I’ve been passed some very worrying correspondence, sent to Moorland Association members in early August by Moorland Association Director Amanda Anderson, which signals that there may be more trouble brewing for hen harriers beyond the trouble already caused to them by brood meddling.
It appears that the Moorland Association, the grouse moor owners’ lobby group, isn’t content with just brood meddling (removing entire broods of hen harrier chicks from grouse moors, keeping them in captivity hundreds of miles away and then releasing them again several weeks later back in the uplands, supposedly to reduce the number of red grouse that the parent hen harriers might take to feed their young because the grouse moor owners want to be able to shoot the grouse for fun/profit instead).
The Moorland Association is now turning its attention to the alleged ‘disturbance’ caused to driven grouse shoots by hen harriers (and other raptors) flying around during a grouse shoot ‘drive’ which causes the grouse to scatter instead of being forced (‘driven’) by the beating line towards the waiting guns in the grouse butts.
Here’s what Amanda Anderson sent to Moorland Association members just before the opening of the grouse-shooting season this year:
Listening to feedback from the moors last year, early packing up as well as difficulties controlling the grouse were noted. We are therefore encouraging reporting of disturbance in the line from Hen Harriers (and other birds of prey) to inform the Hen Harrier Recovery Plan. A simple to use form will be circulated next week and GWCT will do the analysis.Ā It is our intention to capture the extent of this disturbance and subsequent economic loss. Please look out for this form and do fill it in for each drive on every day that you are affected.Ā The Hen Harrier brood management scheme is to help find a mechanism for co-existence with hen harriers. If the conflict has shifted from predation of grouse chicks to harvesting grouse, we need to measure it and present the evidence.
It’s not clear from this what sort of ‘remedy’ the Moorland Association might be looking for when they’ve ‘presented the evidence’ to DEFRA and/or Natural England (‘evidence’ collected by the grouse shooters and analysed by the GWCT – hmm, that’ll be convincing then!). Amanda’s message mentions “subsequent economic loss” so it may be that they’re gearing up to ask for financial compensation for the perceived economic loss from their over-stocked grouse moors.
Or maybe they’re conspiring to ask for licences to remove those troublesome hen harriers (and other raptors). It wouldn’t surprise me – that is after all what’s going on with the hen harrier brood meddling trial, and there was previously discussion from the Moorland Association about lethal control in relation to Marsh harriers on grouse moors, although Amanda denied the discussion ever took place (see here) but meeting notes later revealed that some others in the room did recall the discussion taking place (see here).
Whatever it is they’re planning, they can expect a strong response from those of us who think, apart from anything else, that if a business can’t operate without damaging protected species then it’s not a viable/sustainable business, and in the case of driven grouse shooting the business certainly shouldn’t be receiving tax payers’ money as compensation whilst the illegal killing continues – that’d be like robbing the public with both hands instead of just one.
The irony of this latest revelation is of course linked to the hen harrier brood meddling sham. Brood meddling results in a (temporary) increase of hen harriers, which surprise, surprise, the grouse moor owners don’t want because they disrupt their grouse shooting drives (now admitted by Amanda).
This is presumably why, since brood meddling began in 2018, at least 101 hen harriers have been killed/gone missing, mostly on driven grouse moors (see here).
Raptor Persecution UK 
This new approach by Moorland Associations, with the GWCT in tow with the analysis, has been the elephant in the room for years. They, the DGM Lobby, have long understood the influence of birds of prey overflying an active drive … but, in my opinion, understood that the public revulsion of majetic birds of prey being killed so wealthy tweed clad members of the predator class would have more small game birds to kill and boast about at their after shoot drinks gatherings.
As you mentioned it’s not as if they do not have enough birds already with their estates being well beyond the natural holding capacity for red grouse on the land due to the decimation of our small natural predators and other desperate forms of behaviour. It is a widely held view by most informed commentators that the illegal killing of raptors is also central to this policy.
The fact that they appear to be changing focus is an indicator that the public has not been fooled by their denials of criminality and, as a result, have been forced to widen their front on to an area that should by much more difficult for them to defend in the court of public opinion. As usual, their justification will now come down to “pounds, shillings and pence” and given ther current socio-economic situation were are experiencing this should be seen as an potential open goal. Indeed, it sounds a bit like desperation as they had attempted and succeeded keeping this — that it meant killing raptors because they were simply feeding while “toffs” were shooting — from the glare of public scrutiny.
This certainly opens up the debate with their public admission, and, if handled correctly, should, in my opinion, weaken them.
Yes it is indicative that that the “hen Harrier management plan” was just the thin end of the wedge / the Trojan Horse, etc.
