A ‘new’ report was published this week, commissioned by the Regional Moorland Groups (an organisation with unclear funding sources that represents grouse moor gamekeepers) that makes all the usual claims about grouse shooting being sustainable and brilliant for the environment, biodiversity etc etc.
Unsurprisingly, it’s being touted around the internet by the grouse shooting organisations as part of their annual propaganda campaign as we approach the start of the grouse-shooting season on the Inglorious 12th August.
It’s not actually a new report at all, it’s a re-hash of a similar report that was published in 2021 written by the same author.
The latest version of the report has been described as being ‘truly objective’ in the accompanying press release. Not just objective then, but truly objective.
Here’s a photo of the truly objective author, Simon Denny, screen grabbed from an interview he gave to Sporting Gun in 2021:
I’ve had a brief glance through the ‘truly objective’ report and particularly at what’s been written about the illegal persecution of birds of prey on many driven grouse moors, mainly as a guide to whether the rest of the report is worth reading. It’s not.
Denny does admit that some gamekeepers do kill birds of prey on grouse moors (well he could hardly deny it, could he?!) but he then tries to diminish the extent of these crimes by basing his (flawed) argument on the number of gamekeeper convictions, which are notoriously difficult to get, rather than on the massive pile of peer-reviewed scientific papers demonstrating the systematic killing of many raptor species on many driven grouse moors. ‘Truly objective’? I don’t think so.
Denny then argues that birds of prey are also killed by people other than gamekeepers, again presumably to try and deflect attention from the industry. I don’t think anybody would sensibly argue that it’s only gamekeepers that kill raptors in the UK – that’s patently untrue – but what Denny fails to address in his ‘truly objective’ report is the disproportionate number of gamekeepers convicted for raptor persecution offences in comparison to the rest of society. This helpful pie-chart from the RSPB’s latest Birdcrime report (2021) doesn’t appear to have made it into Denny’s ‘truly objective’ report:
I also note in the report that Denny refers to Wild Justice‘s legal challenge against Natural England’s General Licences as ‘vexatious’, which is interesting. The word ‘vexatious’ in a legal setting refers to litigation that is designed to cause problems for someone but with little chance of succeeding. Given that Wild Justice’s legal challenge against Natural England’s General Licences was wholly successful (in other words, Natural England’s lawyers accepted that the General Licences were indeed unlawful and consequently had to amend them), Denny’s description of Wild Justice’s lawful and successful challenge isn’t even accurate, let alone ‘truly objective’.
I won’t be wasting any more time on Denny’s drivel but for those of you who want a good laugh the report can be read here:
Raptor Persecution UK 
I couldn’t bear to read it. It would ruin my day
I downloaded it but it was so obviously a propaganda piece that I couldn’t get much beyond the abstract. Indeed, if you didn’t know he was a shooter himself, it would have taken seconds to realise it.
They appear to be ramping up their campaign in numerous areas … not least by getting a leg into various rewilding campaigns. This is typical of how this particular male demographic functions in situations like this. They allow their opponents free reign for a period of time tio test their strength and resilience. Then they begin their own campaign, slowly at first, setting everything in place and ensuring it is functional (Moorland Groups, dodgy research, community penetration, media correspondents embedded and astro-turf internet bodies, friendly politicians etc.,)
They cover every option, like a military exercise, and begin the final shove. Don’t view them in any other light than a well oiiuled, well disciplined machine with enough political experience to take you right back to the Normans.
They are indeed a ‘well-oiled, well-disciplined machine’ but more than that they are nationally-organised, brigaded throughout, trained, politically-motivated, well-funded, well-equiped (especially in surveillance), well-connected (especially within the ‘Establishment’ and security services), well-lead (by ‘officers’ in the German Car Club), armed and ready. They hide in plain sight. They are connected to parallel organisations in other countries, France in particular. This is the ‘right-wing’ we need to be fearful of, not the politicians.
‘Sustainable Driven Grouse Shooting?’? Reminds me of a report I once read entitled ‘Ethical Old Lady Mugging’.
I like Ruth have read the bits about persecution, whenever the authorities give figures for crimes like burglary or more serious crime like rape or murder the figures they give are not based on convictions or conviction rate but the number of those crimes reported and investigated. The crime rates are based on those figures NOT conviction rates, indeed compared to the number of known crimes they are often very poor, as they are indeed with raptor persecution. Thus using conviction rates as Denny does is frankly invalid nonsense, crime rate and conviction rate as we can see are very different things. When it comes to conviction rates 67% of those convicted of raptor persecution are game keepers, yes other folk do it too but 2/3 s of these crimes that result in conviction are associated with game shooting.
The stuff about Hen Harriers from this so called professor are especially laughable nonsense trying to deflect from what we all know is the truth.
Yes lots of grouse moors are SSS!s and part of SPAs but many of them are in unsatisfactory states according to NE with expected levels of raptors often below what is expected.
The rest of it is a self justifying parody of the truth as we know it biased beyond belief to the extent that one wonders if the two professors ( retired) involved used as blinkered a view in their academic lives and if so academias has deteriorated significantly compared to what I’d expect.
Sadly it may convince some with less knowledge of the reality of grouse moors, politicians perhaps, despite its blinkered rosy view amounting to a whole tonnage of BS.
Ranting Haw Haw. Stuff.
It’s impossible to present a good cause for cruelty and environmental damage.
Has this appeared in print? I’m fresh out of bog roll!
The professor who has (peer?) reviewed the paper, James Crabbe, is a SUPERNUMERARY Professor at Wolfson and a professor from the University of Bedfordshire
I’m glad to see you’ve questioned the use of the phrase ‘peer reviewed’. Typically, in the field of scientific study at least, peer review means the work has been critically examined by experts with long-standing experience in the area of research. Can you point to Professor Crabbe’s list of publications in this field, please?
Oh, and ps. It’s not a ‘paper’, as that alludes to it being a properly peer-reviewed research study published by a proper journal, that has undergone rigorous independent scrutiny prior to publication. What Denny has produced is a report, commissioned by the Regional Moorland Groups (vested interest) that’s been published on their website. Nowhere near a peer-reviewed paper!
Not sure if you and others detected my discreet dismissal of the 2 gentlemen involved. It’s typical of the pseudo-speak around these days
Ah, no, sorry, that bypassed me. I have though seen someone elsewhere pointing to Prof Crabbe’s involvement as an indication of scientific rigour. I think I’ll have to write a blog about it because there’s a lot of misunderstanding (perhaps deliberate) about what genuine peer review entails.