It’s become apparent today that a journalist is sniffing around for a story about Chris Packham in what looks like the latest attempt to discredit his reputation and integrity.
Apparently ‘someone’ has made a complaint to the BBC, the BTO, and Hampshire Constabulary accusing Chris of being a ‘wildlife criminal’ because he sniffed some goshawks chicks whilst they were waiting to be ringed in the New Forest in June for a feature on the BBC’s The One Show.
That ‘someone’ has even bragged on social media about making the complaint:
That ‘someone’, or more likely one of the game shooting organisations, has tipped off a journalist in the hope of trying to make mischief for Chris in the mainstream papers.
It’s so obviously just the latest in a long-running malicious smear campaign against Chris.
If there was a genuine concern for goshawk welfare from the game-shooting sector then I think we’d have heard a bit more from them when actual crimes against goshawks have been uncovered and publicised, e.g. the trapping and beating to death of a goshawk by a gamekeeper on a pheasant shoot in Scotland (here), the shooting of a goshawk by a gamekeeper on a pheasant shoot in Norfolk (here), the disturbance of a goshawk nest in the Peak District National Park (here), the disturbance of a goshawk nest in Scotland (here), the disturbance of another goshawk nest in Scotland by masked gunmen (here), the shooting of a goshawk in the Forest of Dean (here), the trapping of a goshawk by a masked man on a pheasant shoot in Norfolk (here), the killing of a goshawk caught in a gamekeeper’s trap in the Scottish Borders (here), the shooting of a goshawk in a raptor persecution hotspot in Scotland (here), the shooting of a goshawk in Staffordshire (here), the shooting of a goshawk on a sporting estate in the Cairngorms National Park (here), the felling of an active goshawk nest in Gloucestershire (here), the setting of an illegal trap by a gamekeeper next to a goshawk nest on a sporting estate in Scotland (here), the shooting and dumping of five young goshawks in Suffolk (here), the trapping of a goshawk on a grouse shooting estate in the North York Moors National Park (here), etc etc.
It’s not difficult to predict the headline: ‘Chris Packham under police investigation’, a bit like the headlines we saw a couple of years ago when the Scottish Gamekeepers Association told Hampshire Constabulary that they had ‘evidence’ that Chris wrote a death threat letter to himself…only it turned out that their ‘evidence’ was wholly unreliable (here) and the allegation was so far off the mark it was dismissed by Hampshire Constabulary (here) and condemned by a judge in a recent and related libel trial (here).
The latest (non) ‘story’ / smear campaign hasn’t emerged in the press yet but it may appear in the next day or so.
Meanwhile, Chris has responded this afternoon – well worth a watch:
UPDATE 27th August 2023: ‘Any bad publicity is good’ – Chris Packham haters celebrate as Sunday telegraph publishes pathetic ‘bird sniffing’ accusation (here)
UPDATE 29th August 2023: ‘No case to answer’ – Hampshire Police close ridiculous ‘Chris Packham sniffed a goshawk’ investigation (here)
Raptor Persecution UK 
A fine reply to the sociopaths that form the gamekeeping and “sport” shooting world.
Well said, Ruth and Chris.
Apart from the fact that the complainant and the shooting industry as a whole don’t care about goshawks, they don’t have a chance in hell of defaming Chris.
But what really sickens me is the time and effort (and money) Chris has to invest to counter these ridiculous claims.
These people are so desperate to maintain their sick and cruel activities that they will stoop to any level to try and trash the reputation of a dedicated naturalist.
Chris – you have so many people who trust, admire and love you. I hope you know and believe that.
Well said. They shouldn’t be allowed to get away with it.
There really are some vile Human beings. We all have a choice to make our world better or worse for us having been here.
A brilliant reply from Chris, but is he sure that’s a buzzard feather?
It looks very much like one to me, Jeremy.
https://www.featherbase.info/nb/species/buteo/buteo
Anyone else smell the stink pit of desperation???
Yes you’re dead right. Desperation at its finest these bloody fools don’t have the intelligence to even try to sound convincing xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx
I’m jealous of Chris’s mandarin sail! …Also @Jeremy Moore, I think it is a buzzard tail feather, just a particularly rufous one. Assuming he picked it up in the UK, what else could it be?
Yes, it was the ground colour that I was wondering about. I’ve never seen a buzzard that colour.
