Further to today’s news that gamekeeper Rory Parker (24) has pleaded guilty to shooting a sparrowhawk on Moy Estate in September 2021 (see here), it’s worth examining the narrative that’s being pumped out by the grouse-shooting industry representatives in a desperate attempt to distance the industry from yet another raptor persecution crime.
This conviction couldn’t have come at a worse time for the industry, as the Wildlife Management & Muirburn (Scotland) Bill begins its passage through the Scottish Parliament. Obviously, the industry won’t like the media attention of yet another raptor persecution crime being committed on a grouse-shooting estate so they’ll want to manipulate the media narrative to influence/minimise the scope of the forthcoming grouse shoot licensing scheme.
And so it begins.
It actually began this morning prior to the court hearing. I received a message from an individual within the industry (I won’t name him, he’s generally one of the good guys and I value his willingness to converse). He told me that, ‘in the spirit of accuracy and transparency’, that the shooting of this raptor hadn’t taken place on a grouse moor (as I’d previously reported) but that it was in fact in an area managed for pheasant and partridge. I told him that wasn’t my understanding but that I’d be happy to clarify this detail once the evidence had been heard in court. He told me this particular issue would be clarified during today’s hearing.
As it turns out, it wasn’t really clarified in court. But the RSPB has since published its video footage of the shooting (see link at foot of the RSPB press release, here) and it looks very much like a grouse moor to me.
Here’s a screengrab I took from the RSPB video, where incidentally I’ve highlighted the position of the gamekeeper, close to a large plastic decoy eagle owl that had been placed on a fencepost, presumably to try and draw in raptors to shoot at close quarters – we’ve seen gamekeepers using this technique many times before (e.g. see here, here, here, here, here, here).
The location of the shooting was given in court as a hill called Tom na Slaite. Here it is on an OS map – complete with a track leading up to some grouse butts:
Now, it’s quite possible that pheasants and partridge have been released on this part of the grouse-shooting estate – it’s becoming a common theme to release these birds for shooting on grouse moors (e.g. see here), either to supplement the grouse shooting days or, in some circumstances, to replace the grouse-shoot days when grouse stocks are too low to attract paying guests. It’s one of the significant faults in the proposed grouse shoot licensing Bill, in my opinion, but that’s a bigger discussion for another day.
The bottom line is that this gamekeeper, Rory Parker, shot this sparrowhawk on an upland grouse moor, not on a lowland game shoot as the industry would have us believe.
The narrative continues with a quote for the media from Moy Estate’s unnamed shooting tenant (I’ll return to the identity of the tenant/sporting agent in a future blog). His statement, quoted in the Scottish Daily Mirror, includes this line:
“As the sporting tenant on this area of land, which is used for pheasant and partridge shoots, we were shocked when made aware of the incident….blah blah”.
It appears to be casual, but that phrase “….which is used for pheasant and partridge shoots…” is carefully and deliberately placed, in my opinion.
As is the phrase quoted in the same article given by Dee Ward from landowners’ lobby group Scottish Land & Estates (SLE), whose statement includes the line:
“In this case, the illegal persecution of a sparrowhawk near pheasant and partridge release pens is particularly disappointing….”
It’s slick PR, designed to be consumed by an unassuming, uninformed audience who wouldn’t otherwise link the crime to grouse moor management.
It’s nothing new. We saw it in 2021 when a poisoned golden eagle was found dead, next to a poisoned bait, on a grouse moor on Invercauld Estate in the Cairngorms National Park. Estate Manager Angus McNicol was quoted in the press, claiming:
“The area where the bird was found is on a let farm in an area which is managed for sheep farming and is on the edge of an area of native woodland regeneration. It is not managed for driven grouse shooting” (see here).
This claim was swiftly rebutted by Ian Thomson, Head of RSPB Investigations in Scotland (who was directly involved in the investigation) who said:
“For the avoidance of doubt, the eagle was found poisoned next to a mountain hare bait, in an area of strip muirburn within 200m of a line of grouse butts and a landrover track” (see here).
The most blatant example of damage limitation by the grouse shooting industry I’ve seen was when SLE issued a statement in response to the appalling crimes committed by gamekeeper Alan Wilson on the Longformacus Estate a few years ago.
In that statement, SLE described the Longformacus Estate as being ‘managed for low ground pheasant shooting‘ (see here). It may well have been, but strangely, they forgot to mention that the crime scene (Henlaw Wood) also just happened to be at the foot of a driven grouse moor! This omission was probably just an innocent, forgetful moment, and nothing whatsoever to do with the fact that the Werritty Review on grouse moor management was imminent.
I’ll write more about today’s conviction of the Moy Estate gamekeeper in another blog, shortly.
UPDATE 1st April 2023: The sentencing of raptor-killing Moy Estate gamekeeper Rory Parker (here)
UPDATE 4th April 2023: Game-shooting industry’s response to the conviction of Moy Estate gamekeeper Rory Parker (here)
Raptor Persecution UK 
Great article with the research to match
If the gamekeeper from an estate get prosecuted for shooting protected birds there should be a 5 year ban on any shooting on that land, end of problem because I’d put money on the land owner xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx
Some great work here. It takes me back to when I was working with the League Against Cruel Sports. The hunting people were forever attempting to change the narrative when it suited them, such in PR pieces like the one above. As you say sadly for those who are not aware it works a lot of the time. It’s lucky we have people such as yourself to make everyone aware of the entire story, rather than the one they want people to accept. I also agree with you it looks exactly like a grouse moor and interestingly in the RSPB report you attached above that’s exactly how they describe it as well.
Any chance of a vicarious liability prosecution now?
Due to the previous history of raptor persecution incidents associated with the Moy estate, I would have hoped the umbrella organisations of the shooting industry, including SLE, BASC, SGA etc would all be appealing for all game shooters not to shoot on the Moy estate, and to boycott it and any other shooting estate managed by the tenant.
I would also hope the land owner would immediately start legal proceedings to have the tenancy revoked.
It is only when those involved in the shooting and game management understand that there will be serious consequences if raptor persecution crimes are committed, will we ever see an end to these crimes.
I wonder whether this was the first time Mr Parker had committed this sort of crime? Or could the use of the decoy eagle owl suggest previous experience at this sort of escapade?
Why was Mr Parker allowed to resign?
Surely he should have been sacked, so that should he in future attempt to find employment elsewhere as a gamekeeper, any future employer would be alerted to the fact that he was previously sacked due to committing raptor persecution crimes- something which the game shooting industry keep on telling the public that they do not tolerate.
The game shooting industry persistently claim that these raptor persecution incidents are only committed by “one or two bad apples”- so what is the industry doing to ensure these bad apples never go back in the barrel?
In the spirit of accuracy and transparency, it matters not what type of game bird is on any particular shoot / moor, a gamekeeper has been convicted of illegally shooting a raptor, in this case a sparrowhawk. What else is there to say?.
It matters in this instance, as in many others, because the proposed Scottish licensing scheme for grouse moors will have no bearing on pheasant and partridge shoots – this is exactly why the shooting industry is attempting to misrepresent the situation here.
This is why regulation and licensing must extend across every aspect of game bird shooting regardless of the species of game bird being shot, and regardless of whether a shoot is managed commercially or just a group of people who have come together to release some pheasants in a wood. – participation in an unlicensed shoot should be a criminal office with immediate revocation of a firearms and shotgun licence for life.
Badly managed shoots are not consistent with the governments proposals for increased biodiversity and nature recovery.
The catastrophic decline in nature in the last 50 years is ample evidence that the countryside has been mismanaged, and the government needs to be bold enough to stop listening to vested interests, and start supporting those landowners and farmers who understand that change is needed and want to work positively for nature recovery.
“What else is there to say?.”
That the Werritty Report concerns Grouse Moors only: https://www.gov.scot/news/werritty-report-response/
Fair comment Kieth, and Christopher, Admit I have not read the Werritty report and the fact it is about grouse moors only is not lost on me. However as the proposed bill is titled Wildlife management and muirburn bill, I dared to think, or is that dream, that somewhere, someone would see it needs to cover the game shooting industry irrespective of any type of game birds involved.
Hi Philip,
here are two quotes: “introduce a licensing regime for land used for the shooting of red grouse”
and
“The Bill also inserts provisions into the 1981 Act to require that the shooting of red grouse will only be permitted if the landowner has a licence which covers the land on which the shooting takes place.”
from 2. Purpose and Intended Effect:
https://www.gov.scot/publications/wildlife-management-muirburn-scotland-bill-business-regulatory-impact-assessment/pages/2/#:~:text=The%20Wildlife%20Management%20and%20Muirburn%20(Scotland)%20Bill%20%22the%20Bill,shooting%20of%20red%20grouse%3B%20and
In the consultation I also called for all/more shoots to be licensed thus:
“Please understand that I would support a complete BAN on shooting (so-called) gamebirds, but I do understand that politicians feel the need to try a
licensing scheme.
I simply cannot abide the wide scale environmental damage….
I am completely FED UP with all the illegal killing of Hen Harriers, Golden Eagles etc etc…
This is part of SCOTLAND’s NATURAL HERITAGE being systematically exterminated by one industry.
So, to continue my support for licensing, the scheme has to be EFFECTIVELY ENFORCED.
And it MUST include the increasing practise of shooting both the introduced Pheasant and Red-legged Partridge on grouse moors…”
It will be interesting (or perhaps more likely, sad) to see how grouse moors are defined in the legislation going through the Scottish Parliament. The industry is perhaps setting in place the initial stage by trying to pass off large areas of ground moor as pheasant shoot, which may mean that these areas will be under less supervision. I have not yet re-examined the proposed legislation with this in mind.
As usual Weasle words. But then weasle are most likely killed too. Wrong. Criminal behavior.
Great and important work as usual into the background of this case. Will be interesting to see how grouse moors are defined – an aerial photo of this site seems to show muirburn in the area so that indicates it’s a grouse moor doesn’t it? Any need for that in a pheasant/partridge area? What practices/works will define a grouse moor and for how long or how recent? There’ll be nothing to compel a landowner to register an area, I’m guessing, and no-one to check what land is being used for grouse shooting
I don’t understand how the shooting lobby can argue their point on technicalities, as to wether it’s ‘driven grouse moor’ or other. Fact is, raptors are protected, you shot one deliberately, go to jail. Raising creatures, to shoot for man’s pleasure, is abhorrent, and must be called out.
“I don’t understand how the shooting lobby can argue their point on technicalities, as to wether it’s ‘driven grouse moor’ or other”
They are trying to make a political point that the latest crime was not committed on a grouse moor, simply because the Scottish Government is proposing new legislation restricted to ‘grouse moors’. It is the new legislation which worries them. They want to argue that there are too few crimes committed on grouse moors for the new legislation to be necessary.
May I suggest everyone living in Scotland write their MSPs. Make it clear to them that all shoots need to be licenced, so we don’t end up with Schrödinger’s shoots that are either pheasant and partridge or grouse depending on who is observing them.
PR working… I don’t see the word Grouse in this article at all:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-highlands-islands-65137738
Worse than that. The BBC state “The land where the sparrowhawk was killed is used for pheasant and partridge shoots and managed by a tenant on the Moy Estate.”
That is not the BBC quoting a third-party comment. That is a BBC statement of fact. Or not.
The RSPB video of this activity is chilling
Grouse moors are a haven for all wildlife usually including raptors and waders and this idiot which is what he is is in no way representative of todays gamekeeping practices whom
encourage and
promote diversity within their estates.
If you look at the records grouse moors do indeed hold innumerable red list species due to predator management and general good hubandry,
Really, Mark? You’re going to have to do better than that on this blog, my friend.
If grouse moors are such a ‘haven’ for raptors, how come the Scottish Government is bringing in legislation to regulate grouse moor management, for the express reason of tackling ongoing and illegal raptor persecution?
‘The Scottish government’ is hardly the standard we all aspire too judging by their latest efforts not even knowing what a women is let alone commenting on wildlife issues.
Of course the fact they reinforce your prejudiced views obviously suit your narrative.
Weak attempt at deflection, Mark. You’re still going to have to do better than this.
By the way, your email address and IP address appears to have changed between making these two comments, and your name has distorted, too. Is this some sort of group-attempt to flood the blog with positive comments about grouse moors, by any chance?
Not really buddy just factual which to be honest shuts you down with your negative rhetoric!
And another change in contact details. Interesting, but ultimately wasting everyone’s time, which is perhaps the intention. I won’t be publishing any more of your comments.
You think , it i know is way past time gamekeepers were put under very tight contol this is becoming way too common and it is always gamekeepers that are Guilty
“he is is in no way representative of todays gamekeeping practices”
And the other 55 gamekeepers convicted of illegal raptor persecution in Scotland alone, since 1990?
“grouse moors do indeed hold innumerable red list species due to predator management”
Raptors are predators.
Raptors have as much right to.be there as the darn red grouse more so in fact are red grouse native or an introduced species if introduced then sorry but the Raptors win hands down and anyone harming or attempting to harm them needs to go to jail and the so called estate confiscated.
Appropriate date for your post !!
I think the big estates that are worried about the licencing scheme might look to sub-divide themselves (on paper only) into multiple smaller business entities, so that for example only one “beat” or geographic area will suffer penalties after an incident like this occurs on their ground – and the remainder of the Estate won’t be hampered by the restrictions. As it is now, it is often only insider knowledge and/or diligent research that reveals who actually owns & runs them in any case.