The bottom line is the whole business of nurturing big grouse stocks and shooting big bags is dependant on having pretty much zero predation of any kind from anything (after all, a hen grouse killed on the nest by a stoat is just as dead as one killed by a harrier) and zero disturbance of any kind during shoot days is just as critical. If owners and agents cannot live with the current tiny population of harriers then that is an indication their business model is kaput and redundant. Suffice to say the public arena they have stepped into regards the Harrier “management plan” has obliged them to bring this into focus semi-officially and not just “do the necessary” on the quiet (although they still are doing that, it’s a win win!) . On shoot days red kites, buzzards, peregrines and even herons cause scattering of grouse when being driven and encourages “early packing up”* but these are being polished off on the quiet anyway, they are not satellite tagged and monitored to the same degree as harriers, but I would bet everything I own including my last pair of socks that the results would be exactly the same re. disproportionate mortality on grouse moors.
The solution to it all – as ever, is simple – Guns must change their selfish attitude and enjoy their days of smaller bags of dozens of grouse killed, NOT hundreds and multiples of hundreds.
*phenomenon for those unfamiliar, whereby after a few days of shooting pressure the coveys (family broods) of grouse combine into multiple packs of 50 – 200+ birds that act together in a big pack like a flock, after a few days shooting they became jittery having been driven over the butts in the weeks before. When startled they respond by sodding off over the horizon in unison usually when scared by (a) incautiously lined out beaters, (b) a bird of prey.
Again, I can’t help noticing the inadvertent use of language that reveals so much about these people. ‘Harvesting’ the grouse? Harvesting! Like it’s a crop of barley or a field of potatoes?!
And then ‘economic loss’… “We burn the hillsides, flood the valleys, cover the ground with lead pellets, kill all the predators, leave dangerous chemicals about the place, cut rough tracks across the landscape, slaughter mountain hares by the thousands (conservation, don’t you know) just so we can make money charging people to kill living things for their own amusement… and we must, under no circumstances, allow anything to get in the way of that because otherwise we wouldn’t make a profit.”
I wonder if there is any stage in their lives where they stop and wonder whether any of this is acceptable, let alone justified? Do they ever think to themselves, “Maybe this is wrong?” Or are they so completely insensitive, narcissistic and thick that it genuinely never occurs to them?
I was brought up in a shooting family and at about the age of 13 I realised it was all a bit grotesque (not to mention miserably cold, wet and boring). I wander just what would it take for the current cohort of shooters to come to the same conclusion?
There’s a very good chance the majority of those shooters have all ingested so much lead-contaminated game meat over the course of their lives that their brains are no longer capable of such clear and rational thinking.
When I worked as assistant to a horse vet, about 16 years ago, a client explained to me the problem with raptors suppressing or dispersing game birds during the shoot. This was up in the Langham Moors. For years, I’ve tried to listen to both sides of this story, but in the end, if the shooting industry can’t learn to live alongside our native wildlife, then they’ll just have to be consigned to history.
“Itās not clear from this what sort of āremedyā the Moorland Association might be looking for when theyāve āpresented the evidenceā to DEFRA and/or Natural England”
it will be the same remedy as during the grouse breeding season, SHOOT THE HEN HARRIERS!
This is now becoming a farce of gigantic proportions. The bottomest of bottom lines is this. Killing or disturbing protected species is a criminal offence. So police it! There is no point in having a protection law if you are not going to enforce it.
Totally agree! What is happening is appalling š”
“Killing or disturbing protected species is a criminal offence. So police it!”
That is an over-simplification: as far as the Hen Harrier is concerned, it is NOT protected by law from brood meddling (which is disturbance in the extreme).
And if the necessary licence is granted – that is a BIG ‘if’, because I think it would be politically far ‘too hot’ – it won’t be protected from being culled.
The law needs to change concerning what roles our statutory wildlife bodies fulfil. They should NOT be involved or concerned about the nation’s economic progress or welfare, but is there a political party prepared to role back the law changes which effected these statutory wildlife bodies, as enacted in 2006 by the last Labour Government?
Concerning the current state of illegal killings, more laws need to change… I’d ban all game shooting in a heart beat, but – failing that – laws need to be made to make prosecution far easier…
Moorland Association: “It is our intention to capture the extent of this disturbance and subsequent economic loss”
Above is one of the Hampton Principles writ large, forced onto Natural England’s constitutional remit by the last Labour Government (ie. incorporated by law into the remit (Framework Directive/Document) of ALL so-called central government’s Arm’s Length Bodies, such that they must consider the *economic effect* of all their actions and decisions)…
For example, in the NatureScot Framework Directive it succinctly states:
“Purpose.
4. NatureScot is to contribute to the achievement of the Scottish Ministersā objectives and priorities by aligning its aims and objectives with the National Performance Framework, *Scotlandās Economic Strategy* and Programme for Government.”
while in the Natural England Framework Document it states slightly more vaguely:
“4 Purposes
4.1 ensure that the natural environment is conserved, enhanced and managed for the benefit of present and future generations, thereby contributing to *sustainable development*
4.2 contributing in other ways to social and *economic well-being* through management of the natural environment.”
The Moorland Association clearly appears to be readying the economic stats for the legal culling of Hen Harriers (and, possibly, other raptors once the GWCT get hold of it).
And, by our laws, both Natural England and NatureScot are *forced* to consider such economic arguments seriously.
These bodies are our ONLY legal defenders of the environment and wildlife, but they have been *forced* to take into account the economic effects of their activities and policies through the Legislative and Reform Act of 2006 – touted by Blair/Brown as “better regulation” but previously promoted by Harold Wilson as a ‘further bonfire of controls’, followed by Heseltine’s call for a ‘bonfire of red tape’.
and pretty rubbish at defending the environment and wildlife they certainly are! In England: the HH Brood Meddling Plan,. HS2, badger cull, continuing criminal hunting etc etc and Natural England say and do nothing useful.
And most of those examples you quote are legal because Natural England are required, by a Labour Government law, to take account of the economic consequences of the activities concerned.
See
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/georgemonbiot/2012/jun/07/natural-england-wildlife-landowners
There were better articles around the time of the 2006 Act, but no longer available, unfortunately.
This also explains why red kites are ‘not being tolerated’ over grouse moors either! Recent news coverage detailed two (possibly a 3rd) red kite shot in Westerdale, within the NYMNP. (as witnessed by tourists / visitors) The appearance of a large raptor over an active shoot does kind of ‘spoil the fun’, it seems! The grouse will dive for cover in the heather rather than fly over the guns! However the MA might try to ‘dress this up’, a crime is still a crime & I’d like to think the majority of people would see it as such! I’d much prefer to see a raptor overhead than lead or steel shot any day!
I wonder whether this might happen someday. A brave volunteer makes a microlight aircraft with the painted shape of a raptor, but way larger, and flies it over an active shoot at a height beyond shotgun- and rifle-range.
With supporting video from drones (as seen in Ukraine).
Do it once. Offer to repeat so long as threats and persecution of raptors continues.
So just because we cannot enforce the whole of the law we donāt try to enforce any of the law? And yet again we do nothing? If a land owner,on whose land a dead bird of prey is found tells us,yet again, that his keepers would be sacked if they killed a protected species, charge him – and letās see what happens. Let us do SOMETHING!
This supports what I have been saying for years. That the primary motivation for raptor persecution is not so much predation of game birds and chicks, although that is a factor, but what this is really about, is that grouse shoot owners/managers, are concerned about raptors, dispersing the unnaturally large concentration of game birds, that shoot managers are trying to create for driven shoots, for maximum bags. This explains why they illegally persecute all raptors with such intensity, including species, not likely to be big predators of grouse and their chicks.
The big problem for shoot managers is maintaining the unnaturally high densities of game birds they are trying to create, for maximum bags, to please the shooters. The natural tendency, is for such high densities, to disperse into the wider area, where they will be effectively lost to the shoot. So their aim is to eliminate anything, which might disperse this unnatural density of game birds, such as an overflying raptor of any species, and to maintain this unnaturally high density game birds. Hence, their attempt to eliminate all raptors from the area, not just those posing a significant predatory threat to the game birds.
Understanding this, is crucial to understanding the motivations of shoot managers for raptor persecution. Which is why diversionary feeding, such as that at the Langholm experiment, was always a red herring. This is because shoot managers, don’t want any raptors on grouse moors or even other driven shoots, regardless of whether those raptors are preying on the game birds or their chicks. As soon as you fully understand that, shoot managers and landowners, want no raptors at all on their grouse moors, you immediately know why there cannot be any compromise with these people, because they want no raptors at all. That the issue, is that illegal persecution of raptors, is integral to driven grouse shooting. Not the odd bad apple crock, which the shooting industry has been peddling for years, to divert attention away from what it has been doing, and what its intentions really are.
I agree. The Langholm moorland demonstration project was bound to fail in terms of having enough grouse to shoot because so many other factors kept their numbers down, despite feeding the harriers lots of rats. They heavily keepered the Moor, employing several keepers, and one year 12 harrier nests fledged 47 chicks. What a result! After the project failed, one of the parties was heard to say, it’s time to kill the hen harriers. Of course, that’s what they’ve always wanted – zero raptors. As far as I know, the full term project report in all its technicolour glory is still available to read.
What we need now, and you don’t need me to tell you this, is good scientific evidence to show that grouse shooting [and pheasants] is based on criminal activity, destroys the environment and makes little economic sense.
Tourism, on the other hand, brings people from all over the world all year round, makes loadsamoney and, if properly managed, is great for nature and the environment and more communities feel they “own” what is going on.
I can think of dozens of examples off the top of my head but won’t bore you
“So just because we cannot enforce the whole of the law we donāt try to enforce any of the law? And yet again we do nothing?”
Not true.
They Pack up for safety in numbers, they must be absolutely frightened, once they have been driven a few times, I know we cant think of them having thoughts like humans, but it could be like the hunger games, when a mother grouse, clucks in grouse language to her chicks, this is it chicks, fly like hell and dont settle, follow me, dont be afraid, your dad is still missing, but we can try and make it. At least theyve protected us from the foxes stoats weasels crows magpies rats mink and given us nice heather to eat, supplied lots of grit with medicine in that has stopped us dying from parasites,
Am I talking crap ??
Game birds are for the pot, and as so must be treated in the same manner as livestock. The killing of game birds is not the issue, the killing of rare protected birds of prey IS!!. If game shooting is to continue, then the law regarding raptor persecution, has to be fully adhered to, or licences must be revoked.
Thank you John. This is the point I was making in the first place, and the route we should be pursuing towards protection. Everything else is a distraction because,sadly, it is not illegal at the moment. Letās use the law!
“A proper naturalist” would know that Game birds (sic) are not “for” anything. There is no intent, or purpose driving evolution. All species exist in a continual state of flux, and are the way they are as a result of sexual and natural selection.
Furthermore, if these birds were classed as livestock, then the “owners” would be legally obliged to slaughter them “humanely”. Or do you consider it efficient that a “food producer” should let many of its units escape, representing a significant waste (not to mention those shot birds which are simply thrown away)?
If gamebirds were to be treated in the same manner as livestock, then they would fall under the provisions of the Animal Welfare Act 2006, which would open up a whole can of worms as Coop correctly points out.
However, gamebirds of whatever species are still defined as sentient beings, and can suffer pain and suffering.
Whilst birds might not “think” in the same way that humans do, that doesn’t mean they don’t think, and it could well be that grouse “pack up” once the shooting season starts, as this is their response to try and avoid being killed, just like other prey animals often form herds as this offers the greatest chance of survival.
One of the problems is that humans attempt to judge animal behaviour and intelligence by the standards of human behaviour and intelligence. I understand that many scientists are now starting to understand that animals can’t be judged this way, and that they display a level of sophistication in their behaviour and intelligence far greater than we previously gave them credit for.
Which all suggests that we perhaps need to show far more respect for all living creatures, and the concept that “game birds are for the pot” is perhaps not the right way to view these birds, especially since the label “game bird” is a human conception, and these birds share the same fundamental biology as all other species of bird.
But according to Gary Dockerty of BASC, they and all gamekeepers are proud of what they are doing for Hen Harrier conservation and are vital towards their success???!!! Itās all a bit confusing!
This – “Please look out for this form and do fill it in for each drive on every day that you are affected” seems to omit drives with no such problem. I guess concepts like ‘Statistical Significance’ are not seen as relevant by shooters.
It’s also self reporting by those with an agenda and wanting a particular outcome. Not exactly robust data.
I agree self reporting suggests any data collected should be treated with skepticism. The shooting industry isnāt known for its truthfulness.
However I wouldnāt trust the current Westminster government to view any data presented by the shooting lobby with perhaps the mistrust it deserves.
Hopefully organisations like the RSPB, BTO and other raptor conservation groups will get members out into the moors to gather their own data of any disturbance of shoots by raptors. Comparing data produced by conservationists to that produced by the shooting industry might be very interesting indeed.
I also suspect the shooting lobby is attempting to collect this data to try and persuade politicians that the current Hen Harrier conservation policy of brood management etc is working and than the adult Hen Harrier population has increased dramatically, when the truth, particularly that suggested by the number of satellite tagged birds which go missing might suggest otherwise.
Sadly I suspect those interested in protecting nature and the environment are up against a commercially driven shooting industry, which will have found many friends in the current Conservative government which seems only capable of focusing on short term economic growth- as perhaps highlighted yesterday by the announcement that planning regulations will be weakened to allow house builders to pollute rivers.
I can only hope this current government is held to account for its failures on environmental and nature protection at the next election.
This shows that the grousers are far removed from the idea of “sport” where chance is involved that may result in you not achieving your aims. It’s all about the money but even then its still bullshit because a grouse not shot today can be shot tomorrow with no economic loss at all. I remember one Martin Gillibrand whinging profusely about Red Kites over some of the Nidderdale AONB moors disturbing shoots and that the introduction of them should have taken this nonsense into account before release. Funny how not long after this a number of dead kites were found in the area illegally killed and that is the reality of this argument, it may well be signally that some will ignore the law ( yet again) to solve this ” problem”, bastards the lot of them.