Out of interest, is there any mileage in the allegation that the presence of the film crew required specific licensing over and above any licence BTO may have had for disturbing the nest to ring the individual chicks?
I would doubt it. The offence is causing deliberate disturbance. The disturbance was done by the legal ringing activity.
I suspect not. My understanding is that as long as the person handling the chicks had the correct licences, no law has been broken. Under their supervision, the chicks can be photographed and filmed by others, as long as they do not handle them. A film crew would not be required to handle birds, neither are they required or allowed to climb up to nests/boxes to remove the chicks. Any cameras in nest boxes are placed before the nest is occupied, and any photographing/filming of an occupied nest is done from a distance, with a long/zoom lens. The location of the nests are kept secret, to prevent predation by collectors or those who have a vested interest in destroying raptors who would otherwise take barn raised, introduced game species for food.
A really nice video from Chris, thanks for sharing this RPUK.
As Chris said, wouldn’t it be marvellous if members of the shooting community could spend their time rooting out the criminals within shooting that give shooting such a bad name, and more to the point, have such profound impacts on the populations of so many of our birds of prey?!!
Perhaps the shooters who read this blog would like to point to a recent court case in which shooters provided evidence that led to a conviction in a bird of prey persecution case…
[Ed: Thanks Simon but I’m not linking to that toxic site]
Any complaint might carry more weight if the complainant could spell!
What a load of rubbish. Why should only those with the ability to spell be able to complain.
Nickt commented…
“Any complaint might carry more weight if the complainant could spell!”
The comment does not claim that those who are unable to spell should be prevented from complaining.
It might, however, be a good idea to prevent those who are unable to tell the truth from doing so.
I suppose it is about levels of education and intellect. If someone cannot use a spellchecker these days, before posting their trouble-making nonsense, one has to wonder whether they have the capacity to carry out the due diligence required to ensure the veracity of their claims. Which, if they had in this case, they would have found out that what they were about to post was incorrect and inaccurate.
If they knew anything about ringing schedule 1 birds, which I do, having a schedule 1 licence for monitoring and ringing Barn Owls, no harm, no foul, no story.
Fair enough
People in green houses should not throw stones, sniffing those creatures is harmless,
totally nit picking and trouble making, im afraid it has backfired on whoever started it.
Gamekeepers xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxxx xxxxx it is about time they were properly investigated along with their bosses if they try to interfere this persecution of Raptor has got to be stopped
Clearly vexatious. I love the smell of my horse and dog [ well, sometimes]. It’s a perfectly natural response to another living thing.
Go and boil your heads
Great reposte Chris well said, don’t let the evil nasty brigade grind you down. There is huge support and respect for everything you, Ruth and Mark do. We need you more than ever, thank you.
What a supremely clever and eloquent person Chris is. They’re really, really scraping the bottom of the barrel, but quite right that this isn’t ignored, people keep hearing pish about sniffing being a threat to goshawks or any other contrived crap then eventually they’re going to start believing it. Chris and a few others punch back well above their weight, but the conservation movement on the whole needs to be considerably more proactive so that the opposition is on the back foot. I believe the UK should have about 10,000 pairs of breeding goshawks, most of the country is practically a self service eat all you want buffet stacked to the rafters with corvids, wood pigeons and grey squirrels for them yet we have way less than a thousand pairs and population growth is very slow, if there is any. As Chris pointed out that might have a lot more to do with certain people trapping, poisoning and shooting them rather than him sniffing chicks, but it needs a lot more conservationists to point that out.
I see there is a report in the Torygraph which says police are reviewing the incident after receiving a complaint from a shooter. Such hysteria. If only such a fuss was made every time a goshawk was killed
Although I join with all naturalists in condemning the actions of any mindless imbeciles who would seek to harm these creatures, the biggest threat to goshawks, and most threatened species, I’m reasonably sure, is habitat loss.
I’m willing to be corrected though, so please do respond with references to data sources of you believe this is not the case.
