kinrara Estate was being sold via estate agents Galbraith and it was promoted as having ‘considerable afforestation and potentially valuable carbon capture opportunity‘ and ‘great conservation potential‘ (see here).

Here’s a map from Andy Wightman’s Who Owns Scotland website showing the estimated estate boundary (in blue, from 2002 data), with the southern part of the estate lying within the Cairngorms National Park close to Aviemore [Park boundary is in yellow] and the northern part extending into the Monadhliath Mountains.

Last week, the grouse shooting industry finally caught up with BrewDog’s progressive plans and guess what, it didn’t like them.

Right on cue, the hysteria button was pressed and social media has been rife with calls for a BrewDog boycott, personal abuse of its founders and a scaremongering headline in The Times that looked like this:

Unsurprisingly, the headline didn’t reflect the fact that as well as a significant ecological restoration programme on this former shooting estate, BrewDog intends to create many, many more jobs at the Lost Forest by creating ‘a hotel built from sustainable cabins, a campsite, a distillery, hiking and biking trails as well as kayaking on our beautiful loch’.

According to CEO James Watt’s LinkedIn article, ‘We want the Lost Forest to enable people to reconnect with nature and by doing so become far more cognisant of the impact that we, as humans, are having on our planet‘.

Who knows, maybe the two gamekeepers reportedly made redundant since the land purchase at Kinrara will find alternative employment opportunities at the Lost Forest that don’t involve shooting animals as a recreational ‘sport’. The world is moving on and grouse shooting is heading for the history books; even some industry supporters recognise this, as demonstrated by this fascinating recent article on the ShootingUK website.

For those more interested in conservation than amateur dramatics, you’ll probably be interested in having a look at the details of BrewDog’s ecological proposals for Kinrara. BrewDog has hired Scottish Woodlands Ltd as its forestry management company and as well as ecological surveys, a public consultation on the plans is also currently underway.

The following document forms part of that public consultation and the details show an impressive approach to sensitive restoration plans: