A fascinating article appeared on the BBC News website yesterday about a ‘protest’ that’s been staged against the Hawk & Owl Trust over what has been described as “poor management of resources and of people“.
The BBC article (here) reveals that a protest was held at the Trust’s Sculthorpe Reserve in Norfolk by former staff and volunteers, who are angry about “money being wasted“, “volunteers being used badly” and the “method of management that threatens the reserve“.
The BBC reports that some life members of the Hawk & Owl Trust have been banned from the site. The protesters told the BBC they’d made a complaint to the Charity Commission to express concerns about ‘leadership and the use of funds’.
The Hawk & Owl Trust’s Chief Operating Officer, Adrian Blumfield, issued the following statement in response:
“The Hawk and Owl Trust is a respected national charity dedicated to conserving wild birds of prey and their habitats.
“It has two well-managed nature reserves in Norfolk and Somerset. The trust is a well-run and governed organisation with an experienced trustee body.
“We understand that a small number of people previously connected with the charity are resistant to the positive progress and changes that have been made.
“Any criticism of the charity is completely unwarranted, misplaced and risks undermining the work being undertaken.“
The Charity Commission said: “We carefully considered concerns raised with us about the governance of The Hawk and Owl Trust.
“Based on the information provided, we determined that there is no regulatory role for us at this time.”
Many of you will remember the Hawk & Owl Trust’s shocking decision in 2014-2015 to get in to bed with the grouse shooting industry in support of hen harrier brood meddling (here). It not only got into bed with them, it pulled up the duvet and stuck in some heavy duty ear plugs, refusing to be budged.
It cost the Trust dearly, as their President (Chris Packham) resigned, a load of members cancelled their subscriptions, and the charity’s credibility has never recovered in conservation circles. Much of the Trust’s decisions seemed to be led by the then Chair, Philip Merricks, but Trust statements at the time claimed that the decisions had the full backing of the Board of Trustees (at least two of whom were directly involved with the brood meddling trial, which seemed a bit questionable).
The Trust claimed to have several ‘immoveable conditions’ attached to its participation in brood meddling, not least that it would pull out ‘if any member of the moorland management organisations were found to have illegally interfered with or persecuted a hen harrier on their moors’ (here). We later learned that the ‘immoveable conditions’ were actually very moveable indeed (see here) and weren’t worth the paper they’d been printed on.
Needless to say, persecution continued and even when one of the hen harriers (called Rowan), satellite-tagged by Natural England in association with the Hawk & Owl Trust, was found dead with clear shotgun injuries to its leg, the Trust did all it could to avoid admitting the bleedin’ obvious (e.g. see here, here, here).
Even when the shotgun injuries were proven on Rowan, the Hawk & Owl Trust continued its charade (see here, here and here).
I’m afraid I lost all respect for the Hawk & Owl Trust during that time and still feel the same today. Despite having some really decent on-the-ground staff and doing some excellent public engagement work with city peregrines, for an organisation that is supposedly focused on the conservation of the UK’s birds of prey and owls it’s deeply disappointing that it has not been at the forefront of raising merry hell about the ongoing illegal killing of birds of prey in this country. In fact it’s more than deeply disappointing, it’s a bloody shocker.
UPDATE 2nd August 2023: More on the revolt at Hawk & Owl Trust: statement from protesters (here)
Raptor Persecution UK 
They’ve been so high profile, of late, that I had forgotten that the group was still in existence!
Well said, Ruth.
Sadly some people working for an awful lot of charities in the UK.their main interest is self interest the same as some housing associations ( non proprofit making) but that has something to do with the good wages they pay themselves. So snuggling up to authority is a way of safeguarding themselves.
The statement issued by the Trust is quite untrue. They say “We understand that a small number of people previously connected with the charity are resistant to the positive progress and changes that have been made.” Sculthorpe Moor Nature Reserve was a roaring success for almost 2 decades; we all value that and question what is ‘positive’ about their current actions.
But can the Trust now clarify how many tens of thousands of pounds have recently been paid out in unnecessary severance pay to competent people (who’ve found employment elsewhere despite the mental damage from the bullying?) And why is the Warden able to prepare take them to an industrial tribunal if the Trust is run so well? And what success do they claim for Norwich peregrines this year?
And how do they propose to manage the 4 beavers without a Licences?
The Charities Commission is a pretty supine regulator. This is a very sad story, but it’s not the first in recent years centring around a charity whose management would appear to have gone rogue and where getting a quick, effective remedy has proved difficult.
Too many people remember the ‘eco-zealots’ remark for this organisation to be considered anything but a bunch of hunting sympathisers masquerading as a wildlife charity.
Masquerade is very apt. Very disappointing.
The [Ed: alleged] activities of the Trust that led to this complaint are its shocking, xxxxx, severance of several highly competent staff with bullying, resulting in the near collapse of the Peregrine project at Norwich and now the risk of degradation of the successful Sculthorpe Moor Nature Reserve.
It must be horrifying working for an organisation with good aims that is so badly let down by their management, who let their personal prejudices / inclinations corrupt those aims. It happens a lot in charities: the people at the top tend towards the upper echelons of society or the upper echelons of salary, whilst the people doing the work and carrying the can are there because they believe in the cause.
I feel the same about those scientists who work for high profile organisations that are either corrupted by their funding sources or corrupted by supine management in the face of government pressure.
This “well-run and governed organisation with an experienced trustee body” doesn’t event know the name of its largest neighbour, from which it leases a small part of Hempton Moor. I have a letter from the Chairman (which confirmed my banning from Sculthorpe Nature Reserve) referring to ‘Rayment Estate’ when he meant ‘Raynham’.
HOW CAN ALL THE TALK HELP. NEED ACTION.
NEED ACTION. HOW DO THEY GET OFF WITH ALL THIS S##T
I was unaware of this furore and am horrified by it. I will be writing to withdraw my membership of the Hawk and Owl Trust today.
I was a protestor. We are waiting for some positive progress, and Blumfield’s list of complacent assertions about HOT and the two reserves show why. According to him everything is for the best in this the best of all possible worlds, but they are not achieving their charitable objectives, and wasting money and volunteer time while not achieving them. The trustees have been asleep at the wheel, and should be considering their position.