Hi John,
I don’t agree that habitat loss is the biggest threat to goshawks. It’s tempting to believe that this species is dependent on large blocks of mature forest because that’s typically where they’re found in the UK, but goshawk researchers (e.g. Rutz, Bijlsma, Marquiss & Kenward) have argued quite convincingly that this is probably an artefact of the effect of human persecution on the species, with goshawks retreating to relatively undisturbed sites in some regions (i.e. avoidance of humans has been selected by decades of persecution). Some populations in Germany and the Netherlands occupy a wide range of habitats where they breed successfully – small woodlots, tree-lined lanes, small city parks surrounded by buildings with high human activity – I even saw a photo of a goshawk nesting in a tree at the end of someone’s drive in Germany. Like most raptors, goshawks are limited by nest site availability and prey abundance. If goshawks can thrive in urban habitats just across the Channel then there’s no shortage of habitat in the UK.
If they caused additional disturbance by filming the chicks for the one show then they may well have required a license for that. If so then yes this constitute a wildlife crime. Is it as bad as illegally persecuting a goshawk by killing it? Clearly not. So if this is a wildlife crime the issue becomes which wildlife crimes is it ok to commit and which is it not ok. Maybe the answer partly depends on who is committing the crime. It’s telling that the BBC have responded that they had “permission” but didn’t use the specific term “license”. My guess is that the additional disturbance caused was not covered by any license.
The birds must always come first and to my mind these comments are mostly a clear example of ‘group think’, ie. most people piling in to defend what is obviously disturbance of these highly strung sensitive birds. Whether a crime was committed or not the birds were disturbed and this disturbance appears to have been prolonged solely for the entertainment of the masses; prolonged disturbance can without doubt cause death of youngsters at the nest whether intentionally or not.
Well said Alastair. A disturbance is a disturbance. It’s almost as if because this case involves Chris Packham people are excusing it. The law should be blind to the identity of the people breaking it and if a license was required for the additional disturbance he and his film crew caused them they clearly should have got one. Can I also now go out and disturb Goshawks in order to film them? I think not.
[Ed: Giles – can you substantiate the ‘additional disturbance’ you claim Chris caused, further to the disturbance permitted under the Sched 1 disturbance licence held by the goshawk ringer?]
The truth is that the Goshawks were “disturbed”, under licence, in order to ring them. The presence of cameras is neither here nor there.
A licence would also be required to film the birds at the nest if that was the sole purpose of the visit (whether one would be granted to remove the chicks from the nest, just to film them, is another matter), but it’s clear this was not the case, regardless of how you try to spin it!
“BTO can only permit disturbance of specially protected species for purposes of ringing and nest recording. Limited photography at the nest during these activities is covered by such a permit as is photograpy for the purpose of nest recording.”
https://www.bto.org/our-science/projects/bird-ringing-scheme/taking-part/protected-birds/england-s1
Can you provide any evidence that disturbance was “prolonged solely for the entertainment of the masses”?
I suggest that you know as well as the rest of us that this complaint has nothing whatsoever to do with the welfare of the birds or the law.
Of course I can’t provide evidence that disturbance was prolonged, I wasn’t there! I am basing this on what the BBC told the original complainant, ie. ‘that the filming took all morning’, this does seem excessive which was my point.
It appears that Mr Proud is now attempting to wriggle out of his earlier comment!
If the filming did take “all morning” that does not mean that the chicks were out of the nest, or that the site was disturbed, for the whole of the period in question. But I’m sure he already knows that.
He stated that…
“this disturbance appears to have been prolonged solely for the entertainment of the masses”
So, he not only claimed, without basis, that the “disturbance” was “prolonged”, but also made an unsupported claim regarding the reason.
Apologies, above post is unclear. What I mean is If they required a license and if they didn’t have one then it would be a wildlife crime. Not as severe as killing goshawks obviously. But then again dropping a sweet wrapper in the street isn’t as severe a crime as serial killing. Still a crime though, and if they required a license they should have obtained one. I don’t think it’s right to excuse one crime by pointing out worse ones.
“I don’t think it’s right to excuse one crime by pointing out worse ones.”
I think this is massively missing the point that the ‘what-aboutery’ is coming from the shooting side not Chris. Elements within the shooting community stand accused – on the basis of very strong evidence – of systematic persecution of goshawks, hen-harriers, eagles, peregrines, short-eared owls etc. For the shooting world to try and make a big issue out of Chris filming this ringing operation is ludicrous and we all know that it is not remotely motivated by concern for either the well-being of the chicks or for the upholding of the law. It is simply part of a general mud-flinging campaign in the hope that some of it will stick and draw attention away from the real issue.